1949-10-11

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make concerning the office of chairman of the board of directors and that of president of the Canadian National Railways. Mr. R. C. Vaughan, who has been president since 1941, and chairman of the board of the Canadian National since 1942, reached the normal retiring age in December, 1948, but, at the request of the board of directors and with the approval of the government, consented to remain in office until such time as a successor was appointed. It is with deep regret that I announce to the house the retirement of Mr. Vaughan from the post of chairman of the board and president of the Canadian National Railways, to take effect as of January 1, 1950.
There is no need for me at this time to remind the house of the most loyal services performed by Mr. Vaughan, not only to the Canadian National Railways, with which he was closely associated since its inception, but also to the whole of Canada. In the summer of 1939 the government appointed him chairman of the defence purchasing board in Ottawa. All Canadians will recall the numerous problems that had to be solved at that time in order to prepare industry for the war effort, and the defence purchasing board was the first agency on which this responsibility was placed.
In appreciation of his distinguished services, not only with the government, but for his guidance of the largest transportation system in Canada during the war years, Mr. Vaughan, in 1946, was made a Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George.
Mr. Vaughan, when he retires at the end of this year, will terminate a career entirely devoted to transportation. He will have completed fifty-one years of service, having been successively with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, and the Canadian National Railways. His first official appointment was in 1910 as assistant to the vicepresident and general manager of the Canadian Northern Railway. He became vicepresident in charge of purchases and stores and steamships of the Canadian National in 1920. He was appointed president in 1941, and chairman of the board in 1942, at a time when the Canadian National Railways, along with the other railways in Canada, were called upon to transport men and materials in quantities unheard of before in the history of our railway transportation system. This house will agree with me when I say that our national system, under the guidance of Mr. Vaughan, contributed in no small measure to the great achievement made by Canada during the war. My colleagues in the cabinet and the members of this house will, I am sure, join with me in extending to Mr. Vaughan our very best wishes for happiness and peace of mind for many years to come.
By virtue of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1936, the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways have appointed Mr. Donald Gordon to replace Mr. Vaughan as president of the railway company, and the governor in council has today approved their selection and has also appointed Mr. Gordon chairman of the board of directors, both positions effective January 1, 1950.
I would like to take this opportunity to say the government is most gratified that Mr. Donald Gordon has accepted the invitation of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways and of the government, to assume the heavy responsibilities of these positions. Mr. Gordon is, of course, well known to most of the members of this house. His wartime services as chairman of the wartime prices and trade board made his name a household word throughout Canada, and gave him as well an international reputation. He was a key figure in the mobilization of Canada's economic resources in war, and played a leading administrative role in the subsequent orderly transition to a peacetime economy. In these great tasks, and also in his position of deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Gordon has had a wide experience and an intimate knowledge of Canada's financial and economic affairs, domestic and international, in addition to which he has been in close working contact with the day to day problems of industry, labour and agriculture. His qualities of leadership, his gift for organization, and his ability to inspire
650

Industrial Relations
loyalty and affection among his working colleagues, are well known to this house; and I am glad that his outstanding talents are to remain at the service of the public of Canada in the position of high responsibility he is shortly to assume.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of the announcement dealing with the Annecy agreement, in English and in French.



DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENTS

Brooke Claxton: On behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I should like to table twenty-two documents, which are diplomatic instruments published in the treaty series 1948-49. Perhaps the list might appear in Votes and Proceedings, unless hon. members wish me to read it now.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 60, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (enforcement).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Clarence Gillis: This bill is the same, word for word, as Bill No. 20 which I introduced in the last parliament. It has for its purpose the changing of sections 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. As the act now reads, when employers and employees bring a dispute before the board, the only power it has is to sit and listen. If the dispute between the two parties cannot be resolved, the board is powerless to do anything except let the parties go back to fighting it out on the streets. This happened, for instance, in the Canadian seamen's union strike.
By this proposed change, if two parties came before the board with a dispute the board would have the authority to determine which party had committed an infraction of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The board would be empowered to declare one or the other of the parties guilty and then turn the matter over to the magistrate's court. Whatever penalty this act empowered the magistrate's court to impose would be imposed by that court. This amend-
[Mr. ChevrierJ
ment would give the board some legal authority, and create respect for it in the minds of those who would be taking disputes before it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 54, STATUTES OF 1947-48    VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK- OFF OF UNION DUES

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (for Mr. Knowles) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this bill adds a new subsection 3 to section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The effect is to provide for the voluntary revocable check-off of union dues.
The wording of this subsection is precisely the same as the wording of the subsection that was approved by the industrial relations committee of this house in 1948.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 15, for the relief of John Henniker Torrance.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Edith Harriet Black Hambly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Margaret Reid O'Connell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Alton Charles Bray.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Kathleen Gertrude Macartney Dorken.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Louise de Forest MacAlpine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Jessie Fraser Blaiklock Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Alice Lafond Burnham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Muriel Annie Elizabeth Hicks Kurtzman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Robert Wal-sham Herring.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Leta Helen Butler Waller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Violet Blodwyn Young Murdoch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Joseph Tannen-baum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Isabel Christine MacLean Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Marie Annette Vallieres Handheld.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 30, for the relief of Nicholas Kouri. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Viateur Fortier. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lois Elizabeth Rolph.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Madeleine Dunn Landry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Arthur Joseph D'Avignon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Jessie Gwendolyn Paul Giroux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Celia Maria Gabrielle de Costa Baxter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Beattie Harrison.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Rosaline Laham Anber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Anna Starzynski Sztafirny.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Marjorie Claire Dickison LeMieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Brown Bailey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Lome Bradbury Ashton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Harry James Seaban.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Julia Seram Odenick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Howat Brammall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Francis Gilmer Tempest Dawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Imelda Poirier Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Joseph Charles Paul Emile Chales.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Robert Mason Watson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Catherine Alexandra Mackenzie Mitchell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Irene Filion Primeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Mary Jean Strachan Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Edna Kate Folley Dickenson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Gerald Geoffrey Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Yvonne Marshall Balfry Corbin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Colleen Ethel Thornhill Clark.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Leith Albert Anderson Baldwin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Irene Emily Katerelos Stones.-Mr. Winkler.
45781-42i
Inquiries of the Ministry FISH INSPECTION ACT


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure for the purpose of regulating the inspection of fish and fish containers and of marine plants for export and import, and to provide for the appointment of inspectors and other officers and employees required for the proper administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the tariff changes involved in the Annecy agreement, which were announced today, will require action on the part of parliament?


Brooke Claxton: That is correct, yes.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: As in the case of the Geneva tariff changes, provisional agreement will be made, but they will ultimately require the approval of parliament.



ANNECY NEGOTIATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: On the
front page of the Globe and Mail for Monday, October 10, the following headline appears:
Pact commits Canada to sixty-one tariff reductions. Concessions on seventy items under Annecy agreement; thirty-three countries in trade group.
This paper also contains a report of an address made by the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom on the same subject. Mr. Wilgress welcomes this step. I should like to ask the government whether he represents government policy on this question. What is the effect of that policy on empire preference-which should be first, last and always in our minds-and on trade within the empire?


Brooke Claxton: I shall look at the hon. member's question in Hansard and endeavour to give him an answer tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Langton Church: The empire should come first. It has not very many triends.
I should like to ask the government a second question. I call attention to an editorial in a New York paper, and I want to know if this is government policy. An article was published yesterday in the Toronto Globe and Mail and also in the Citizen here. The heading is "Canada is a Republic." Ycur paper here quotes the New York World Telegram as saying editorially that the dominion has become one of the world's great powers, and describing it as a republic. I would ask if that is government policy.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Government policy is related to the facts, as they exist, but only when and after they have been brought into existence.


Thomas Langton Church: The editorial forgets that Canada is still part of the British empire and always will be.



NOVA SCOTIA APPLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshanlc (Fraser Valley):: One
of the maritime members was kind enough to make us a present of some apples. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture or his officials what they are.


Mr. A. A. Elderkin (Annapolis-Kings):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) made a reference to something he held in his hand but which he was careful to hide behind his back; and either because of the location of my seat in this chamber or because his voice was so choked as a result of eating those dry British Columbia apples, I was unable to hear what he said. The samples of apples I had here were of a size and variety many people think should not be sold in Canada, but I wanted to demonstrate that these apples did have very desirable eating qualities. In due course I propose to distribute some which will be as large as and very much better than the British Columbia apples about which we hear so much. I also have in cold storage a quantity of another variety and size not well known in Canada but greatly preferred by the British people before the war.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member has stated his question of privilege sufficiently.


Mr. Graydon:: Come up to Peel and get some real apples.



COMPENSATION FOR TUBERCULOSIS REACTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. D. Coyle (Elgin):: Will the Minister of Agriculture clarify the situation with respect to compensation for t.b. reacting cattle? This question is being asked in the light of requests from farm organizations.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The position is that the bill providing for a further amount for cattle that are slaughtered on account of t.b. was passed by council this morning, to be sent on to this house for consideration. When it is here, it will be fully discussed.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act-Mr. Garson- Mr. Dion in the chair.
The Chairman:: At its last sitting the committee was considering clause 3, to which Mr. Fulton had moved the following amendment:
Subject to any enactment of the parliament of Canada or the legislature of any province in exercise of their respective powers, the Supreme Court of Canada shall be bound by the law as declared in all orders of His Majesty in council hitherto made on the advice of the judicial committee of his privy council and in the reasons assigned therefor by the said judicial committee, in so far as the said law is applicable to Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: There are just one or two further observations I wish to make in connection with this amendment. They arise out of remarks which have been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.
I believe it would be useful if the attention of the committee and of the country were directed to the fact that, in their apparent haste to press this bill through to its conclusion early in this session, the government, through the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred, have taken an extraordinary position with respect to the recommendations made by the Canadian Bar Association. We have seen the deliberations and recommendations of that responsible body treated with scant respect. I am not inclined to question the fact that the government had recently been returned with a substantial majority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That statement apparently meets with the approval of some hon. gentlemen in the house. But, as has been pointed out, that majority is not going to vanish over-

night. It is going to last presumably for five years or at least for four years. None of the gentlemen I see in the house shows any sign of illness. Therefore I think the request that the matter be treated with due deliberation is one which is logical and reasonable. That was the initial request made by the bar association. The second request was for a guarantee-I do not think it is going too far to call it that-of the principle of stare decisis, and that is the matter which we are debating in this amendment. But even that request of the bar association has been treated with little respect by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and one other government spokesman to whom I shall refer. The Prime Minister went so far as to say that the comments of the president of the Canadian Bar Association were not within that gentleman's right or province to make. I will read the remarks of the Prime Minister as reported at page 530 of Hansard of October 4. When the right hon. gentleman's attention was drawn to the fact that although the resolution passed by the bar association did not call for the incorporation in the bill of any provision which would in words preserve the principle of stare decisis, the president of the bar association had specifically said that the resolution, in the light of the discussions which had taken place, did intend that such a provision should be incorporated in the measure, the right hon. gentleman used these words with respect to the statement of the president of the bar association:
I submit with all respect that no one man, whatever be the position he occupies in the Canadian Bar Association, and I have occupied the office of president of that association-in my day-has the right to enlarge or modify the terms of the resolution adopted by that association.


Mr. Pouliol:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Temiscouata say "hear, hear," because we now know where he stands. I must confess I found it rather difficult to follow his remarks in this connection on an earlier occasion.
Here we have the responsible head of the Canadian Bar Association, who was present when the resolution was passed, making the statement to which I have referred. Who, may I ask, is entitled to comment on the meaning of that resolution if it is not the president of the association? Are we to take it that this subject is so sacred, and the wishes of the government majority so overpowering, that no one in this committee or in the country has the right to comment on this matter? That is the effect of the position taken by the Prime Minister. He questions the propriety of the president of the bar
Supreme Court Act
association saying what was intended by that resolution. I draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the president of the bar association has left no doubt as to what he takes to be the meaning of the resolution. Af*er the discussion in the house had begun, he made a statement in Saint John, New Brunswick, as to the meaning to be attached to the resolution. He was reported in the press of September 28 as follows:
Though it is the practice for the supreme court to abide by the rule of stare decisis, Mr. Carter said, it is not bound inflexibly to do so. Such an enactment by parliament would safeguard provincial and minority rights, he said.
The enactment to which the president of the bar association had reference was one along the lines of the amendment which we are discussing here today. I believe it is incumbent upon this committee to consider and attach the greatest weight to the words of the responsible president of the Canadian Bar Association in discussing the meaning of the resolution which that association passed.
In the bill now before the house, Mr. Chairman, there could not be anything much less than there is now. What we have before us in the clause under discussion is a simple enactment that the Supreme Court of Canada shall have final and exclusive ultimate jurisdiction in respect to all cases arising in Canada. There could not be a much simpler declaration than that appeals to the privy council are abolished. It is not embroidered; it is without qualification. Therefore the resolution of the bar association must have had some meaning. If you take the simple proposition that appeals to privy council are to be abolished, that is what we have before us, and the bar association passed a resolution with respect to that proposition. I submit, sir, that they must have hoped that that resolution would be given some practical significance in the measure which is being considered. The only way in which that can be done is by some modification of the provisions of this bill. Having regard to this fact, taken in conjunction with the statement of the responsible president of the association that he thinks it desirable or essential that some such provision be incorporated in the legislation, I submit that this committee should give it the most serious consideration, and I suggest it is less than proper to say that the president of the association had no right to use these words or to enlarge in any way upon the meaning of the resolution.
As I have said, we have had that suggestion from the Prime Minister; we have had criticism of the Canadian Bar Association, ranging from the one expressed by the right hon. gentleman all the way down to the one

Supreme Court Act
expressed by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond on October 4, as reported at page 533 of Hansard, where, dealing with the resolution of the bar association, he is reported as having said:
I want to say that, so far as section (g) is concerned,-
And he was referring to section Cg) of the resolution.
-in which it says the rule of stare decisis ought to continue to be applied with respect to past decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, a great deal of effrontery was shown by the committee of that organization in passing this resolution.
Here again we have the suggestion to which I have referred, namely, that this matter is somehow so sacrosanct, and the desires of the government majority in this house are so sacred, that the responsible body of the bar association, amongst whose members are numbered a great many judges, is "showing effrontery" when it even dares to deal with the subject matter of this resolution. It is a most extraordinary suggestion. If there were nothing else, that very attitude would be sufficient justification to make us pause and ask ourselves whether there is not something behind all this which it would be well for us to look into.
In fact I think there is a great deal behind it. One can gather what is behind it when one remembers the attempt which has been made again by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to suggest that anyone who supports this proposed amendment must lack confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada. By this means, an attempt is made to whip up prejudiced feelings in support of the government's position and against the suggestion that the amendment be viewed on its merit. With respect, that is one of the most illogical positions I have ever seen the right hon. gentleman take. It is most illogical for him to attempt to distort the plain meaning of the words of this amendment out of their context and to read into them an expression of want of confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada. For him to say that those who would vote in favour of this amendment thereby indicate their lack of confidence is as illogical as it would be for me to say that those who are opposed to the amendment oppose it in fact because they do not want to see the Supreme Court of Canada bound by the rule of stare decisis.
When one observes the vehemence of the attempt to arouse prejudice which is displayed by the government, one wonders whether in fact that is not the motive behind their opposition to this amendment. I know we have the greatest verbal tributes paid to the principle of stare decisis, and we have the utmost assurance, in words, that the Supreme Court of

Canada will of course always follow that principle. But when it comes to the simple fact, Mr. Chairman, of a request to incorporate that provision in the statute, we find hon. gentlemen opposite saying "Oh, no; we cannot go that far, because it would be an expression of want of confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada." You know, Mr. Chairman, as well as every other lawyer in this committee and a good many laymen as well, that courts in interpreting statutes interpret only the words in the statutes; they even look at what the Prime Minister may have said with regard to the intention of the government when the legislation was enacted.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a wrong judgment of the privy council.


Mr. Homuih:: It is not.


Jean-François Pouliot: That Hansard could not be quoted before the court.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, it cannot be.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was decided by the privy council, and it is a bad judgment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We all know what the hon. gentleman who has just spoken thinks about the privy council, and I do not think the interjection need be dealt with. But the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice know, that the established rule of law is that, in interpreting statutes, the courts look only to the words of the statute.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is one of the silly judgments of the privy council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member wishes to use those words, he is by that very use condemning all the courts in Canada and putting them all in the same category.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because they follow the jurisprudence of the privy council, that silly court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know it is beyond me to deal with the wit and wisdom of the hon. member for Temiscouata; therefore I shall confine myself to the fact that every court in Canada follows that rule; and, quite apart from the principle of stare decisis or anything else, it is the rule of law which is followed by the courts in interpreting statutes.
As a responsible legislative body if we want to make perfectly clear the laws we wish the Supreme Court of Canada to follow in exercising what is to be their new and enlarged jurisdiction as the ultimate and final court of appeal, I submit we have no alternative but to make it clear what we mean by voting for the amendment which is now before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. member be kind enough to tell the committee what is the link between the privy council and the Supreme Court of Canada as it is now?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by that term. Perhaps he would be good enough to enlarge upon it.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the woolsack. It is a bag of cotton covered with cloth, and it is put in front of the Speaker's chair in the Senate at the time of the opening and prorogation of parliament. The judges sit on it, like urchins. Some of them face His Excellency the Governor General, while the others turn their backs on him. But they sit on the woolsack because it was done in England in the middle ages. The privy council sit on the woolsack-indeed we should have a woolsack here in the House of Commons, and we should sit on it, so that the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kamloops might sit at opposite ends, each with his back to the other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not so long as this government is in power.
Mr Pouliot: No, because those who sit on the woolsack are not supposed to take part in the deliberations; therefore while sitting on the woolsack they would not keep their minds in such a state of effervescence as to deliver unforgettable orations.
I am glad my hon. friends are smiling; it shows they have a greater sense of humour than I expected them to have. I want them to ask the Clerk of the Senate to take them to the attic of the Senate so that they may brush away all the cobwebs and look at that bag of wool before it is all eaten by the moths. They might sit on it, just to see what it is like to be lord chancellor.
The woolsack has such importance in the history of the British parliament that the position of lord chancellor is sometimes described as the woolsack. Occasionally they refer to the lord chancellor in terms of the bag of cotton on which he sits. I find, sir, that it is a tremendous joke; and the first thing to do, as soon as this bill respecting the supreme court as a final tribunal is passed, is to dispense with the woolsack and to let the moths eat it completely. If my hon. friends want to see it they will have to rush to the attic of the Senate.


Mr. Hunter:: Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of the Canadian Bar Association for many years, and as such it was my privilege and pleasure this year to attend the meeting at Banff. Banff is a delightful spot, and despite the seriousness of the profession there seemed to be a certain lightheartedness and frivolity in connection with what took place.
Supreme Court Act
On the golf course, while teeing off during session hours, I noticed a number of learned gentlemen teeing off ahead of me, some of whom were members of His Majesty's bench. Therefore I suggest it is fair to say that the frivolity at the convention was not confined to the minor satellites of the profession, such as myself, but applied generally.
I believe all who attended the Banff convention enjoyed it to the full. There must have been considerable entertainment on the Friday evening, because I recall that when I went to the convention room on Saturday morning at ten o'clock, upon which occasion the resolution referred to, and which is being used as an argument to bolster the amendment, was passed, I was astonished to observe the vacuum in the room. When I went into the large ballroom at the Banff Springs hotel that morning I am sure there were about two dozen lawyers in attendance. As time went on and this resolution came up for consideration, there may have been as many as three dozen there. The interest shown in the resolution was singularly exciting.
The resolution came up, and whether it was because of lethargy or not, there seemed to be no murmur of disapproval or of approval, and it was passed. I suggest that this resolution is being used in support of the amendment without any explanation of the circumstances which prevailed. Conventions are attended by people who want to enjoy themselves,. While I am not challenging the seriousness or the wisdom of the committee which passed the resolution or prepared it for submission to the general meeting, I suggest that approval of the resolution was given by a very small number of members of the Canadian Bar Association in attendance at that annual meeting.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Kamloops was present on that occasion, but I am convinced that if he had been, he would be only too happy to confirm what I have said.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no.


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am everywhere.


John William Gordon Hunter: I do not remember the hon. member for Kamloops being present on the Saturday morning when this resolution was passed, but if he was there I am sure he will not recall any lively debate, either in approval or in disapproval of the resolution. However, if the hon. member was there, he must have been in the same somnolent state as the rest of those of us who were present.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a great compliment.


John William Gordon Hunter: Despite what the hon. member has just said, the resolutions were passed in

Supreme Court Act
a routine fashion, and the interest shown was not very great. It was assumed that committees had gone into these matters with care -and I am not suggesting that in the present instance the committee did not exercise the same care. But I do emphasize the fact that the number of people present on that occasion did not in my humble opinion constitute a representative gathering of the Canadian Bar Association.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, while the
remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat are not the least bit pertinent to the subject matter under consideration, they do call for some reply.
I am frank to admit that I was not at the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. Unlike the hon. member, however, I believe I am frank when I say that had I been there and a resolution of this importance had been presented to me, I would have treated it with the seriousness it deserves. Certainly I cannot accept the hon. member as spokesman for the majority of those who attended the convention of the Canadian Bar Association. I have more respect for my profession than to accept what he has said as the true state of affairs at the meeting.
One does not wish to go too far in these matters, but I suggest it is safe to say that if the hon. member regards the deliberations of the highest council of his profession with the levity with which apparently he does regard them, then he should not be accepted in the House of Commons or in the country as a spokesman for that profession.


Mr. Carroll:: Before the hon. member for Kamloops takes his seat, would he kindly read the further remarks in my address from which he quoted? If my memory serves me aright, I said distinctly that I did not think the Canadian Bar Association could be accused of casting any reflections on the Supreme Court of Canada or any other tribunal. Would the hon. member kindly read that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to do so. I certainly did not intend to do any injustice to the hon. gentleman. I felt, and I still feel, that the words of his which I read were apposite. If the hon. member thinks that it will help to clear the record, I shall read his further remarks. The words I was reading were:
I want to say that, so far as section (g) is concerned,-
That is section (g) of the resolution of the bar association:
-in which it says the rule of stare decisis ought to continue to be applied with respect to past

decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, a great deal of effrontery was shown by the committee of that organization in passing this resolution.
Those are the words which I read. Then the hon. member went on to say:
It may not have been with the intention of throwing any doubt on the integrity of the Supreme Court of Canada, but I say I believe the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada know as much as the bar society of this country about their rights in keeping the theory of stare decisis intact.
However, I was making the point that the hon. member had cast a certain amount of reflection on the resolution passed by the Candian Bar Association, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that the words I read were the relevant words in that connection.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to say a few words on section 3. The marginal note to this section reads:
This is new. The amendment will abolish appeals to the privy council.
If this court is to be the final court, then we are back to where we were a few years ago.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment under consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not discussing the principle of the bill.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member will have to confine his remarks to the amendment.


Thomas Langton Church: I happened to be out of the house and I did not hear the text of the amendment, but I understand that it refers to the application of the principle of stare decisis. That is a principle of law; it is not an act of parliament. The amendment seeks to have this principle read into the section. A very large body of public opinion in this country favours this amendment, and believes it would save this country a great deal of trouble in the future. The principle of stare decisis would apply to the decisions which have been given so far by the privy council.
I remember raising this question when I first entered the house in connection with two cases before the privy council. It is difficult to deal with this problem without having it sent to a committee. We on this side of the house have adopted a consistent policy in this regard. This is something which should be decided by the high court of parliament under the British constitution which we have had in this country since 1791, or as much as was applicable to our circumstances. This whole question is still before us.

This doctrine of law should be applied in the manner indicated by the amendment. I am not discussing the principle of the bill, because, as I see it, the principle of the bill is written into the amendment. So far as I can see, there is very little legal principle in the bill. I am not speaking personally because I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the Prime Minister and the way in which he has conducted the business of the house. No one has a higher opinion than I have of the Prime Minister.
As I say, this doctrine should be written into the statute. I can find little principle in the bill-legal, political or otherwise. It must be realized that for many years the judicial committee of the privy council has been enforcing doctrines of law, especially where they are founded on contract.
I remember two decisions of the privy council in connection with which I played a humble part. We should hold fast to the principles of our faith and be strong when we consider this amendment. What is more sacred than a contract? A contract between individuals can be enforced, and a nation is only a collection of individuals. There should be some method of enforcement as between nations.
We of the opposition have taken a consistent stand on this bill. We should stand firm on the principle that the state exists for the individual and not the individual for the state. This particular proposal interferes with the liberty of the subject; it encroaches on his rights and privileges. It should be scrutinized first by a legal committee. Both the bill and the amendment should be sent to a committee and I wish the minister would give his consent to that. Then we would not have to thresh out these legal problems in the house.
I believe I represent a large body of public opinion in the country. All I have said this afternoon has been based on the law of contracts; and what is the contract here? It was made at the time of confederation. If you want to treat the whole contract set forth in the British North America Act as a scrap of paper, and rewrite it, then write it for the living and not for the dead. If we are to have a new bill, let us have a proper legal measure which will have some regard for the law and the decisions of the privy council, which are binding under the doctrine of stare decisis.
This bill and these amendments should go to a committee, because in my view the decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council have protected not only minorities but majorities as well. They have been defenders of the faith, as it were, since the setting up of the contract under the act in the first place. To upset the whole thing now would be a grave mistake. A large
Supreme Court Act
body of opinion, including three former ministers of justice and attorneys general, has been opposed from the beginning to any change of this kind.
In my opinion there is very little to this bill, and as far as I can see it is not founded upon fact, nor does it include the protection for which I have asked. I do not know why these things are brought up at the present time. What is the rush to put through this legislation? There seems to be a great hurry to pass it, though we have nine or ten other matters awaiting our consideration. I can see no reason at all for not letting this bill stand for a few months, so that it may be properly considered and digested by the judges, the bar associations, and many other bodies. This is separatism in its worst form. It would lead to the disruption of the whole British empire.


Major James William Coldwell: This discussion has been
largely confined to members of the legal profession in the house. I do not profess to be learned in the law, but it seems to me that in dealing with these legal matters we are rather losing sight of important aspects of this problem. I believe it is right and proper to give due consideration and some weight to the opinions of such an organization as the Canadian Bar Association, just as we give consideration-though, I may add, usually not as much-to the views expressed by such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the national labour bodies. But having given consideration to those opinions, this house must come to a final decision as to what shall be done.
I have listened to the discussion on this question of stare decisis, and to me it seems that to accept it unreservedly would place this country and its judiciary in something of a strait-jacket.	In my reading of the
British North America Act and the discussions preceding the adoption of that act in 1867, the fathers of confederation thought of it in the way that was described by Lord Sankey in 1929-which, I may add, is quoted in an excellent speech, which I think hon. members should read, by the late Hon. C. H. Cahan before the Canadian Club of Toronto on September 15, 1937. I do not know of a clearer exposition of the problem before us than can be found in the speech made on that occasion by one who had been secretary of state in the Bennett administration. The expression Mr. Cahan quoted then, which incidentally is also quoted by MacGregor Dawson in his book "Constitutional Issues in Canada, 1900-1931", was this:
The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.

Supreme Court Act
Then Mr. Cahan added this comment:
But that dictum has been arbitrarily repudiated by more recent decisions of the judicial committee, which have confined our constitution in a strait-jacket of their own making, and thus precluded the possibility of our Canadian constitution being developed in the future by judicial decisions, in accord with the clearly expressed intentions of the Canadian statesmen who framed the first British North America Act.
It seems to me that is a cogent paragraph, and the opinion expressed therein should be considered by this house in dealing with the proposed amendment. In very much the same connection, in the volume by MacGregor Dawson, to which I referred a moment ago, there is a quotation from an article by George F. Henderson in the Canadian Bar Review for November, 1929, at pages 617-619, in these words:
Under ordinary circumstances, a criticism of a judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council is inadvisable, but a recent decision of that tribunal, in Edwards et al v. the Attorney General of Canada et al, has attracted so much attention and has led to so much press criticism of the Supreme Court of Canada that proper respect for the administration of justice in Canada demands examination and comment.
Then he adds these words:
Probably the first thought that will occur to one who makes a careful study of the two judgments is that while the supreme court, like the House of Lords, is a court of law, subject to all the restrictions which that fact implies-
Then these are the words to which I wish to direct attention:
-the privy council is a committee advising the sovereign, not bound to follow precedent nor to determine matters presented upon grounds of law alone, but entitled, if not obliged, to advise on grounds of public policy, and to take into account matters of political expediency. Indeed, the privy council does not consider itself bound by its own previous decisions; nor do English courts regard judgments of the privy council as authoritative.
If that is so, it seems to me that any attempt to fasten upon Canada the past judgments of the privy council would defeat the very objective the fathers of confederation had in view at the outset-the planting of a living tree capable of growth and development in the future. In spite of the learned discussion we have had from hon. members on this side of the house, and having due regard to the opinions of the bar association, I do not think we should tie the hands of our judiciary by adopting the kind of amendment that has been moved by my hon. friends of the Conservative party. I speak only as a layman, but as a layman I believe that sometimes the law has been made to bind the hands of progress, and interpretations have been given which have interfered with the progress and welfare not only of our own country but of many other countries as well. I certainly think the house should vote

against this amendment and leave the hands of our own court free, confident that previous decisions involving the rights of our people will be given due consideration.
If we look over the judgments of the privy council-and this is why I cannot understand the attitude of people in some parts of Canada-we find that it has not been a protector of the rights of either majorities or minorities. This can be verified by a reading of certain decisions of the privy council. I am not going into them in detail, but I should like to draw attention to them, as quoted in MacGregor Dawson's volume from an article by Professor F. R. Scott dealing with the judiciary, beginning at page 347. As a layman I cannot see the sense of this house agreeing with some of the members of the legal profession who have spoken and who would tie the hands of the judiciary in the manner suggested by the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and I should not be saying a word now if it were not for the remarks just made by the member for Rose-town-Biggar. Because those remarks have not very much weight, I shall be brief.
In the first place, this amendment has nothing to do with the question of abolishing appeals to the privy council. The principle of the bill was adopted by the house on second reading. The amendment has relevancy only on the basis that the house has decided to abolish appeals to the privy council.
My friend talks about trying to put the Supreme Court of Canada in a strait-jacket, as though that were to be the effect of the amendment. After hearing the hon. member's remarks, all I have to say is that if his view reflects the lay mind of this house, as he seems to suggest, then the matter is not clearly understood. It is apparent from what the hon. member has said that he does not understand the issue.
The member for Rosetown-Biggar seems to believe that the attitude of those who are opposing the amendment is that they are leaving the Supreme Court of Canada free, not bound by past decisions of the privy council. Certainly that is not the view of the Prime Minister, nor is it the view of the Minister of Justice. The argument advanced by them was that the doctrine of stare decisis is binding on the Supreme Court of Canada. This would mean that all those past decisions of the privy council are binding on the Supreme Court of Canada, whether or not such an amendment is adopted. Let us not have any empty talk, Mr. Chairman, about the effect of defeating an amendment such as this being to remove the shackles from the

Supreme Court of Canada. When it comes to an opinion on that point, as between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on the one hand, and the member for Rose-town-Biggar on the other, I prefer the view of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. In the plainest of terms they said that in their opinion the principle of stare decisis applies and will bind the Supreme Court of Canada in the future with respect to past decisions of the privy council. If that is putting the Supreme Court of Canada in a strait-jacket, then certainly it is the view of the government that the strait-jacket should remain.
Mr. Cold well:	Why write this into a
statute, then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because I do not think it is as clear as the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice contend. We do not wish to leave a matter of this vast importance to doubtful disputation after the event. This amendment is intended to settle the question. If we are to take this important step, Mr. Chairman, I think all hon. members ought to be quite clear about the argument. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is that, in principle, the Supreme Court of Canada ought to be free to disregard past decisions of the privy council in relevant matters. I ask every member of this house who adopts the view of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to go to his constituency and say it is his opinion that the Supreme Court of Canada should be free to disregard the decisions of the privy council in those important constitutional cases in which the privy council has made decisions of the most far-reaching importance to all Canada. If	hon.	members feel	they	do	notwant the principle of stare decisis applied, let	them	go the whole	way	and	say
that in future the decisions of the privy council upon which rest the fundamental rights of the provinces should not bind the Supreme Court of Canada. That would leave the supreme court free to rewrite those decisions, and in that way recast the constitution.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, thinking about what has been said, I would say that a layman is surely not the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Mr. Siewarl (Yorkton):: It is not my intention to cover ground that has already been covered in this debate. The matter has been well argued in the house, particularly by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and those favouring the amendment. The amendment simply means that those who have moved it feel that the Supreme Court of Canada is likely to depart from the
Supreme Court Act
decisions of the privy council; that is a summary of it. It is conceded by those who support the resolution that in the past the Supreme Court of Canada has followed the decisions of the privy council. I asked the hon. member for Kamloops what he was afraid of, but so far he has not told me.
Since the Supreme Court of Canada has followed the decisions of the privy council, where is the necessity for this amendment? My hon. friends say there are two reasons for it. They seem to be afraid that the supreme court might not follow that practice in the future, although it has in the past. At the head of this government there is a responsible lawyer, a man in whom the bar of this country has absolute faith. After this bill is passed and the Supreme Court of Canada is strengthened, you will see that the court will follow the past decisions of the privy council and will earn the confidence of all.
Those who are supporting the amendment say that if we do not pass it we shall not be following what the Canadian Bar Association adopted at its convention. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the Canadian bar did not say that the requirements to follow the principle of stare decisis should be made a part of the law. I believe the remarks of the member for Kamloops with regard to the member for Parkdale were very unfair. The member for Parkdale was at the convention, but the member for Kamloops was not. I cannot understand why he should question what the member for Parkdale said about the convention. The Prime Minister and many other members of this house have been members of the bar for many years. I am a past president of the bar society of Saskatchewan. Most of us have been attending these conventions for a long time. I have complete confidence in what the member for Parkdale has said with respect to what happened at that convention.
I believe the subject has been discussed more fully in this house that it was at the Canadian bar convention. Having been one of the benchers of our law society, I believe it to be the duty of hon. members who are lawyers to act as members of this house and not as carrier pigeons for the Canadian Bar Association or any other association. We sit in this house as representatives of a constituency. I sometimes think the dignitaries in the Canadian bar and other associations might do well to run as members of parliament. It would be an education for some of those gentlemen who have sat in positions of safety for the last few years and attended bar conventions. They are the people who tell the legislators what their duty is.

Supreme Court Act
I do not see any real object behind this amendment, Mr. Chairman. If all hon. members supporting the amendment were as frank as the member for Parkdale, they might say: We do not believe in this amendment at all; we still believe in appeals to the privy council, even if it costs Canadians more money and demonstrates that Canadians cannot run their own courts. But instead of saying that, they introduce an amendment which, in effect, does nothing more than say that the proposer does not trust the Supreme Court of Canada. I am opposing the amendment.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: In my opinion the nays have it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived.
Section 3 agreed to.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We now come back to section 1, which had been allowed to stand. To section 1 we have an amendment by Mr. LaCroix, who moves that clause 1 be amended by adding at the end of section 4 the following words:
Provided that four of the puisne judges be chosen among the candidates proposed by the lieutenant governor in council, and that one of the four above-mentioned judges be chosen among the candidates proposed by the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Quebec, each province having to propose at least three candidates.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to offer opposition to this first section. For a population of eleven million you are now going to establish a large court which will cost the country a considerable sum of money, having regard to the various officers we are going to have in that court. According to section 1 we are to have the same number of judges in our supreme court as has the United States, with a population of 127 million to 130 million. For what purpose? Who is asking for this proposal? The bar association has not asked for it. The provinces have not asked for it.
As I pointed out on another occasion with regard to this section 1, you are proposing to establish a system. In my opinion, we have no power by statute law to force this system on the country, without any consultation with the bar association or with the attorneys general of the provinces. Who is asking for this proposal? There are to be nine judges appointed; $25,000 a year is to be paid one of them and $20,000 is to be paid the others. I can tell the committee that this proposal

has not the confidence of the country at large. I should like to find out from the present minister who are the people that are asking for this amendment. What provinces are asking to enlarge this court and to pay the judges $20,000 a year? They should start at the other end and pay increased salaries to the judges who are out on circuit all over the country trying murder cases, cases concerning property and civil rights, and so on.
This particular section is one that will take away-what? It will take away from the court of last resort appeals of grace. They say they have the power; but merely because they say so does not make it so. Four former ministers of justice were opposed to this change. They are four of the most eminent lawyers the country ever produced. One was Sir Allen Aylesworth, who was a former minister of justice. He is probably the ablest lawyer the country has produced. As I said the other day, I remember going into the court of appeal in Ontario where he had the whole docket to himself on appeals. He acted for the government in the Bering Sea arbitration. Many members of the house graduated from the Osgoode Hall law school, including the leader of the opposition, who is an able lawyer. My good friend to my right, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, was at the law school there, and many others such as Sir Edward Beatty of the C.P.R. and Sir Thomas White. The present deputy minister of justice, and he is an extremely able one, and others were graduates of this particular school. While I have great respect for my friend the leader of the C.C.F., and for the other leaders in the house including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, there are certain definite concrete principles which I support. I cannot be blamed for that. I have always had the courage to stand up in the House of Commons for certain principles, ever since I entered it. If I have to forsake those principles, I shall have to consider whether I ought to belong to the House of Commons any longer.
I wish to say a word to the younger members of the party to which I belong and to those on the government benches today. There are many young men of great ability in the legal profession on the government benches today and in the House of Commons, and they come here at considerable personal sacrifice. Let me ask them this question. Who has asked for this legislation? How can you justify these salaries of $20,000 and $25,000 to judges who never go out of the city of Ottawa, who can live here, who can get away for several months a year, and who have only three or four terms a year? There is difficulty in getting before them. During the second war 160,000 orders in council

were passed and only four of them ever reached the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal. How many people got as far as Ottawa? Nobody could afford it. They could not afford to come away down here to Ottawa.
If the court is to be the kind proposed by this section 1, it should be an itinerant court travelling over the country. Who is asking for it? I do not think the people believe in it.
I think we should start paying increased salaries to some of the judges who earn their money by going out on circuit trying these cases to which I referred, at great personal sacrifice, having to live at country hotels and all that kind of thing, whereas these other judges can live here in the city of Ottawa.
As I say, we seem to think of Washington, not only politically, economically, financially and in military considerations, but we seem now to want to copy the United States in this matter. In everything we do here the first people we consider are the people of the United States. Now it is the judiciary. There is a difference between the court constituted by section 1 and the court in the United States. The court in the United States does not represent provinces or localities. Why should one province have four representatives? Why should we have that provision, if we are anxious to copy that system, as we are by section 1 of the bill? In the United States they do not have that principle at all. It is the principle that I am objecting to. I see little principle in the bill. If there were any principle in it, it would be another matter. But there is no principle in the bill except political considerations first, last and all the time. I can tell hon. members that there is a large body of lawyers who do not approve the principle that this court, if it is to be the Supreme Court of Canada, should represent localities. In the United States the best lawyers are chosen. One or two of them belong to New York state. I think New York state probably would get only one under this system. The best men at the bar are chosen there. The best men at the bar are plenty good enough for the Supreme Court of the United States.
The bar association did not believe in this proposal. The people back home in the constituencies do not believe in it. I fail to see any of the provinces asking for it. It is a huge waste of money. It is a waste of public funds which we and this government have no right to expend in this way; the government has no mandate from the people back home in the constituencies to go about it in this way. We can find other uses for our money than squandering it in this way. There is little principle in this bill except a political
Supreme Court Act
principle. That seems to be the sole consideration here.
(Translation):


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, I hasten to express my opposition to the amendment, for it is inconsistent and offers no solution whatever to the problem now under consideration.
In fact the bill is nothing more than another measure of centralization on the part of the government.
In discussing the principle of the bill hon. members on the government side sought to avoid the issue by limiting their remarks to the abolition of appeals to the privy council, knowing full well that everyone is in favour of such a measure. In my opinion the practice of appealing to the privy council should have been abolished a long time ago.
The point on which we, of the opposition, disagree with the government is in maintaining that this bill should never be adopted in this house without first consulting the provinces.
The house is called upon to establish a final court to settle disputes which may arise between the central power and the provinces.
We find it inconsistent that only one of the parties to a pact should be called, or rather that it should arrogate to itself the right to determine alone what tribunal will decide on its disputes with the other party.
At the time of confederation, my province, and for that matter the other provinces as well, rejected the principle of a legislative union and agreed to become part of a federal state in which her rights and prerogatives would be protected.
The reason why the representatives of lower Canada, which is now the province of Quebec, consented to join the other provinces in forming the confederation was that they sincerely believed that, in the constitutional act implementing that pact, the language, religion, rights and traditions of the French minority in this country would be guaranteed and unequivocally recognized for the future.
That is why we opposition members now demand for the provinces a safeguard similar to that which the fathers of confederation had guaranteed to them.
But each day some fresh government pressure endangers the very spirit of the confederation pact.
This bill which, upon the whole, is an amendment to the constitution, and which is related to the other unilateral amendments promised in the speech from the throne, is a breach of the rights of provinces, if the latter are not consulted.
I am pleased to see that at least one Liberal member has felt remorse and, by means of an amendment, now endeavours to give the

Supreme Court Act
provinces an apparent advantage. But he does not understand what we claim for the provinces. It is not charity, but simply an acknowledgment of their rights.
On behalf of the provinces we cannot agree to the proposed amendment. It would be encroaching on their autonomy. It is up to the provinces to decide their fate for themselves, and the federal parliament must not force its will upon them.
As a citizen of the province of Quebec and as a French Canadian, it is my duty to vote against the amendment as presented.
(Text):
Amendment (Mr. LaCroix) negatived.


Mr. Green:: Before clause 1 carries I should like to ask the minister this question. Has he given consideration to leaving the court at seven for the time being until we know just how much business there is to be handled and whether or not it is wise to increase the number to nine? It does seem to me that increasing it to nine in this way may bring up a good deal of trouble. There is the provision that three of the judges must come from Quebec. I imagine that Ontario will demand that at least three of the judges must come from that province, and that leaves three others. The four western provinces combined have practically the same population as Quebec, but a little smaller than Ontario. These provinces have different types of problems. Certainly British Columbia has problems quite different from those of the three prairie provinces. At the present time Alberta has problems arising which are quite a bit different from the problems of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The three western provinces have a claim to three judges on the supreme court if Ontario and Quebec are to have three. That would leave none at all for the three maritime provinces and for Newfoundland. In the case of Newfoundland there will be many new legal problems to be solved. I think that Newfoundland should have a judge on this supreme court and certainly Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island should have at least one and possibly two. If consideration is to be given to having a set number of judges from any one part of the country it hardly seems fair to me that eight provinces in the dominion should have only three judges on this court while the two great central provinces have three apiece.
As the government knows, there is a great deal of feeling abroad in the country that Ontario and Quebec outweigh the other provinces. There is a great deal of resentment against the fact that the two great provinces have more power in the nation than the more distant ones. That is quite a

serious difficulty. Has the minister given consideration to leaving the court at seven for the time being until we find some way to work out this question of the proper allocation? Under the law as it stands now Quebec is entitled to two judges and in practice I believe Ontario has also two judges. The west has two and the maritimes have one. Further consideration should be given to this particular proposal.


Mr. Garson:: In reply to my hon. friend I might say that before drafting clause 1 of the bill in the form in which it now appears serious consideration was given to all of the factors to which my hon. friend has referred in the remarks he has just made.
So far as the reference in the clause to there being three appointees from Quebec is concerned, the necessity for that arises, as my hon. friend knows, from the fact that in that province they have a system of civil law which is altogether different in character from the common law that we inherited from England, and which prevails in the other provinces. While the clause says that the third judge shall be appointed from Quebec, the real purpose of making that appointment is to get upon the supreme court, when it becomes the court of last resort for Canadian lawsuits, three lawyers trained in the civil code rather than in the common law. It is that consideration, more than any geographical consideration of appointing a judge to represent this province or that one, that weighed in our deciding upon that particular subsection.
I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will agree that the arguments which he advanced with regard to the difficulties of securing representation upon the membership of the supreme court from each of the provinces of Canada would be somewhat-


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; but to secure geographical representation in the terms which the hon. member was stating would be obviously somewhat more difficult with seven members on the supreme court than it would be with nine. However, I am not for one moment suggesting that that consideration was a dominant factor in our thoughts in arriving at the idea that we should increase the membership from seven to nine members. We knew that when we created the supreme court as the court of last resort for Canada we would have to have appointed to the membership of that court enough civilians or judges trained in the civil law so that, in the event of there coming from Quebec a case involving any matters other than criminal law, it would be decided without a stalemate, having one civilian judge on one side and one

civilian judge on the other. That necessitated the appointment of three judges trained in the civil law on that court of last resort.
Then we thought

and I admit that in this we had to engage in some measure of surmise-that having regard to the volume of business which heretofore had come to the court, and having regard to the best estimate we could form as to what might come to it as the court of last resort in Canada, the actual amount of business to be transacted would necessitate an increase in the membership of the court.
In that connection my deputy consulted with the members of the court, and section 1 of the bill represents the best judgment of the department. This was recommended to the government and has been accepted, and we now recommend it to the House of Commons. Having regard to all the circumstances which apply, we believe it is wise that we increase the membership of the court to nine members, and that we should not delay or experiment with seven. It is our view that this increase should be made as soon as convenient after the passing of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: When these two new judges are appointed does it mean that one will be from Quebec and one from Ontario?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it means that we will have on the court three civilians, lawyers or jurists trained in the civil law. We will have six members of the court trained in the common law. It follows therefrom that of the two new appointees one of necessity will be a member of the Quebec bar, and the other one, while he could be from Ontario, need not necessarily come from that province.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that there shall be two panels, that is that the chief justice will sit with four judges at one time and four another time; or are they going to continue to sit as they have in the past?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Although this is a matter of the internal operation of the court, which will be arranged by the chief justice, I understand it is the view that one of the purposes of increasing the number to nine is to permit panels to sit in that way. This will enable the whole nine judges to handle a much larger number of cases, if necessity should arise. In other words, all nine of them will not of necessity sit on every case, by any means. The number we have arrived at is the number which, with the best judgment we have been able to exercise, having regard to all the factors, is the proper number to have on the court.


Howard Charles Green: The quorum will be five?
Supreme Court Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The minister might get around the difficulty by having ten instead of nine judges.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member thinks we should make it ten, then I hope he will not object if we make it nine.


Thomas Langton Church: If this is to be a national federal court, why should we have the principle of representing localities? In Great Britain that principle is not followed; with their 47,000,000 people they do not have provinces. Why should not this court be a federal court, and not represent localities?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not want anything I have said today to leave the impression that we regard it as a federal court representing localities. The intention is that we shall endeavour to get men of the very best legal ability in Canada to sit on this court, having regard to the fact that when it becomes a court of last resort for this country it will be exercising a type of jurisdiction considerably different from and much more onerous than that which it has exercised heretofore, when it was merely a court through which appeals went on their way to the court of last resort, the judicial committee of the privy council.
This being so, I believe there is a good deal of merit in the suggestion of the hon. member that it should be a federal court, and that the chief object should be to secure the very best talent available. Of course, if we can achieve that object and at the same time give representation to as many parts of Canada as possible, I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that the second objective is a desirable one so long as it can be attained without sacrificing the first.
So far as representation of Quebec is concerned, as I have already indicated, it is not in any sense a geographical representation, but rather one necessitated by the fact that, unlike other countries, we have in one of our larger and more thickly populated provinces a civil code, which is a system of law quite distinct from the common law. In making the Supreme Court of Canada the court of last resort we have to make adequate provision to hear appeals from all parts of Canada, including Quebec.


Thomas Langton Church: The Supreme Court of the United States sitting at Washington does not represent localities, nor does the judicial committee of the privy council in London. They have no provinces over there. I fail to see why this provision is copied into the bill. It does not carry out the national federal principle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to confine the discussion of this matter, because it is a

Supreme Court Act
matter of interest to all of us. However, I must point out that the section before the committee does not deal with the number of judges, or the additional appointments. The only provision in section 1 deals with the amendment to section 9, which relates to tenure.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought the committee had gone back to section 1.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, section 1 of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understood the discussion on that section was reopened.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And section 1 in the copy of the bill I have deals only with the amendment of section 9 of the act. Has there been a reprint?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member has not the right bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Obviously there are two
printings of the bill, because I have another one before me now. Section 1 in the copy I have before me does not deal with section 4 of the act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member does not happen to have the bill dealing with the Exchequer Court Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. Another and different copy that has been handed to me has to do with the amendment to section 4.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: There is one point concerning which I should like to be clear. I think the Minister of Justice has given the proper explanation why in a court of nine because of the difference in the civil law there should be three judges from the province of Quebec. However, there is another point about which I should like some explanation and that is why the words "at least" after the word "three" are inserted? The section is to read:
Three at least of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of King's Bench, or of the Superior Court, or the barristers or advocates of the province of Quebec.
Why the words "at least"? The insertion of the words "at least" leaves it open to the appointment of four, five, or more from the province of Quebec. I remember the Prime Minister saying he thought that, rather than rely on statutory provisions and so on, the good will and good faith of the people across Canada was the best guarantee of justice for all. I am entirely of that opinion.
But I think the placing of the words "at least" in this section may give rise to controversy. I think it was ill advised to put

them there. They do not do anything at all, but they do leave the way open for argument that four, five, six, seven, eight or the whole court may be appointed from one province. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will explain that.
If this court is enlarged it should be representative of all Canada. It is true that there should be judges who understand the civil law of the province of Quebec, but beyond that it should be a court which represents all Canada. I think it would be wrong to infer that, because there are to be three appointed from the province of Quebec to deal with cases coming under their civil law, there must be three appointed from Ontario or three appointed from the mari-times or three appointed from western Canada or from any other section of the country. What I think the government should do in appointing judges to the supreme court is to choose those in the legal profession who are best qualified regardless of their geographical location in the country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar confirm what was said by the hon. member for Broadview, that it is desirable that in appointing members to this court first regard should be had to their capacity to discharge their judicial duties. If we can have geographical representation consistent with that policy of appointment, so much the better, but we should lay the greatest emphasis upon the capacity of the court.
I think the answer to my hon. friend's question would be in line with that concept. I am sure he will agree that in order to make a proper disposition of the cases from Quebec we cannot have less than three representatives from that province.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If we said three, period, or three without adding the words "at least", that would indicate a geographical representation in a sense. In that way we could not, where the ability of a particular man was an issue, add to that number. There is in the history of the supreme court one example of that sort of thing. At one time when the "two" limitation was in force it was desired to appoint to the supreme court a man who, I think all hon. members will agree, would have been a great ornament to that court. He was a man who on one occasion was selected as sole arbitrator to settle a dispute between two South American countries. It was left to him solely to decide whether the dispute should be settled and on what terms.

This man had world renown as a lawyer both in common and in civil law. I refer to the late Eugene Lafleur. On that occasion when we might have had one of the finest legal minds that ever existed in Canada on the court, the government would have been unable to appoint him. It is true that Mr. Lafleur refused because he felt that he was getting on in years and could not stand the heavy duties involved in the highest type of judicial work.
I do not want the impression to be left from what I have said that it is a settled policy, that the government will invoke this power to appoint more than three judges from Quebec. It simply means that if some time later an extraordinary case such as that of Mr. Lafleur should arise, when there is a man the best qualified in Canada to fill a vacant appointment, he could be appointed if he should happen to live in Quebec.


Thomas Langton Church: Where do we go from here if we pass this section? Where does Canada go if we pass section 1?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: It stays here.


Thomas Langton Church: What is the next step? As I see it, we will be out of the empire altogether.


Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: I think the question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has not been properly answered by the Minister of Justice. If a fourth judge is wanted, he may still be appointed. If the words "at least" were left out, then it would read "three shall be appointed"; but another or others could still be appointed if good men were available and three had been appointed already.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to refer to the point made earlier by the hon. member for Broadview. Because I come from the far west this suggestion seems to be most attractive. As I understood it, the hon. member suggested that if an increase in number was made it might be possible for this court to go on circuit. I am sure that this question must have arisen in the past and it must have been in the minds of the minister and his officials when this bill was being drafted. Could the minister tell us the considerations involved and whether it would be possible? It certainly would be most advantageous.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The matter to which the hon. member refers is one which commends itself to anyone who has reflected upon this general subject. However, having regard to the fact that this will be a court of last resort for Canada, as time goes on the volume of business directed to it will be such that it was felt that the court could not go
Supreme Court Act
on circuit and properly dispose of the cases coming before it without holding up judgments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Since in our previous consideration of this bill we have more or less jumped from section to section, would the minister give us a brief resume of the ways in which the original jurisdiction of the court has been enlarged? In addition to being made the court of final jurisdiction, in one of the sections, in very complicated language which requires cross reference to the old act,
I understand there are certain enlargements of the original jurisdiction. Would the minister say just what is the effect of that enlargement?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If hon. members will look at clause 2 on page 1 of the bill, following that to the bottom of the page and over to page 2 and to the bottom of that page, they will see there enacted new sections 36 to 40 inclusive, all of which are in clarification of the existing law, without any significant change in substance. Then going over to page 3 they will see a new section 41; and if they will look at the explanatory note opposite page 3 they will find a statement which I believe is quite exhaustive and which will enable my hon. friend to grasp the nature of this increase in jurisdiction authorized by new section 41. Section 41 is new, and in a sense is consequential in that it is an attempt-and I think a successful attempt-to provide in the Supreme Court of Canada the counterpart of that appeal jurisdiction which was exercised by the privy council upon special leave in respect of certain classes of cases that formerly went before it. So this new section 41 provides a considerable increase in the jurisdiction of the supreme court, as a court of last resort, to hear, upon leave, the type of cases referred to in the new section 41.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it, there is no enlargement of the jurisdiction of the court to hear appeals, with respect to the financial amount involved? As I recall it there is a limit of $2,000, and that stands?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But does this enlargement to which the minister refers make it possible in some cases to bring appeals which were not possible before, where the amount in dispute is less than that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. When the privy council was the court of last resort for Canadian appeals, there was a class-or classes-of

Supreme Court Act
appeals which could not be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada but which could be taken to the privy council. If we were to abolish appeals to the privy council without making provision for those classes of appeals formerly taken there, those appellants would be without a remedy by way of appeal. So the new section 41 provides in such cases an appeal upon leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, to replace that appeal they formerly had to the privy council, by leave.


Thomas Langton Church: What section are we on, Mr. Chairman?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With reference to the proclamation-


Thomas Langton Church: I want a vote on section 1.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In a matter of this kind I think the minister will appreciate the desirability of giving adequate notice as to the date of coming into effect, particularly having in mind the provisions of section 7. Would the minister indicate what the government has in mind in that respect?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton will appreciate that in making this great jurisdictional change in the supreme court we intend to exercise extreme care with respect to the two additional appointments. There is that consideration and also the matter of consulting with the chief justice and the members of the court as to when they feel they can adequately carry on their new jurisdiction. Those questions will have to be settled before we can consider proclaiming the act after it is passed. I do not think my hon. friend will have any cause for complaint about inadequate notice when the proclamation is issued.


Thomas Langton Church: We are on the title, and the title is a misnomer, as no one knows better than this government. The proposed title of the bill is "An act to amend the Supreme Court Act," but no one knows better than the government that this is not a federal court in any sense at all. By this legislation the government is seeking to abolish statutory appeals, as well as appeals by grace, which has always been the inalienable right of every British subject.
If we adopt this bill, I ask the government: where do you propose to go from here? That is a simple question for them to answer. When we adopt the title of this bill the whole bill automatically goes through this house and receives the approval of parliament. Where does the government propose to go from here? Does it propose to stay in or get out of the British empire? That is exactly the question, especially when you consider

the various other steps that have been proposed. This is nothing but a political bill first, last and all the time; and I can tell you that it is going to lead to untold litigation, in view of the fact that we have reserved the right of appeals that have been undertaken up to the present time. This is weakening the ties to which I referred the other day, together with all these other motions with respect to the governor general, the flag, the anthem and so on. Why don't we get out of the empire, if we are going to pass a bill like this?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: third reading of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to discuss this bill on third reading. The principle of the bill and what it proposes to do are entirely different. Here we are going to abolish statutory appeals from the provinces, and I want to have a fair discussion of this bill, not under rules that are three hundred years old. This legislation affects every citizen of this country. We have to go away back to follow the history of it. Confederation was brought about by a contract between the provinces which formed the dominion, as no one knows better than the government. The other day I referred to the Statute of Westminster, on which the bill is founded, and the textbook in which it is stated that we have not the right to do what we are proposing today.
I want to make only a few remarks on the motion for third reading. I do not wish to object to it any further. I have alpiost exhausted my time. I think we should obey the Speaker and follow the rules of the house. I have never infringed upon the rules of the house and I do not propose to do so now. I point out to the government that there is a large body of informed public opinion in this country that is opposed to this bill. The four ministers of justice to whom I referred the other day as well as former chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada were opposed to this policy. The Supreme Court Act was passed in 1875.
We are now violating all those pacts which the provinces had and to which reference

was made in the textbook by Wheare on the Statute of Westminster. This proposal would upset all that.
Mr. Howard Ferguson, when he was premier of Ontario, and the late Lord Bennett, when he was the leader of the House of Commons, opposed this policy. What is the reason for rushing this bill now? Certain statements were made during the election and while I wish to speak with respect of everyone in this house, I can tell you that in my opinion this is nothing but a political bill, first, last and always. Accordingly, it is put on the order paper ahead of many other motions. There is no doubt about that.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, I should like to know what the question before the house is at the moment?


An hon. Member:: Third reading.


Donald MacInnis: There was objection to third reading and if there is an objection, third reading cannot be given. If I may speak on that point, sir, standing order 73 reads as follows:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
I do not believe there are urgent or extraordinary reasons why this bill should receive two readings today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has only had one reading today.


Donald MacInnis: Even at that, there is standing order 77, which reads in part as follows:
But when a bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.
The procedure in this house has been that, when a bill comes from committee, third reading is not given to it on that day.
Mr Church: In fair play, there should not be third reading today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I entirely agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I think it should be pointed out that the bill was in committee on the order paper for today. Third reading of this bill was not on the order paper, and consequently I think it would require unanimous consent of the house to give it third reading.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is a rather important point of procedure. If there is any reason for delaying third reading, I certainly do not want to insist upon it. The government would be glad to consider any such reason. I think it would be rather interesting to
Supreme Court Act
have a ruling on the meaning of these standing orders 73 and 77. I had always understood that, when a bill received second reading and went into committee on the same day, and was reported out of committee on that day, it could not be read a third time without unanimous consent.
The rules provide that there shall be three readings on separate days. When second reading has been given, however, and there has been a protracted debate in committee which has been carried beyond the day second reading took place, and the committee then reports the bill, I had understood that under order 77 the bill could be read the day it was reported. I believe that is a rather important question of procedure. I am sure no hon. member would want to give a forced interpretation to those rules. If my statement of the rules is correct, it would be well for us to know that is the correct interpretation. If it is not, I think it would be well to have a ruling from the Speaker so that we might not infringe the rule in future.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Might I call your attention, sir, to citation 810 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
If the bill is reported without amendment, the Speaker puts the question: "When shall the bill be read a third time?" The house, at this stage, may decide by a majority vote either that the third reading will take place immediately or at some future day. If, to the Speaker's question, the answer comes "Now," he will at once put the third reading and the motion "that the bill do now pass and title be as on the order paper . .
When the Speaker put the question, admittedly some hon. members said "Now" and some hon. members said "Next sitting of the house". I submit that a clear, unmistakable answer "now" has not come. In this citation it is recognized that third reading on this day is so extraordinary a measure as to call for a majority vote of the house. This suggests to me that unanimous consent would be required if this procedure were adopted.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The citation does not say "unanimous consent" it says "majority vote".


Mr. Hansell:: I do not have a copy of Beauchesne's rules and forms in my desk. I would suggest that before the war, we never gave third reading to a bill on the same day on which it received second reading or went to a committee. War broke out and a period of urgency came upon us. By courtesy and consent-we did not expect to create a precedent by it-the government has been accommodated and bills have been read a third time on the same day.
I am inclined to think that now we have gone back to our peacetime regime we

Supreme Court Act
should be careful not to rush these bills too much. In my opinion, the reason for delaying third reading is to give members an opportunity to assemble material and have a last fling in that debate. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, you should rule in favour of third reading at an appropriate future sitting of the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 77 and to citation 810, in order to dispel the idea that what is now being proposed is something extraordinary or an invasion of the members' privileges. Standing order 77 reads as follows:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the chairman to the house, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment,-
As it is in this case.
-it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.
Citation 810, referred to by the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), reads as follows:
If the bill is reported without amendment, the Speaker puts the question: "When shall the bill be read a third time?" The house, at this stage, may decide by a majority vote either that the third reading will take place immediately or at some day. If, to the Speaker's question, the answer comes "Now," he will at once put the third reading and the motion "that the bill do now pass and title be as on the order paper, (or that the title be . . . (putting the change if any)).
It is submitted that in view of that standing order, 77, and the rule, 810, there is no question but that the procedure we are following is the proper one.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say regarding this bill. I have been deeply interested all the way through the debate, but I find myself utterly in a fog to see the reason for this breathless haste.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I suggest that the members who have been calling for that now withdraw their remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The only question before the house is one of order, and all hon. members must address themselves to that question.
I have heard what hon. members have said, and I am prepared to give my ruling. This bill received second reading one day last week. It was then sent to the committee of the whole house for consideration by it. The committee completed its work this afternoon and has now reported the bill without amendment. When the bill was reported to the house, I asked the house although it was not necessary for me to do so-see Beauchesne's second edition, reference
[Mr. Hansell.l
810: "When shall the report be received?" The answer was "Now." I then asked the house, "When shall this bill be read a third time?" I received the answer "Now."
Standing order 73, which has been quoted by hon. members, reads as follows:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed.
This bill had received two separate readings previously to today. The rule goes on to read as follows:
On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
With that rule must be read standing order 77, which is as follows:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the chairman to the house, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.
I would refer hon. members to the words "forthwith" and the references in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, which have been mentioned in debate by a number of members and also to the latter part of reference 705, Beauchesne's third edition. I shall not read these references but when they are considered along with standing orders 73 and 77, I think it is clear that it is in order for a bill to be read a third time on the same day that it is reported from the committee, provided that it has been reported without amendment.
I therefore rule that it is in order for this bill to be read a third time now.


Thomas Langton Church: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to appeal from your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given my decision. Speakers' decisions, after they have been made, are not subject to debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I admit that I am a little bit at a loss, Mr. Speaker, with respect to procedure. Might I raise a subsequent point of order. I refer to citation 810 and I would ask Your Honour to call for a vote, which is provided for in that citation. That is the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked, "When shall this bill be read a third time?" The answer came back, "Now". I am carying out the instructions from the house in ordering the bill to be read a third time now-see reference 705, Beauchesne's third edition. The hon. member for Broadview has the floor.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to appeal from your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will say "Yea".


Howard Charles Green: What motion?


An hon. Member:: The ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given my ruling. The question now before the house is that this bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Graydon: Before you go on with this stage of the bill, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the government that perhaps the common sense way of handling this situation is this. Let us not argue too much over technicalities as to the rules. You have already made your decision and your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But having in mind the discussion that has taken place, I think perhaps it would meet the convenience and the wishes of the house in general if the government could see its way clear to leave third reading over for another sitting of the house. Nothing much can happen in the meantime. At the same time I think that would meet the wishes of the country, the house, and perhaps the government as well.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). It does not look good for a government which has the enormous majority behind it which this government has to be putting on pressure as we have seen it put on today.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I merely point out that fact. To the members of the house who are so eager, I may say that it will not do them any good when it is fully understood in the country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In view of the attitude taken by the hon. member who has just spoken, I do not think that we can consent to the adjournment of third reading. If the acting leader of the opposition will give any reasons why it would be preferable to postpone the third reading to another day, we shall be glad to consider them. But I do not think the reason advanced by the gentleman who last sat down would be one that would commend itself to this side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: From a note that has been handed to me, I understand that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) desires to appeal my ruling. All those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will say "Yea".
Supreme Court Act


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the "yeas" have it. I declare the ruling sustained. The question now before the house is the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier, Hull), that this bill be now read a third time. The hon. member for Broadview was speaking to that motion.


Gordon Graydon: I just wanted to reply to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I do not think he was on firm ground when he used as his main reason for not complying with my request the attitude of another member of the house. I do not think that is a good foundation for his argument.
In view of the fact that there is a substantial body of public opinion in Canada that feels that there should not be any ruthless haste in connection with a measure of this kind, although I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has that in his mind, I think the government ought to allow this matter to stand over. It seems to me that there is a substantial reason why an opposition would want third reading of a measure such as this to be allowed to stand over for a day or two. The principle is again involved. It was involved in second reading and it is involved again now. Naturally consideration must be given by an opposition to the attitude to be taken on the principle on third reading of a bill which is so important to our nation's affairs as is this one. I think that is sufficient reason for the Prime Minister to accede to the request I made in perfect good faith, not on any special, narrow ground but rather for the purpose of seeing if we cannot meet the wishes of the house. This session the house has not been in the habit of dividing unnecessarily on small things; I think it would be a small thing for the government to press this matter at this time, and I do not think the Prime Minister will want to do so.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: It is not a matter of wishing to refuse the request made, but this has been the matter before the house on practically all occasions when government business has been considered. We have now reached the point where the bill has been carefully considered and has been reported out of committee. Both the minister and I have engagements for Thursday. Tomorrow is not a government day. If we had the unanimous consent of the house to deal with it tomorrow we might be prepared to consider it, but we have made engagements for Thursday and we should like to have the bill sent over to the other place.

Supreme Court Act


Howard Charles Green: Have they not adjourned until Tuesday of next week?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, but we shall not be here on Thursday. I cannot be here on Friday. This is a bill in which both the minister and I have taken a considerable interest because we look upon it as an important piece of legislation. It seemed that the postponement was for the purpose of restating what has been stated many times, that we should not have this kind of legislation. If that is the only purpose I do not think we should be asked to change our plans unless there is some serious ground for doing so. Tomorrow may be the last private members' day, and I would not care to ask to take it from them. In these circumstances I think we have heard everything that could be said on either side, and we would not be any further advanced by postponing it another day.


Thomas Langton Church: It would be far better if the government consented to adjourn the debate until tomorrow at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: If not I shall continue my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member for Broadview that that question has been decided.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to make a few remarks. Under the rules of the house I am within my rights to speak until six o'clock, but I do not wish to take advantage of the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We shall listen with much pleasure to the hon. member if he chooses to speak until six o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: All right, then. I sent my papers to the office. Under the rules of the house I am within my rights in saying something on this bill for twenty-five minutes in order to give hon. members a chance to come back. I cannot understand the necessity for this bill in view of the matters which I enumerated the other day as being primary. There are certain other matters which I referred to the other day which are secondary. The matters to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred the other day are secondary. They are interwoven with different matters that have been placed on the order paper and were discussed during the election. What mandate have I, representing a constituency, to agree to this legislation? It was not discussed during the election.
I never heard of its being discussed in the Toronto district. The Prime Minister visited 
our city. He got a very great reception, and I was very pleased to see it. In no part of the country did he get a better reception. That was owing to the fact that he had been a great lawyer, a great family man and a great citizen, and had done a great deal for the people of this country as a private citizen long before he came to this house.
I now wish to say one or two things about certain matters that have come up in the debate. I never could understand the rush regarding this bill when one considers the other urgent matters which are before us. This matter is only secondary. I named the secondary matters the other day. I do not wish to name them again or to refer to any textbook. The intention seems to be to rush this particular proposal quickly through the house. That is the whole idea behind it. Why the necessity for that action? We might be a little more sportsmanlike in this house, and let the people who are not here return to deal with it. We might postpone it for at least twenty-four hours to give them a chance to come here.
With regard to the bill itself may I say, as I said the other day, I can find very little legal principle in it. The principle of the bill seems to be coercion. It is very largely a coercion bill because it is not founded on the pact made at confederation. You are going to change the whole legal system of this country in the twinkling of an eye without consulting anybody. For that reason I proposed that for bills of this description we should have a legal committee to which they could be referred. Nobody ever heard of this bill back in the constituencies. Today I received two letters from two high court judges out on circuit. They wanted to know whether I could send them a copy of the bill and of the debate that had taken place so far.
I did so this morning. They are out on circuit and they are trying important cases in various parts of the country. I have no way of letting them know without communicating with them.
Then there is the Canadian Bar Association. They had a meeting out in Calgary. They asked to have this legislation postponed. I cannot see the necessity for all the rush in connection with this bill. I cannot see the necessity for it apart from the basic fact that there are a lot of other proposals on the order paper. Under the rule of anticipation I cannot refer to them now and I do not intend to, but they are only secondary as well. We have grave questions facing us. We may be invaded. We do not know who is to come here in the next few days if we are to believe the reports which we get from Washington

and from Britain about the present danger in the Pacific, our back door. We do not know whether we are to be here very long.
I wish to call hon. members' attention to some important matters which should be dealt with at the present time. The matter to which we are now giving attention and such matters as the governor general, the flag, the anthem and the hallelujah chorus, are all secondary matters. We have had a hallelujah chorus on this bill. All these things could very well wait over. We have had nothing but hallelujah in here ever since the session opened. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have been singing the hallelujah chorus. If they went out and hired a concert hall they could make their fortunes as musicians.
In the first place I fail to see the urgency of this bill. What is the need for all the rush? The bar association expressed themselves at Calgary. I hold their resolution in my hand. Members of the bar of all Canada took part in that meeting. Nobody is a better lawyer than my friend the Speaker of the House of Commons. He has been a leading lawyer and soldier, and a good citizen, and all hon. members have been unanimous in expressing their pleasure at his being here.
The resolution adopted at the convention of the Canadian Bar Association dealing with the abolition of appeals to the privy council states:
Whereas the government of Canada has announced its intention to introduce legislation at the next session of the parliament of Canada, providing for the abolition of appeals to the privy council and making the Supreme Court of Canada our final court of appeal in all matters.
Be it resolved-
And here is the resolution:
-that the Canadian Bar Association, without expressing any view as to the wisdom or otherwise of the proposed abolition, is of the opinion:
(i) That any bill for the abolition of the privy council appeal should contain the necessary provisions as to the organization and jurisdiction of the supreme court and the system by which its judges will be appointed.
That sufficient time be given before the statute is enacted to permit the public-
"The public"?-they have never had one minute's consideration. I have never heard this discussed in the Toronto district by a single person, in the municipal, provincial or federal sphere. I doubt if there is a member from the Toronto district who has discussed this bill with his constituents. Yet we are asked to accept it today, holus-bolus, without knowing what it is all about. The resolution states:
That sufficient time be given before the statute is enacted to permit the public to give consideration, both as to the question whether the abolition of the appeal to the privy council should take place and to
Supreme Court Act
the constitution and powers of the court that may replace it and also to the effect which the abolition may have upon provincial and minority rights.
That is correct. And then it continues:
(ii) If, as and when the appeal should be abolished, it is the opinion of this association as at present advised:
(a)	that the supreme court should consist of nine judges;
(b)	that a quorum of the court should be five judges;
(c)	that it should sit always with an odd number of judges present:
They are going to be an odd lot, if we adopt this bill. And we will be an odd lot of members of the House of Commons if we swallow it holus-bolus. It continues:
(d)	that there should be no change in the present practice of the court, under which each member is free to give reasons for his judgment;
That may be all right. With many people, "I agree" is a popular phrase. "We agree" would be an unpopular phrase if we, in the high court of parliament, were to sit here and do nothing about this bill. To swallow it is just a loss of time. We are supposed to be the highest court in the land, but very often this is the forgotten branch of the legislature. Then the resolution continues:
(e)	that the court should continue to sit at Ottawa only;
I do not agree with that paragraph. The judicial committee of the privy council sits in London only because that is the centre of the empire. As a matter of actual fact, it could hardly be classified as a court, because they do not wear gowns, and they meet in an ordinary room. I know there are many people who would not agree to the proposed court sitting always in Ottawa. We realize of course that the judicial committee sits in London because that is the central point between east and west, and stands as one of the reasons why the court is not itinerant. It could well come to Ottawa, or go to Australia, New Zealand or South Africa if it so chose. The resolution continues:
(f)	that the salaries of the judges of the court should be substantially increased so as to make such salaries commensurate with the responsibilities of the office, with an appropriate additional amount to the chief justice;
I see no reason why we should spend as much money on eleven million people as is spent at Washington for one hundred and thirty million people. I have criticized that practice before, and have pointed out that too often we follow the United States.
I do believe however that the salaries of some of the judges in the trial courts throughout the province might very well be increased, particularly when they are doing circuit work. A man cannot afford to have a house, but most of them are keeping their homes. I believe there was a rule at one time-and

Supreme Court Act
Mr. Speaker may know more about this than I do-whereby judges of the court of appeal had to be residents of Toronto. I understand one of the great judges who came from the native city of Mr. Speaker proposed remaining in his own home town. It is very difficult to get housing accommodation in Toronto now; and that which is available costs about three times what it is worth.
I believe that the judges at Osgoode Hall have to have their homes in Toronto, and that it has been difficult for some of the new judges to get accommodation-even at three times the price. For five or six months of the year the trial judges are out on circuit throughout the province. They cannot be home with their wives and families for weeks on end. We have twelve judges in the trial division, and some of them are very tired of the accommodation they are able to get in hotels, and all that kind of thing. We should make provision for them accordingly.
Then, the next paragraph states:
(g)	that the rule of stare decisis ought to continue to be applied with respect to past decisions of the court, as well as with respect to past decisions of the judicial committee.
This is a rule of doctrine. An opinion was expressed not long ago by a prominent lawyer in Toronto, who quoted an Oxford professor who used these words:
No nation conscious of its own greatness and realizing of what national greatness consists can afford to do without the highly cultured citizen who is a vital power in civic and state affairs or the trained scholar whose function it is to keep up the quality and standard of culture.
And this lawyer goes on to say:
If the judicial committee of the privy council is no longer to be one of our courts of appeal the doctrine of stare decisis should be retained and its judgments remain precedents for all time.
That is what this Oxford professor has to say, and I believe there is much to be said for that principle. So far as possible, as a high court of parliament we should base our decisions on that doctrine. Let me say this about the bill which is now before us for third reading. I have before me a textbook. Hon. members are aware that the recent decision of the privy council is based on the Statute of Westminster. That is where this bill had its beginning; it started with the Statute of Westminster. This book is entitled "The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status". For 99 pages it deals with the dominion status in 1926. In that section it deals with Ontario and Quebec, the two original provinces, and reference is made to the maritimes and the status of the dominion generally. It then goes on to refer to the Irish Free State, New Zealand, Australia and other parts of the British

empire. It calls attention to the fact that the process of appeals to the privy council was based upon a contract.
When Mr. Ferguson was premier of Ontario he objected to the suggestion that appeals to the privy council be abolished and he directed attention to the debates on this matter which had taken place since confederation. He said that there was no doubt that a contract had been made by the two original provinces and the same principle had been applied to the maritimes where objections had been raised during the war to the legal status. He went on to say that the procedure of amending the constitution should be accepted by the province of Ontario.
Ontario was against abolishing appeals to the privy council and they prepared a brief which was placed before the cabinet here in Ottawa. That brief was addressed to a very learned attorney general who was minister of justice. I referred to three or four of them the other day. The Prime Minister was about to leave to attend an imperial conference and this brief was presented in connection with abolishing appeals to the privy council. Mr. Howard Ferguson prepared this brief while he was premier of Ontario. That brief states:
-that no restatement of the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada can be accepted by the province of Ontario that does not fully and frankly acknowledge the right of all the provinces to be consulted and to become parties to the decision arrived at. Quebec and all the other provinces proved to be in agreement with these views. In consequence it was necessary for the Canadian delegation at the imperial conference of 1930 to ask that, in effect, the whole question of the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, in its application to Canada, should be left in suspense until the views of the provinces on the matter could be obtained.
Mr. Ferguson was quite correct and the reference to the Dominion of Canada and to the provinces of Canada was therefore deleted from the proposed clause, as it appeared in the schedule drawn up by the conference with a specific reference to Australia and New Zealand only. It was stated that a section dealing exclusively with the Canadian position would be inserted after the representations of the provinces had received consideration. At the same time the conference deemed it advisable to place on record that the sections of the statute relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act should be so drafted as not to extend to Canada unless the statute was enacted in response to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act. It was also deemed desirable to place on record the view that the sections should not subsequently be extended to Canada except by an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom enacted in response

to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act.
The conference of federal and provincial governments was held in Canada in April 1931, to consider this whole question of appeals to the privy council and of consulting the provinces thereon. The late Lord Bennett was then Prime Minister of the dominion. All the provinces were present at that conference which was held here in Ottawa, including the great provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
As it is six o'clock I should like to move the adjournment of the debate until tomorrow at three o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think the debate needs to be adjourned, as it is six o'clock and the house is taking recess. At eight o'clock the house will consider public and private bills, but as soon as they are disposed of the house will continue with its regular business and the hon. gentleman may resume his speech.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to one I introduced last session but which, owing to the dissolution of the 20th parliament it did not come up for second reading. This bill differs in one respect, in that it merely requires the permanent installations of the railway companies to comply with local smoke abatement by-laws. I have amended the bill in this regard following some conversations I had with railway officials when the bill was in a rather more specific form. From time to time both railway companies have said to me that to impose upon them some specific apparatus or some specific smoke abatement regulations would be unfair when industries, ships and other smoke producers are permitted to pollute the air without abatement. Therefore this bill would add paragraph (1) to section 287 of the Railway Act, as follows:
(1) requiring ail roundhouses and other permanent installations to comply with any municipal bylaw of any urban municipality regulating the emission of smoke or soot into the atmosphere but such orders and regulations shall not apply to locomotives in motion;
Railway Act
So in this amendment we merely seek to abate the nuisance of smoke produced by railway roundhouses. The problem to be solved is this. Coal-burning locomotives have to be serviced regularly. This servicing requires that steam pressure be maintained in the boilers; and when major repairs are to be made and the fire is drawn, consequently the fire has to be relit. These operations result in inefficient combustion of the fuel, which in turn produces smoke, soot or smog. I want to point out that the production of smoke now is a sign of inefficiency. In the old days we would say that smoking chimneys were the sign of a hardworking, industrial community. Today a smoking chimney is a sign of waste. But owing to the requirements in connection with fueling and servicing locomotives this problem does arise and, with the exception of some cases where special apparatus has been installed, these roundhouses do emit smoke or smog into the atmosphere, which unquestionably is a serious discomfort to those living in the vicinity.
Now we come to the responsibility of the various authorities concerned. It would be unfair to ask a railway company to make a roundhouse comply with certain regulations, unless in order to protect the residents the municipality had enacted an enforceable antismoke bylaw. So in order to prevent discrimination against the railway companies I have drawn the bill so that it merely asks roundhouses to comply with the regulations which have been worked out for smoke abatement and which apply to all other industries in the district.
The specific instance with which I wish to deal is the roundhouse in my own constituency, the main roundhouse of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in what are known as the Lambton yards, where nearly all the locomotives are serviced for that company in the Toronto area. There are other roundhouses in downtown Toronto, but the one in the Lambton yards is located in an area containing other industries, all of which have installed smoke abatement equipment, so they are not a real menace to the residents of that community. The only menace is this railway roundhouse. It may interest hon. members to learn that the precipitation in tons of soot per acre per year is said to be greater there than in any other city in Canada or the United States, with two exceptions. As a matter of fact a great part of central York township is more intensely sullied by smoke than any other area on this continent. It is infinitely worse than the city of Pittsburgh where a great deal of this remedial machinery has been installed. So we come to the inevitable conclusion that it is not necessary

Railway Act
for a roundhouse to emit smoke in such great quantities, as is the case in the Lambton yards.
There are several roundhouses in this metropolitan area. One roundhouse in the city of Toronto has installed what is known as a steam-generating plant. The locomotives enter this roundhouse and are serviced by means of this permanent steam-generating plant which has a smoke abatement apparatus installed on it. This roundhouse is not a menace to the residents situated near it. When I introduced this bill, it was suggested that the cost of installing such a system would not be worth while. That is merely an opinion, Mr. Speaker. I have not received adequate data to support that statement, nor have I received adequate data to support the suggestion that this steam plant would cost approximately $200,000.
We come to the next point, and that is that the railway companies are converting to diesel locomotives, certainly for switching purposes. In Toronto, I believe the switching locomotives are now almost completely dieselized. This is an improvement but, at the same time, the main line locomotives still burn coal. It is these main line locomotives which cause most of the smoke and soot in the area of which I complain.
Leaving my own constituency and turning to Ottawa, I might say that the other day I noticed a report in the press concerning the enforcement of the Ottawa municipal smoke bylaw. It was stated prosecutions would be launched unless the users of coal-burning equipment complied with the regulations. Unless some amendment such as this is written into the Railway Act, that would mean that other users of coal in Ottawa would be proscribed by the municipal regulations but the roundhouse in Ottawa west would be permitted to emit as much smoke as it desired.
At this point I should like to mention the regulations concerning the emission of smoke by roundhouses. Those regulations require that roundhouses may emit smoke of no greater density than Ringleman's density chart No. 3 for a period of ten minutes per hour. Reading Ringleman's density chart, Mr. Speaker, is something akin to a Philadelphia lawyer deciding what is hard and what is soft. It is a card with a hole in it through which one looks, and around the edges of which are varying degrees of black. I doubt very much whether any two people, or a court of law for that matter, could agree upon what was density 3, density 2 or density 4. Density 5 is almost completely opaque.
I believe that these regulations were written about 1908. In my opinion, they are obsolete. Modern technological progress in

smoke abatement requires that something new and better be worked out to protect residents near roundhouses.
It has been suggested that municipal enforcement officers should judge the smoke emitted by the roundhouses in the same manner as they judge the smoke emitted from an industrial plant. Any appeal would be to the board of transport commissioners, as in all other cases under the Railway Act. I had hoped, and I still hope, that the subject matter of this bill might be sent to the railway committee. A good deal of technical information, Mr. Speaker, must be brought forward before a solution to this problem can be found. It would only be fair to allow the railway committee to hear testimony from both sides concerning this matter. I also realize there are always some people who will complain no matter what progress is made.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. In the area of which I speak not only is it impossible to put out washing at any time on any day of the week, but even in the hottest weather windows must'be kept closed because of the constant seepage of soot under doors and windows, and through crevices. It makes living an intolerable burden to many of the people in that district. Furthermore, even a considerable distance from this roundhouse, if one digs down into the soil one finds a layer of soot and coal dust sometimes more than an inch thick. The houses are black and the whole life of the community is blighted by this smoke.
I am appealing to the house and to the government, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these people. I am appealing to have this problem brought before a tribunal where those who oppose any improvement, as well as those who actually suffer from the present situation, can be heard.
This is something that affects the lives of many thousands of people in the city of Toronto and the county of York. It is a question to which there is a solution; it is a difficulty which can be and is being solved by the installation of steam-generating equipment and by other less costly means. It is a problem which can be solved if there is the willingness to solve it. On the one side of the equation there is the cost of putting in this smoke-abating equipment; on the other side of the equation is the life, health and comfort of thousands of individuals. I believe that I speak and plead the case for all those who have to put up with this everlasting smoke and soot which emanates from the roundhouse that I particularly complain of.


Thomas Langton Church: I represent a district which is probably suffering more

from smoke and soot than any other residential district in Canada. I refer to the lower section of ward 1, south of Queen street, in which lies the right of way of the C.N.R. over the Don river. It is a soldiers' district that I represent. There are a large number of homes there. During the heat wave the temperatures reached 95, 97 and 98 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Some of the soldiers are living in hovels not fit to live in. Because of the smoke, soot, oil and other things that escape from these engines the mothers must shut the windows at night.
In the first place, we have none of these diesel engines, as far as I can see, and I have looked out the window many times at the place where I live. They are shunting backwards and forwards through this district, assembling cars of all descriptions, making up trains and all that kind of thing. These soldiers' children suffer at night, during the heat. I remember that I received complaints from physicians in the district. They were complaining about the children getting throat trouble, asthma, and bronchitis, and that their lungs, when examined, are found to be filled with this material that escapes from these engines. Not only that, but boats on the route to St. Catharines, and others that put out from the east end of Toronto bay emit the same thing, with the result that the mothers are complaining to me. I am sorry that I have not the letters with me, so that I might read one or two of them.
I do not wish to speak for more than four or five minutes because I think that the hon. member who introduced the bill has covered the points well and deserves a great deal of credit for bringing the bill forward.
Hon. members will notice what the Railway Act provides. They will notice the amendments which have been made. They started long before I was in the house. The Railway Act is chapter 170 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. Amendments were made in 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932-33, 1938, 1946, 1947 and 1947-48. That is the general Railway Act. The board is now known as the board of transport commissioners; it used to be known as the board of railway commissioners. I may say that I have had some correspondence with the present board about this particular matter and about these soldiers' families, as well as with the housing authorities and others. Some of these families are living in the basement, below the ground, in hovels not fit for habitation. I have complained to the health department and to the city hall about it, but we can get no relief. What is to become of these children?
I have seen these children dragged off the street at night so that they might be put to bed, and when they go to bed they must 45781-431
Railway Act
endure these conditions; and the mothers are suffering intolerable conditions. The viaduct also passes through this district, and it is not a fit place of habitation for children. I am sorry that nothing is done for them. I am tired of making these complaints. I have made them right along ever since I have been a member representing the constituency of Broadview in the city of Toronto. I have complained before about this evil which exists.
Three physicians wrote me letters in which they complained about the throat trouble which they have encountered. These poor children have no place to play except in the street. Some of them have been knocked down by hit-and-run drivers. I know of a street-I think it is called Morse street; it is below Queen street-where the pavements were moved and so forth, and where little children have been knocked down and killed; but the authorities could not find who did it.
One section of the Railway Act is to the effect that the board of transport commissioners, as they are now called, must of their own volition look into these matters. I ask hon. members to mark those words "of their own volition." They have engineers and officials, and many other people. I noticed in the House of Commons the other day we had an increase in the estimates for the board of transport commissioners. As I said the other day, we have a most able chairman now in Mr. Justice Archibald, but he has been too busy with the freight rate increases to give consideration to these matters. I hope that the government and particularly the minister responsible for housing and the health department will be able to do something in the matter. Nothing affects health more than this condition. As a result of this nuisance we have some tubercular children. I speak from what I know to be true.
I wish the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill every success. I know his district out there in York West. I know they are without a steam suburban service, and I know how they are suffering. I have seen some of the trains they have. I believe the hon. gentleman deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this bill forward.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Anyone who has come into Toronto from lake Ontario will I think agree that the smoke menace in that city is a serious one. From lake Ontario you can see the smoke of Toronto long before you can make out the shore line. But I believe there is a far worse menace with regard to smoke than railway roundhouses. The town in which I live, Brockville, is a large terminal of the Canadian National Railways and as such naturally we have

Railway Act
servicing of locomotives. There is naturally a certain amount of smoke that comes from the roundhouses and from the repair shops where those locomotives are being serviced. If one is on the river and looks towards the shore, one can see smoke coming up, but it is largely dissipated in the air. There are also in the town factories which emit a certain amount of smoke, although there is a town bylaw which keeps that condition fairly well under control. But we have a smoke menace far worse than the roundhouse; it is the uncontrolled smoke of lake steamers.
Anyone who lives along the waterways of the great lakes system will know what I mean. The smoke from one steamer is greater in volume than the smoke coming out of all the locomotives that are being serviced and from all the factories in Brockville. I say that without fear of contradiction, and anyone who has seen that will know that I know whereof I speak. It is a serious menace. It is detrimental to the housewife who has to put out her washing. Her whole morning's wash can be spoiled by one ship going by. The smoke seeps into the houses. The type of fuel these steamers burn must be the very lowest type of bituminous fuel. It infiltrates into everything, particularly when traffic is very heavy, as it was yesterday on the St. Lawrence. The whole atmosphere is permeated. It lies all along the shore line. You cannot see very far. I believe the modern terminology for it is smog, smudgy fog. I feel that steps must be taken by the railway committee to see that some solution is arrived at to stop this serious polluting of our atmosphere. We have pollution of water and we have pollution of atmosphere. I am firmly of the opinion that, of the two, pollution of the atmosphere is worse, because you can always filter and chlorinate the water; but the poor human beings are compelled to stand there and breathe the atmosphere. Doctors have told me that there are many serious detrimental gases and acids that we absorb through breathing this contaminated air.
The time has definitely arrived when something concrete must be brought before the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to enforce not only a cleaning up of smoke emanating from roundhouses but more particularly from the lake steamers which apparently do not wish to co-operate with the public in abolishing the smoke nuisance.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: I should like to add to the observations of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford). I have a considerable personal knowledge of

the situation with which the hon. member for York West dealt so adequately. I have lived in the part of Toronto known as West Toronto for many years. Only very recently, in fact not until after June 27, did anyone think it was worth while asking my opinion as to what should be done to alleviate the smoke nuisance, but I have a personal knowledge of it. As a matter of fact it is public knowledge in West York and in the High Park riding that the St. Clair-Runnymede section has for many years suffered from this particular condition. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway roundhouse was built in 1912. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) starts to take my speech apart I hope he will forgive me if I have made any misstatements of fact because it was only on Sunday afternoon that I got the information which I now intend to give to the house.
In 1912 a roundhouse was built at the corner of St. Clair avenue and Runnymede road. It has 33 smokestacks disseminating smoke in the neighbourhood, and it operates with an impartial hand. Smoke falls on the Liberals, Conservatives and C.C.F. impartially and alike. It is very bad. In that particular section as far back as 1912, sir, I well recall that no houses were built in that area because of the smoke hazard. That is quite evident from the way the neighbourhood developed. Up until after the first great war no one built much in the area. It was known as the Scarlet Plains. As boys we went there to play cops and robbers. Our mothers asked us to hurry home because after dark it was not considered safe. There was very little habitation there. South of the tracks that same condition persisted. No one bothered to build a house there. Anyone who owned property there just simply let it stand. If you will search the registry office in Toronto you will find that most of the titles there are tax deed titles. No one wanted it. The reason was the smoke which was disseminated over this entire area. It never affected me because fortunately I lived in a part of west Toronto which was far distant from the railroad. Occasionally when we would have a northeast wind I would hear my mother complaining about the fact that she had to take her washing in. There is a situation here which should be brought to the attention of this house.
After the first war there was a considerable development, and criticism of what the railroads were doing began to become vocal. After and during the second world war a great many houses were built. This is serviced land. I would assume that there are many thousands of people now living in that area, who have good homes, and who are

suffering from this menace. That the situation can be corrected is evident from the information which has been given to me. I understand that in the city of Toronto there are two other roundhouses: one known as the John street roundhouse and the other known as the Spadina avenue roundhouse. The John street roundhouse is operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There the engines are oil fired. Steam pressure is available so that the engines do not have to stay in the roundhouse until they are completely ready for service. They can go out under their own pressure to the water tank and then go about their business. In that way smoke is disseminated and does not become a hazard in only one localized area.
At the Spadina avenue roundhouse they have overcome the difficulty to an extent in this way. They have built one central smokestack and whenever an engine is being serviced the smoke from that particular engine is funnelled by fans into this one central smokestack and carried high up in the air and is given a chance to dissipate itself. I am informed that the Canadian Pacific Railway claim that they are doing everything within their power to alleviate the situation. They refer to the fact that they have diesel engines in Toronto and they are dieselizing their system. As I understand it, there are 19 diesel engines in Toronto, 10 of which operate out of the Lambton roundhouse. There are 80 coal-burning engines which are serviced from the Lambton roundhouse. These engines are disseminating their smoke over the entire area. If, Mr. Speaker, you had the time, the opportunity and the inclination to visit that district you would see, as the hon. member for York West has pointed out so strikingly, smoke-blackened houses. They have built up an entire new area there, and I wish to support most strongly the demand which the hon. member for York West has made to have the situation alleviated. Whether it should be done by the particular method which he has suggested in his bill or whether it should be done by amendment to the Railway Act I do not know. I have not gone into that particularly, but I do suggest to the Minister of Transport that he give this his earnest consideration. There is a real problem to be solved. The city of Toronto, the township of York and the ratepayers associations of St. Clair avenue and Maybank have organized themselves over the years, and have acquired a great deal of information which the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) has given the house tonight.
These people are greatly concerned about the depreciation in value of their properties.
Railway Act
If the prices of real estate do decrease, then those people are going to feel the effect of that process more than the people who live in areas more fortunately situated from the standpoint of smoke nuisance.
This is one of the best areas in the township of York. The smoke nuisance not only affects the residents of York West, but has dissipated itself over into the constituency of High Park-and we want no more of it. I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to give this matter his earnest consideration, and if possible to see that something is done. I would ask, too, that the bill be referred to the railway committee, at which time it could be studied, where representations could be made, evidence heard from both sides, and justice done.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up much time in what I have to say, in the hope that this bill may be dealt with this evening. I should like to add my few words to the excellent contributions made by hon. members on both sides of the house concerning smoke nuisance. I should imagine that this has become more of a problem in those places where population has become more concentrated, and where the urban characteristics of a community have become dominant.
In the southern section as well as some other sections of the county of Peel, which I have the honour to represent, there is a growing menace from smoke. For that reason I should like to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members this evening, and I would seek from the minister some means of redress. He must be in great difficulty from time to time, because if he is not receiving complaints about whistling, he is receiving them about smoke.
We are most anxious to have something done concerning this nuisance, and I hope the minister will have some solution to offer. I trust that he may give us some assurance that the government will support the action proposed by the hon. member for York West. So that we may not be accused of talking the bill out, I shall say nothing further at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), who has introduced this bill, will pardon me if I do not follow him in his argumentation of the case. I do feel however I should commend him upon bringing forward this bill for a second time, and also those who have contributed to the discussion.

Railway Act
There can be no doubt that the emission of smoke from roundhouses is a matter of considerable anxiety to the railways and also to the board of transport commissioners. It is a great nuisance, I am sure, to those people who, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has pointed out, live in concentrated centres. There is no doubt, too, that it is not always easy to find a remedy for a situation, be it as intolerable as the hon. member has described it, or as it has been described by several hon. members who have spoken.
I doubt whether the solution proposed by the hon. member is the right one. However, before dealing with that I believe the house should know something about what has been done and what is now being done by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and by the railways to do away with some of the difficulties which arise through smoke emission from roundhouses, and also because of the nuisance in general.
For at least a year the board of transport commissioners has been giving this problem careful and serious attention. In the first place they saw to it that full-time inspectors were appointed. These inspectors were charged with the responsibility of studying the smoke nuisance, interviewing employees, giving instructions, and suggesting how they might improve the situation in roundhouses and in handling locomotives generating steam. The reports of these employees come to the board from time to time; they are examined, and by reason of them some improvements are made by the railways.
The second step taken by the board of transport commissioners was to see to it that the railway companies installed special equipment on steam switching locomotives for the purpose of abating smoke. A recent check by the board discloses that all steam yard engines working in the Toronto territory have now been equipped with what are known as over-fire jets for the purpose of eliminating complaints in connection with smoke from locomotives.
Then, in the last few years the railways have been doing a tremendous job by way of diesel operations. I shall deal with the city of Toronto in a moment, but I think I should outline the situation generally. There are several kinds of diesel locomotives. First there is the diesel which operates the freight train which moves from one end of the country to the other. Then, there is the diesel locomotive which pulls the passenger train; and there is the diesel in which I should think at the moment the house is particularly interested, namely the one which does the switching. The more diesels the
[Mr. Chevrier.l
railways can purchase and employ on switching operations, the more can the nuisance from smoke and soot be abated.
Ten years ago there was practically no utilization of diesel engines. Five years ago the position was a little better. As I said a moment ago, in the last few years the railways have been doing an excellent job in the way of purchase of diesels. For instance, the number of diesel road locomotives at present in use in Canada totals 36. Six of these are operated by the Canadian National Railways, and 30 by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
The number of diesel switching locomotives at present in use in Canada stands at 172, and as I said a moment ago that is the class or kind in which the house is more interested at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: That is for both railways?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, for both. Seventy-three of those are operated by the Canadian National Railways and 99 by the Canadian Pacific. The number of electric locomotives at present in use in Canada stands at 28, of which number 18 are operated by the Canadian National and 10 by the Canadian Pacific. There are at present 35 diesel switching locomotives being used in Toronto, 16 of which are operated by the Canadian National and 19 by the Canadian Pacific. Since I am dealing with Toronto let me show the complete picture. In 1944 the Canadian National had no diesel switching locomotives in use in Toronto; the situation was unchanged in 1945. However they had 4 in 1946, 8 in 1947 and 10 in 1948. Up to September 30 of this year they have 16. I believe it will be recognized that the situation in Toronto is improving considerably.
The figures for the Canadian Pacific Railway indicate that in 1944 they had only 5 such locomotives, while in 1945 they had 10; 1946, 15; 1947, 18; 1948, 19; and the same number up to this date in 1949. So that there are 35 diesel switching locomotives now in operation in Toronto, 16 of which are Canadian National and 19 Canadian Pacific.
With the permission of the house I should like to place this complete table on Hansard, as it includes not only the number of diesel switching locomotives in Toronto but also similar information for Montreal.


Mr. Fraser:: Are there any here in Ottawa?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but I am not able to say how many.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave of the house to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, the table is as follows: Re number of diesel switching locomotives in use in Toronto and Montreal-years 1944 to 1949-Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways.
Number of diesel switching locomotives in use in Toronto:
In use year ending	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948	1949 at
					Sept. 30	
Canadian National						
	. 0	0	4	8	10	16
Canadian Pacific						
Railway 	. 5	10	15	18	19	19Totals 	. 5	10	19	26	29	35Number of diesel	switching	locomotives	in usein Montreal: In use year ending	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948	1949 at Sept. 30Canadian National	. 7	8	7	9	13	18Canadian Pacific	Railway 	. 4	9	13	16	16	21Totals 	. 11	17	20	25	29	39Continuing with the statement I was making a moment ago, the number of diesel switching	locomotives presently	on	order	but not	
delivered is 11, all of them being on order by the Canadian National Railways. The number of diesel road locomotives presently on order by the Canadian Pacific but not delivered is 61. As I stated the other night on my estimates, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have announced as their policy that from now on they will purchase no more steam locomotives, that all their locomotives will be diesel. The Canadian National Railways have indicated that they intend to follow the same policy.
I think most of us recently had the good fortune to see the "Train of Tomorrow," when we learned something of the operation of diesel locomotives. We know that General Motors Corporation intend to establish a new diesel plant at London, Ontario. I think the house will agree that that in itself is significant and indicative of the intention of the railroads to use diesel locomotives in the future.
Before going any further I cannot resist telling the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) that I think he should try to agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). The hon. member for Broadview has been agitating for a suburban steam locomotive service for the city of Toronto, and has been for many years. At present I believe he has questions on the order paper in connection with that very thing. Now the hon. member for York West says that such equipment should no longer be used and to my great surprise the hon. member for Broadview got up this evening to support him. I cannot resist making that comment and I hope my hon. friend will understand that it is
Railway Act
not made with the least ill will. I want to say just one word about the bill, which requires that the board of transport commissioners shall make orders and regulations:
(1) requiring all roundhouses and other permanent installations to comply with any municipal by-law of any urban municipality regulating the emission of smoke or soot into the atmosphere but such orders and regulations shall not apply to locomotives in motion:
I am informed that in order to install devices to completely eliminate smoke in the roundhouses of the larger centres only would cost a minimum of $24,000,000, and that is for the Canadian Pacific alone. I am informed also that to install these in other centres which would require them from time to time would cost about $42,000,000. Assuming the same cost for the Canadian National Railways, it would mean a total of $84,000,000. A diesel switcher costs $110,000, per unit, while a diesel road locomotive costs about $250,000 per unit. How many diesel switchers do hon. members think would be purchased if installations such as these had to be placed on the roundhouses, even in Toronto alone?
I wanted to deal with the legality of this bill. I do not think it is ultra vires, although I do feel it comes rather close to the line. However, I submit that it is bad legislation because it would tell the board of transport commissioners, who have jurisdiction in matters of this kind, that they must comply with the bylaws of municipalities. Supposing a municipality passed a bylaw providing that roundhouses should not emit smoke from five a.m. until eleven a.m. or possibly noon, the time during which railroads are busiest. There would be nothing in this bill to stop a municipality from acting in such a manner. If they did it would interfere with the efficient operation of the railroad and accordingly would not be a good thing for them.
While this legislation might not be ultra vires, I submit that it certainly is not good legislation. It is the type of legislation known as legislation by adoption. In other words, we would be setting up a board to do certain things and then putting a clamp on it by saying that it must not do other things unless a municipal corporation says thus and so.
Under these circumstances I appeal to the house not to approve of this bill and not to send it to the railway committee. I ask this because of the last reason I have given and more particularly because of the great progress that has been made by the railroads in purchasing and operating more and more diesel locomotives, on both switching and

Supreme Court Act
line operations. For these reasons I must state that the government is not prepared to accept this bill.
Motion (Mr. Adamson) negatived on division.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the third reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to continue for a few moments the remarks I was making when the house rose at six o'clock. In conclusion I should like to point out certain features about this legislation. The bill now before us for third reading is one of those matters which should be looked into further. I remember what the supporters of the bill have said, but in my opinion the proposals should be looked into further. I had my hand on some details a moment ago but I cannot find them.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) wants to rush this bill through for some reason best known to himself. The proposals which I refer to are set out in the bill. As I have said before, Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire. If she was going to be talked out of the British empire, she would have been talked out long ago. She will have to be fought out of the British empire.
I think we all remember what happened back in the thirties. Those were dark days for Canada, but the mother country came to our rescue with preferential treatment which brought about increased trade. If we adopt this proposal we are going to lose all that. We all know that Mr. Fielding once advised the adoption of preferences, and the six cent preference on wheat was adopted. There is no doubt that the Liberal party rounded it out and made a success of it. It all started away back in 1897 after Sir Wilfrid Laurier was prime minister. He gave the six cents per bushel on wheat. It took a long time to accomplish results and it was not until the thirties when there was a world depression that the prime minister of Great Britain and other prime ministers met here in Ottawa and adopted what were known as the Ottawa agreements. The man who was leader of the house then is now dead.
If you ask me, I think we are going a long way in this proposed bill. Why is it necessary to get it through tonight? Many government members are absent, together with members of other parties. Who is causing all

this upset; who is responsible for this jumpy style of doing business in the House of Commons, when we have the bar association, the provinces, the attorneys general and others asking that the matter be given further consideration? We need men in this house like the late Clarke Wallace, Dalton McCarthy, and the late John Ross Robertson and others who were here years ago, who would forget all about the party system and think only of the country first, last and all the time. We need men of that stamp in this House of Commons today.
As I was saying before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, we must go back a long way to get the history of this thing; but there will always be an England and there will always be an empire. This legislation is largely founded on the separatist doctrine, because that doctrine holds that the supreme court should be the ultimate court in Canada. In its issue of Monday, September 26, an important newspaper in Toronto had this to say:
Canada cannot at present amend her own constitution or settle her own law cases in her own courts. "Badges of colonialism," exclaims the Minister of Justice. Mr. Garson is right; and right, too, in saying that these badges should be "stripped off."
Then they go on to name someone who they think should be governor general. Half a dozen names have been suggested for that post. One is the chief justice of Canada; another is a former prime minister; another is Malcolm MacDonald. If you look at the proposed bill you will see that it is in two sections, one dealing with what might be called statutory appeals and the other with appeals of grace. Where are we going now under 20th century Liberalism if we are going to take away from a private citizen the right to petition the king? We must not forget that notwithstanding this legislation he is still the king of Canada, as he is the king of New Zealand and the king of Australia. He cannot divide himself in two; he is still and always will be the king of Canada.
We have had the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights, and all the rest of those things. Every British subject, whether he lives in England, in Quebec, in Ontario, in the west, in New Zealand or Australia, has had the right to appeal to the foot of the throne with regard to his citizenship and also with regard to his property and civil rights and his liberty as a subject. Several distinguished men have occupied the position of minister of justice in this country. I have referred to Sir Allen Aylesworth, who was a brilliant lawyer; Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was minister of justice, attorney general and solicitor general, lieutenant governor of Quebec and chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; Sir Lomer Gouin, and

others. We have aiSO had many outstanding men as attorneys general of the provinces.
In dealing with what has brought about separatism I referred to a brilliant textbook on the Statute of Westminster, and how it affected New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the other dominions and crown colonies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Thomas Langton Church: I could finish what I have to say in only three or four minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has now exceeded his time, and he may not continue except with the consent of the house.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, as a Liberal, and as one who takes second place to no one in my loyalty to the British commonwealth, I strongly protest against the unjustifiable and unfounded claims being made that legislation of this type is in some way selling out Canada's interest in the commonwealth of nations. I would ask this house whether Canada, when it adopted its own Royal Canadian Navy, abandoned the British empire; whether Canada, when it adopted its own Royal Canadian Air Force, was abandoning the British empire; whether Canada, when it gradually learned to stand on its own feet, was abandoning the British empire. Or did we assist in maintaining the British empire and the British commonwealth of nations? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a fact that because this country had learned to stand on its own feet and make its own decisions it has been able, during the recent war and since, by means of the Atlantic pact, to make a contribution not only to the British commonwealth but to the world at large of which Canada has no occasion to be ashamed. And I suggest that it is high time somebody expressed that view in this house.
With respect to this bill may I, as a new member who perhaps should not be raising his voice on this occasion at all, suggest that Canada had ample opportunity last June, and took advantage of that opportunity, to decide on the principle. I suggest also that this house has had ample opportunity during the past month, and particularly on the motion for second reading, to decide on the principle of the bill. I suggest that the house and the country have decided, that the bill has been considered clause by clause, and that both the house and the country would like us to finish this practically completed business and get on with the other business of parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Thomas Langton Church: I had a motion, Mr. Speaker.
Supreme Court Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Thomas Langton Church: I wanted to move the six months hoist, if I could find a seconder, or to recommit the bill to committee of the whole with instructions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion for third reading is carried.


Thomas Langton Church: Surely you are going to put my motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Thomas Langton Church: I said I had a motion which I handed in before six o'clock, if I could find a seconder, to give the bill the six months hoist or to recommit it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion has been declared adopted.


Thomas Langton Church: You may railroad it through, but I can tell you that there will be an appeal.
I rise to a point of order. When the Speaker was in the chair I handed him a motion, before you took the chair at six o'clock. I only want fair play; I do not want to break any rules; I respect the Chair. I wish to call to your attention the fact that I handed in a motion regarding this particular bill. I handed it to the Speaker and I handed it to you, sir, when you were chairman of the committee. I believe you saw it. I wish to object to this procedure because it is not fair. If we had men in the house now like N. Clarke Wallace, Dalton McCarthy and John Ross Robertson, they would have strongly opposed such a bill as this. I was not given time to read my motion to recommit the bill to the committee of the whole. I was to have a seconder, but had no opportunity to read the motion. I know the rules of this house as well as any man.
I am asking that the bill be sent back to the committee. You have ruled that out of order, and I wish to appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Fauteux:: It is against the rules of the house to debate a question which has been settled. This bill has been passed by the house and it is against the rules to debate the matter now.


Thomas Langton Church: We have a different Speaker now. On a point of order, I ask for the Speaker to preside. I think I am entitled to that. The bill has not been passed in accordance with the rules of the house. If all the members on our side of the house had been present today, there would have been a division on the principle of the bill. Is this bill going to be passed, signed, sealed and delivered? Under the rules of the house, I do not see how it could be because there has
682

Canadian National Railways been no compliance with the rules. I wanted a recorded division. I am an old member of this house and I have not been treated in this manner before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules have been followed and the bill has passed. The debate, therefore, is finished.
Motion (Mr. Garson) agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee of supply.



APPOINTMENT OF MR. DONALD GORDON AS PRESIDENT OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) made an announcement of considerable importance. Briefly, I should like to make an observation or two about that announcement. In so far as that announcement contained news of the retirement of Mr. Vaughan from the presidency and chairmanship of the board of the Canadian National Railways, 1 think all members of the house would heartily join with the minister in the well-merited tribute he paid to that gentleman. However, the minister proceeded to announce the appointment of Mr. Donald Gordon to succeed Mr. Vaughan in the two offices of president and chairman of the board.
At the outset, I should like to make it quite clear that in thgse brief remarks I am speaking for myself, and I do not claim to speak for anyone else. Moreover, I do not wish anyone to construe anything I may say about the appointment as a personal reflection in any sense upon Mr. Donald Gordon. What I have to say concerns the principle at stake in the appointment. So far as Mr. Gordon is concerned, I respect him as a man of great ability, a man of vigour. I say, Mr. Speaker, that in the appointment which has been announced the government has done violence to an important principle, the principle that hard work and faithful service should be recognized within an organization by promotion.
These two positions are positions of great importance. I do not suppose there are half a dozen positions in the whole of this country that are more important than the positions which have been filled in the way indicated by the government today. As I said, the principle which in my submission has been violated is the principle that the office should be filled by promotion and that faithful service should be rewarded by promotion.
tMr. Church.]
It ought to have been possible to fill these high offices by promotion within the executive organization of the Canadian National Railways. Was that impossible, Mr. Speaker? I say this: If it was found to be impossible then it is a reflection upon the administration of that great institution. In a great organization of that kind, those charged with executive responsibility should be seized at all times with the responsibility of bringing on men capable of assuming greater executive responsibility. If, in the view of the government, such a man was not available within that organization then I say he should have been. If such a man was not available, then there has been some failure. Personally, I am disposed to believe that there were men of proven executive ability within the Canadian National Railways who are capable of meeting the demands of these two high offices.
I recall to you, sir, that when Mr. Hunger-ford was appointed president of the Canadian National Railways, that appointment was hailed by the government because it represented the appointment of a man who had worked his way up within the system. Similarly, when Mr. Vaughan was appointed president, the same thing was said, and rightly said. Here was the evidence for all to see. The reward of the highest rung on the ladder within the Canadian National Railways organization was available to those who were prepared to work and give faithful and devoted service.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Sir Henry
Thornton?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What do we find here? We find an appointment has been made which, in my view, is going to be very damaging to the morale of the organization. It simply means that those who have been carrying the responsibility in the organization are being told by the actions of this government that the top rung of the ladder is closed. It is not open to them. It will not be open for some time, in view of the fact that Mr. Gordon is, I believe, still in his forties. This means that those who have reached executive rank in that organization and those who, in the ordinary course, might expect to reach executive rank within the next few years, find that there has been a limit placed on the steps in the ladder that may be attained by promotion within the system.
It is the boast of the railways in the United States, and it is based upon ample evidence, that within the railway system there is a career open to merit. You will find that boast made throughout the railways of the United States, time after time, as one man comes to the presidency or a position of leading executive importance. In one railway

after another, you will find that the man has started on the lowest rung of the ladder in the railway system, whether as a section hand or train crew or any other position and has worked his way up until he has been rewarded with the highest executive position in the gift of the company-a career open to merit. And why should it not be so in Canada?
By the action of this government, those who had hoped there would be a career open to merit within the Canadian National Railways system, a career open right to the top, are now told that the career ends before the top rung of the ladder can be reached. That is one aspect of the principle, sir, involved in this appointment today. It is that principle to which violence has been done by the government.
The second aspect is that Mr. Gordon, with all his ability-and again I am stressing that I am not making any personal issue of this- is completely without experience in railroading. So far as I know, Mr. Gordon may not even have sought the office. I should like to tell the house, though, that a knowledge of railroading is not something that one can pick up in a month or two. I expect some hon. members of this house have had some experience in railroading. Over the past twenty years I have had considerable experience of a legal nature with railways, and I have had enough contact with them to know that the railway business is an exceedingly complicated one; it has many ramifications. The complexity of the business extends to its organization, its operations and to the manifold problems that railways face. A man without any experience at all in railroading has now been made chief executive officer of the Canadian National Railways.
The third aspect of the principle involved in this appointment is the question of how far the government is warranted in interfering with normal management and operation of a government-owned railway system. In my submission the Canadian National Railways system will function best if the government does not interfere with its management. If we are to have interference by government in the management of the railway, then the attempt of the Canadian National Railways to carry on efficiently will be bedevilled at every turn. I wish to pay this tribute to Mr. Vaughan. Throughout his tenure of office as president and chairman of the board, Mr. Vaughan sought to maintain that principle and to operate the system without interference of a political nature.
It is quite true that the statute under which this appointment has been made contemplates that the government should have
45781-44i
11, 1949
Canadian National Railways a voice in the appointment. Section 10, subsection 1, of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1936, which is chapter 25 of the statutes of that year, provides as follows:
The directors shall appoint, subject to the approval of the governor in council, a president of the national company who may be the chairman of the board of directors, or a person, other than one of the directors. The president, as such, shall hold office during the pleasure of the directors and, notwithstanding anything in this act, shall be paid by the national company such sum, salary or remuneration as the governor in council may approve.
It is clear that what the statute contemplates is that power of appointment should rest in the hands of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company, with a veto in the hands of the governor in council. It does not contemplate that the appointment of the president and chairman of the board should initiate with the government. With regard to the principle that I have submitted to the house as a desirable one to maintain, namely, that there should not be government interference in the operation of this railway system, I say to the house that great damage has been done today by the government. If this parliament really approves the principle of rewarding faithful service with promotion, then certainly we representing the people of Canada will wish to be an ideal employer as far as that may be possible. Representing the people of Canada as we do, we want to be the kind of employer who will be an example to other employers. In this government's action today, is there a worthy example to other employing organizations? I submit not. I submit that this is the kind of action that discourages people, when they see that the top jobs are not to be won by faithful service within the organization, when they see that these jobs go to people brought in from the outside by a government.
In my humble opinion there is far too much of this sort of thing throughout the government service generally, and it is going to be no help to the Canadian National Railways to see this sort of thing carried to the extent to which, in my submission, it is carried in the announcement made today, taking the plums and denying them to those who have worked faithfully within the service and who were legitimately entitled to feel that those plums were within their reach if they qualified within the fair rules of work. It is not simply a question of the effect on those who hold executive rank today; it is a question of the effect on the morale of every one right down to those on the lowest rung of the ladder in the whole Canadian National Railways system, when they see that this career is no longer one open to merit all the way through but is

Canadian National Railways open to merit only until they advance so far, and that the plums at the top are not to be won by faithful service.
Whatever may be said about the merits of Mr. Donald Gordon as a capable man-and again I emphasize the fact that I am making no reflection on him personally; I am not making a personal issue of this with regard to Mr. Gordon; I would have the same thing to say with regard to any appointment the government might have made today of anybody who had not been drawn from within the Canadian National Railways service-I think there is at stake here a vital principle that this house ought to vindicate, and that this principle has been shamefully violated in the government's decision that has been reported.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I want to say that I noticed something that surprised me greatly. He has protested against the appointment of Mr. Donald Gordon as president and chairman of the Canadian National Railways; but in the whole of his speech there is only one man for whom he had praise, and it was precisely that same Mr. Donald Gordon. He protested against the appointment but he praised the man. I do not intend to discuss whether he was right or not; I am not in a position to pass judgment. I shall wait to see what happens. Then I will express my opinion about Mr. Gordon.
I deeply regret that my friend the hon. member for Eglinton, who is so well informed about everything that is being done in this country and about everything that is published in the press, has overlooked the fact that last week one Ottawa paper mentioned the possibility of the appointment of Mr. Donald Gordon. It was then that he, with his foresight, should have warned the government against such a step; he should have asked the government on the orders of the day:	Is it true that Mr. Gordon is to be
appointed to such an important post? If he had found that to be so, he would have roared like all the guns of the navy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member indicate how that necessary warning might have been given on the orders of the day?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, the hon. member could have asked the government a question as he often does.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not warn them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no; first a question, before the warning, because it is important to be well informed before warning anyone. The hon. member could have asked the government, Is it true that Mr. Gordon will be appointed?


An hon. Member:: And be told that it is a matter of government policy.


Jean-François Pouliot: He might have been told: Yes, no, perhaps; or, it is none of your business. Whatever might have been the answer, he could have risen in protest.


An hon. Member:: And been out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: He could rise on any occasion and serve the house with his warning and introduce all the roaring of the guns.
There is something else that struck me as surprising, and it is this. When my hon. friend was speaking, he was deaf to my interjection. He mentioned some of the past presidents of the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Hungerford was with the Canadian Northern. Mr. Vaughan was with the railway a long time. But the biggest of them all was Sir Henry Thornton. He was not brought up with the Canadian National Railways. He was born in the United States but had served on the English railways during the war and made quite a success of his job at the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was a railway man with a lot of experience.


Mr. Mitchell:: Who chopped off his head?


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is necessary to be a railway man to have experience in the matter, how can my hon. friend, a Toronto lawyer, speak about it with experience?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to tell you sometime.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know my hon. friend can lecture anyone.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not half as well as you can.


Jean-François Pouliot: And always successfully, and it is a delight to listen to him. If Sir Henry Thornton had been a dwarf he would not have been forgotten, but he was physically the biggest man of his day. Mentally he was quite good, too. The hon. member had no reason to forget him, and if Sir Henry Thornton, who was not from the Canadian National Railways, was so popular amongst the employees that he is the only past president of any railway who has a tablet to commemorate him in all the important railway stations, it is a good example to cite.
One argument used by my hon. friend was that the appointment of Mr. Donald Gordon would be unpopular with the men because he

did not belong to them. That was his argument. On that point he did not mention the fact that Mr. Gordon was not a railway man. He mentioned the fact that he did not belong to the Canadian National personnel. Neither did Sir Henry Thornton. Therefore I hope that when my hon. friend makes another pro-nunciamento he will not speak so much ex cathedra and will be broad enough to admit that there is possibly another point of view and that perhaps the point of view of the other fellow may not be so bad after all.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to refer to the appointment for three or four minutes. There is no doubt about it that Mr. Donald Gordon did a great deal of useful work during the war and for a month or two afterwards in connection with the finance department. It was a Conservative government that established the Canadian National Railways as a national system many years ago, during 1919, 1920 and 1921. It proved to be a useful organization. There were two Vaughan brothers. The Vaughan family is an old family. In fact years ago when I was a very young alderman I sat with the father of Mr. Vaughan in the city council. One of the brothers went to the Canadian National Railways and performed a very useful public service. During the war he was overworked because of war work and many other activities. He dealt with many other economic conditions besides the railways and he rendered valuable service to the people of this country as president of the Canadian National Railways. His brother was one of the past presidents and head of Eaton's. It is well to remember that the principle of promotion might have been considered by the government, because I believe in the principle of promotion if you have a man with executive ability to take the place.
In the dark days of 1917 a royal commission was appointed to make a survey of the railway systems of this country. In this appointment one of the cardinal principles in the report of that commission is being violated. The Drayton commission consisted of Sir Henry Drayton, who was chairman of the board of railway commissioners at the time, Mr. A. H. Smith, who was president of the New York Central, and Mr. Acworth, a great British engineer, who during the war was head of a great system in England. He was a great railway man. It was said by the leaders of the government, the opposition, and others that Mr. Acworth was one of the greatest railway men of the great railways of the world. They were appointed to survey the railway system of this country, not only the C.N.R. but the other railways as well.
Canadian National Railways They reported to the government. What was their report? Their report said that there should be no appointment until it was agreed to by the railway commission.
In connection with this appointment, I think we might have tried to obtain a great British engineer. We tried three or four Americans before. They were all good presidents and did good work no doubt, but when we did not have a promotion in the ranks I believe we should have tried a great British engineer. We should have brought one out here. We should have tried an engineer who knew something about the war and war conditions in connection with the British railways. During the war over there they linked up all the various branches, which we have not got, and they performed useful service. I am sorry that the government did not consider that feature of it. That is all I have to say. No doubt Donald Gordon has been appointed by the financial powers. I wish him every success. I believe we would have been far better off if we had acted the way I proposed and got a British engineer. We should have tried one of that description to head this great national asset.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
296. General administration, $1,506,165.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
381. Departmental administration-formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $98,180.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
401. Departmental administration, $150,820.
Item stands.
Gordon Graydon: How many departments are left to be originally entered?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not absolutely certain. I have not been here every evening but I think eight are in.


Howard Charles Green: Ten.


Gordon Graydon: This will be thirteen out of the total number?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Casselman:: How many are there
altogether, sixteen or eighteen?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are five more.
6E6

Supply-Agriculture


DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
23.	Marketing service-marketing service administration, $150,090.
William Joseph Browne: What page is that on?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the item we discussed for the greater part of two hours the last time these estimates were before the committee. I think it is about time it was carried.


Gordon Graydon: That does not indicate a thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might not; I was not discussing it all the time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
24.	Marketing service-agricultural economics, $390,120.
Mr. Argue:: I notice that the department of agriculture in the United States issues statistics showing the share received by the farmer from the consumer's dollar. Their figures show that the farmer's share of the dollar paid by the consumer has dropped from 55 cents in 1948 to 48 cents thus far in. 1949. I believe there is a widespread feeling that the high cost of food to the consumer has been caused chiefly through high prices on farm products paid to the farmer.
I should think similar statistics would not be difficult to compile in Canada, and I wonder if the minister would consider having the economics division of his department compile statistics from time to time showing the farmer's share of the consumer dollar.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25.	Marketing service-dairy products, $594,077.
Mr. Calherwood:: The hon. member for
Leeds mentioned the surplus supply of canned milk in that county. Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us what are the prospects for the marketing of evaporated milk, powdered milk and condensed milk?


James Garfield Gardiner: That subject was discussed at considerable length the other evening, the question as to whether or not it is possible to market the butter-and I understand it is that to which the hon. member is referring.


A. Earl Catherwood: I am referring to evaporated milk.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are many different kinds of canned milk. I find that the stock of condensed milk at the beginning of 1948 stood at 2,654,000 pounds. The production during that year was 39,741,000 pounds. The exports amounted to 21,219,000 pounds and the domestic consumption was 17,587,000 pounds. The carryover at the end of the year amounted to 3,592,000 pounds.

That brings us down to the beginning of this year. Naturally we have not the figures yet for the end of the year, but we have figures down to the end of June. The total quantity of concentrated milk products manufactured in June was approximately 49,750,000 pounds, a decrease of 7 million pounds as compared with last year. Concentrated whole milk products declined to the extent of almost 7 million pounds, while milk by-products registered an increase of about 750,000 pounds. Evaporated milk, one of the most important of the whole milk products group, showed a decline of 4,500,000 pounds; and the production of skim milk powder, the leading skim milk product, declined 750,000 pounds.
The importance of those figures is that the production of all these milk products is on the decline. It may be argued by some that that is not a good thing. There are others however who would argue that, in the longtime interest of the dairy industry, it is not a bad thing to have the production of canned milk somewhat slowed down. The long-time planning and policy in connection with Canadian dairy farming has been that the surplus milk should go into the production of cheese. This has been due to a number of factors with which most members of the committee are familiar, and I do not feel I need discuss them this evening.
There are certain sections of Canada where it is most important, if they are to be able to carry on dairying effectively, that a very considerable quantity of milk be turned into cheese. There was a time, just at the end of the war, when it paid better to put milk in cans; and because it paid better to put milk in cans by far the greater part of the surplus over and above the whole-milk consumption and butter consumption went into cans. There was some difficulty in marketing the full amount of that production.
The result has been that the farmers have been delivering the milk to cheese factories rather than to canning factories in much greater quantities, and we are on the way back to producing greater quantities of cheese. I said in the discussion the other evening that, whereas we had entered into a contract with Great Britain at the beginning of this year to sell her 50 million pounds of cheese, no one who was preparing the statistics at that time thought we would be able to produce that amount, basing his estimates on the record of the last few years. But because of what I have just mentioned, namely the difficulty of marketing canned milk at the same price as that at which it had been marketed a year ago, the farmers turned over to cheese, with the result that at the end of

the season we had 10 million pounds more than we had contracted to sell to Great Britain.
I wish we had had a proper estimate at the beginning of the season, because I am satisfied that last December we could have sold that 10 million pounds of cheese to Britain. Had we known we were going to have 75 million pounds of cheese, we could have sold it. But since everyone who was compiling statistics and who was associated with the dairy industry in this country believed we could not produce more than 50 million pounds-indeed believed that we could not produce that much-we finally, in order to assist Britain in the matter of dealing with dollars in advance, said to her, "We will cut the contract down to 50 million pounds, because we think that is a little more than we are going to have".
This change in the balance between cheese and canned milk has put us back on the road we were trying to follow before, and which we found very difficult to follow, namely the process of producing cheese for the British market, which has always been available to us throughout the years, and which we believe will be available to us in the years ahead. And so now, when we are discussing a contract with Great Britain for the coming year, we are insisting upon raising rather than lowering the figures. I have an idea that we will get rid of the surplus of canned milk of one kind or another-and there are three or four different types of it. One would have to go over the figures for all of them to get the exact position.
I am of the opinion that we will be able to get rid of that canned milk to fairly good advantage, but indications are that we will not be able to get a return sufficiently high to induce people to stay away from the production of cheese. As I said a few minutes ago, I am not at all sure that that would be a bad thing for the dairy industry over a long period. It might be a good thing to encourage rather than discourage the transfer of more and more surplus milk into cheese.


George Taylor Fulford: During that transition period there would be 2,250 milk patrons in the county of Leeds who would not know which way to turn. The evaporated milk companies are still operating to the point where it is not economical for them to go ahead. They are building up every possible bit of storage and unless they are able to sell their stocks I do not know what is going to happen to the milk patrons. Through the years the number of cheese factories have diminished until, good as the factories are, they are simply not
Supply-Agriculture
able to look after the supply of milk available. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to getting rid of these surplus stocks that seem to be piling up beyond all reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
26.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $1,201,923.
Hazen Robert Argue: I understand that these subsidies are paid for storage plants at the processing and wholesaling levels rather than at the consumer or retail end. According to the details of the amounts to be paid out, it would appear that some areas will receive quite large subsidies while other areas will receive practically nothing. I notice that Quebec is to receive around $115,000; Ontario a little over $250,000; British Columbia some $400,000 while the total for the three prairie provinces will be a little less than $52,000. I am not complaining about the amounts to be received by any particular province, but I do want to point out that there is what I think is a real need for subsidies to locker plants in small towns, in particular on the prairies.
Many towns have inadequate train service during the winter months and it is impossible for the local merchants to bring in quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables. If an incentive were provided I am sure that a number of quick-freeze locker plants would be erected in the small localities. This would greatly improve the health of the people in the area and would provide a market throughout the year for perishable fruits and vegetables. I understand that there is some difficulty in finding a market for our fish. The farmers on the prairies would be glad to consume more Canadian fish if they could buy that wholesome product during the winter and place it in locker plants to be consumed during the summer. I submit that the minister and his officials should give serious consideration to extending this subsidy of thirty per cent to cover locker plants.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the Cold Storage Act dates back to 1907, which was long before we had the freezer plants that have been spoken of. The act provides that where a cold storage plant is made available to the public, whether it is under the control of an individual, of an operator or of a company, if it makes application before construction is started the government may agree to pay thirty per cent of the cost, half during the first year and the remainder being spread over the next three years.
I cannot recall an occasion when an application from Saskatchewan or Alberta has been refused. I think I am correct for

Supply-Agriculture
the fifteen years that I have been here, and I doubt very much if any applications were refused prior to that time. If similar amounts are not being paid to Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba as are being paid to other provinces in Canada, I think that is due to the fact that there are not as many in those particular provinces who have found it advisable to put in cold storage plants.
I think the real explanation has been given by the hon. member when he says that this type of storage is mainly to take care of products moving into market to be held in cold storage for a certain time. Usually these cold storages are located close to the larger centres where the consumption is going to take place. There is considerable storage in Winnipeg, Vancouver and many of the eastern cities.
The small freezer or locker plant has developed during recent years, particularly since the war. An amendment to this legislation was passed, I think two years ago, to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. If an individual was putting up a locker plant for the purpose of making a profit for himself, we were not so much concerned. But if a group of people got together to form a co-operative with the idea of putting up a plant of this kind, consideration would be given to providing assistance. In areas throughout the west or east, where groups of farmers or consumers get together in a village or town in order to create facilities of this kind, assistance can be given under this act. I think that is as far as we have gone to meet the situation outlined by the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for the information, but I can tell him that I do not think these facts are known throughout the country yet. I wonder if he could tell me tonight, or perhaps at a later date, how many applications the department has received for assistance to locker plants in the three prairie provinces during the last year or two.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been a number, but I have not the exact information. I can give it later.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I understand there have been a number of applications but they have not been passed upon as yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some are being paid.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Saskatchewan is to get $6,454 in 1949-50 for the Prince Albert Central Storage Limited. That does not look like a locker plant, and according to the estimates no other plants are to be given assistance. So I would like to know if the applications have been turned down or if decisions have not yet been made.
	*


James Garfield Gardiner: Applications have been
received since the act was amended. If those applications came in two years ago, or immediately after the amendment of the act, half the amount would be paid that year and a proportion in the succeeding years. It would not be a considerable sum of money in connection with that type of plant. As my hon. friend knows, there is no comparison between the amount of money invested in a locker plant in a village or town in Saskatchewan and the amount invested in a large cold storage plant, which sometimes runs into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In comparison these are very small plants, and it would take a number of them to account for even the $50,000 mentioned.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could name one locker plant in Saskatchewan that has ever received money under this grant. Personally I doubt very much whether anything has been paid to any locker plant there, but I should like to know.


James Garfield Gardiner: The present position as far as Saskatchewan is concerned is that we are still paying only on the Prince Albert plant. In other words the grants to the other cold storage plants there, of whatever type they may be, have been fully paid. I repeat that at the moment I cannot recall any considerable number of plants in Saskatchewan asking for this grant during the time I have been here. In other words, not as many plants of this type are being established in Saskatchewan as are found in some other provinces, the principal reason being that our cities have been pretty well supplied with cold storage facilities in previous years and are still being served by those facilities. I have in my office now an application from a gentleman who wants to put up a cold storage plant in Regina, and another from the same gentleman who wants to put up a plant in Saskatoon.


Hazen Robert Argue: A locker plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, a very large plant; not one of the type my hon. friend has been discussing, but an up-to-date plant that would take care of the same type of products on a much larger scale. That has not yet reached the stage where we have been able to pass upon the application. It has been discussed with us orally and we have had some letters with regard to it, but it is not in a form in which it can be finally considered by the government. I could name two or three or more who have applied to me for cold storage assistance. I have turned those applications over to the proper authorities in the department, but each individual concerned has not complied with the requirement that it

be made a co-operative, a plant that really belongs to the people making use of it. That is a matter for the judgment of the person putting up the plant. I presume they figure they can do better running it the other way, and instead of pressing for the grant I sup-pose they have gone ahead themselves.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then has the minister received any applications from co-operative associations for subsidies for the construction of locker plants on that basis? If he has not, I can tell him that he will get one or more in a very short time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say at the moment; but if I can get any co-operative to send in an application I assure you it will receive consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I can have one application in within a short time, and probably two or three more soon after that.


Mr. Fair:: Am I correct in assuming that this assistance would not be given to individuals building these plants for their own profit?	_


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we do not make the grant where the plant is put in by a butcher, let us say, for his own use in connection with his own business.


Mr. McLure:: Was there not an application from some people in Prince Edward Island, and particularly from Queens county, for cold storage subsidies or benefits? I brought up this matter over a year ago, in connection with a small butter and cheese factory known as the New Glasgow Dairying Company. I hope you have given that application consideration, and that the subsidy will be paid this year. While I am on my feet I might also ask whether there are cold storage plants in which butter can be kept for more than six months and still be fit for human consumption and, if so, where they are located.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there was one application from Prince Edward Island, as far as our records show, but that application was received after the building was under construction. Our act definitely states that unless the application is made before construction is commenced, the grant is not permitted. It would not be fair either to this committee or to the public to say that payments have not been made in cases where the applications have been made after construction was started, but any case of that kind has been brought here to the floor of the house as a special vote. If you go back over our estimates you will find there have been one, two or half a dozen of these grants which have been brought in individually. It has been explained when the vote was put
Supply-Agriculture
through why it was being done in that way. In other words the house itself legislates in connection with these individual cases after all the facts have been presented. I daresay that procedure would not be followed in connection with a plant that was deliberately proceeded with, the idea being that they did not need any assistance and therefore should not be required to live up to the regulations governing that assistance; and no doubt a large number of plants in Canada have had no assistance at all. They probably never applied for it. In some cases, application has been made years after the cold storage plant has been put up and it has been refused. The reason for refusing this particular one was, in the first place, that application was not made until after the building was under construction. My information is that the building was inspected and was found to lack a proper foundation. It was not considered, therefore, a proper structure upon which the government should make an advance.
Now, as to the question about the storage of butter for longer than six months, I am not a specialist on this question, but I am informed that any of the cold storage plants storing butter in Canada under government inspection will keep butter for longer than six months.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How much longer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know; that has never been tried out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian horticultural council, $928,660.
Angus Alexander Elderkin: Mr. Chairman, as a new member it is with a great deal of diffidence that I take the liberty of making a few remarks during the discussion of these estimates. As a farmer representing Anna-polis-Kings, which is essentially a rural constituency, I feel that I would be remiss in my duty not only to my constituents but also to this house, if I did not attempt to explain some things which are of vital importance to Annapolis-Kings. I hope they may be of considerable interest to all hon. members.
First, I should like to say how much the people of Annapolis-Kings appreciate the friendly and helpful attitude of the government to our problems. In particular, I should like to commend the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for their helpfulness during the past troublesome years. We particularly appreciate their splendid efforts in effecting a sale of Canadian apples to the United Kingdom this year.

Supply-Agriculture
Hon. members are probably aware that the Nova Scotia apple industry has been a war casualty since 1939. The financial support being given by the dominion and provincial governments to the marketing of Nova Scotia apples with a view to saving the industry will, I believe, be approved by the Canadian people generally. People will realize that the chief outlet for our apples in the United Kingdom has been lost through no fault of our own. When trees were set out in Nova Scotia which would produce the varieties most popular in Britain, there was every reason to believe that our crops would continue to be saleable in a stable and profitable market. With the loss of the British purchasing power, we now face the probability of being years without that profitable market.
In the meantime, attempts have been made to revamp our industry. Although we still talk in terms of barrels, there are four large modern cold storage plants in which standard boxes and crates are packed. There are also six smaller cold storage warehouses, and most of the common storage warehouses are now equipped to pack in containers other than barrels. Old trees and trees of unprofitable varieties are being removed. Much grafting into better varieties has been done, but there is still much to do. Each grower must now determine what he and his farm are best adapted to produce so that other products will be available to make up for the loss in fruit.
Last year's crop was a great disappointment. Starting with continuous wet weather in the spring and culminating in three severe frosts in October, while much of the abnormally small crop was still on the trees, the resultant returns to the growers were small. Thanks to the efforts of the Canadian government, this year a deal has been finalized whereby the British government will spend $1,500,000 for the purchase of Canadian apples. This is being matched by a like amount from the Canadian government. This is the type of assistance that many of the better growers have been hoping for, but unfortunately the prices being offered are too low to meet the high cost of production. Growers are naturally hopeful that they may be able to secure additional assistance to meet this year's expenses, and hope that such agreements may be finalized in the very near future.
To enlarge slightly on my statement-I shall try to be brief even at the risk of not making myself entirely clear-the sale price to Britain is based on 80 per cent of the price paid by the United Kingdom for Canadian apples in 1946. As there is a large crop of apples in the world today and we would all
[Mr. Elderkin.l
like to keep down the cost of living, this looked about right. Actually the price is not nearly enough to pay the cost of production. A large volume of apples not designated in the agreement with Britain, and which are not readily saleable on the domestic market, will also have to be taken into consideration. These will probably have to be sold to processors. The returns from these apples would vary from 60 cents for apples for vinegar to $2 per barrel for canning apples. With the exception of juice apples, warehouse expenses would be 25 to 50 cents per barrel, depending on the type of grading required for any particular processing job.
In 1948 the expenditure for spray material and fertilizer had increased two and one-half times over that of 1940. This year, there was again a marked increase in the cost of spray material and, to a lesser extent, in fertilizer. If the unit price of apples to Britain this year had been based on 100 per cent of our 1946 sales, we could probably have met the increased cost of production, but without any profit. This year's crop is not large, but it is much larger than last year's and the quality of the fruit is superior to any crop for the past several years. Having no wish to weary hon. members, I have not tried to be statistical, but merely to give a general outline in order that there might be a better appreciation of our problems.


Mr. Follwell:: Mr. Chairman, from what the hon. member has just said, I understand a deal has been made between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom for $3 million worth of apples. No doubt the minister negotiated this agreement. It is my understanding also that those apples are to be purchased in eastern Canada and western Canada. The minister knows that the constituency from which I come embraces the counties of Northumberland and Prince Edward, and is very good apple country. Would the minister be kind enough to explain to me, to my constituents and neighbours why the apples are not purchased in Ontario but from the other sections of the country? I am sure he has a good explanation. Would he care to answer that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the general position is that we have been trying to take care of the apple producers since 1939. I believe a fair job has been done and the producers will acknowledge that. In the first place, back in 1939, we started an attempt to arrange for the sale of the apple crop in Canada. In doing so, we found that the apple growers of Ontario and Quebec had exported very few apples. Most of their apples were sold in the central part of Canada.

In the first year, it was arranged that that market was not to be interfered with, except under permit. Then there was an attempt to deal with the surplus apples of Nova Scotia. Later on, the department was asked to deal with some of those of British Columbia as well, and we undertook to do that. As a result of entering into that arrangement at the beginning of the war, we have found it necessary to continue similar arrangements from that time until now. It was found as we went along that it was not necessary to have definite restrictions put upon the sale of apples out of the central provinces because all of the apples of the central provinces found a fairly ready market in the centres of those provinces; and it was found that in most years a considerable quantity of apples could be allowed to move from the maritime provinces to, say, Montreal and from British Columbia into cities right across eastern Canada. That was because of facts that I do not think it is necessary to discuss tonight any further than to recite them. But the general position was that each of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec was entitled pretty much to its own market as long as it could supply it, and when it could not supply it these apples came in from other parts of Canada. The prairie provinces were left entirely to British Columbia.
Nova Scotia, which produces most of the apples in the maritimes, found it extremely difficult to find a market anywhere except to the extent that they were allowed to get into the central part of Canada, or in case we could arrange a market for their apples in the United States or, as we did for a few years during the war, arrange a market for the greater part of their product in Great Britain. We were able to do that during most of the years of the war, but when we got down to the end of the war we found it even more difficult than during the war itself to obtain a market in Great Britain. On a previous occasion I recited the reasons for that fact, and it probably would only excite some political discussion if I were to recite them again tonight, so I shall save it for another occasion.
Nevertheless, we did get into the position last year where we took over 200,000 barrels of Nova Scotia apples. At one time we thought it might be a good thing to give the apples away. Some exception was taken to that course, so we put some of the apples in cans and dehydrated some of them. Finally we sold all of those apples that we could sell. Then when we found that we could not sell any more, we advertised right across Canada, in all the charitable organizations of the country and in hospitals, the fact that we had these apples and were prepared to provide
Supply-Agriculture
them free of cost other than, I think, the freight to have them shipped to those institutions. We finally disposed of the apples in that way at a cost to the government. I just recite these facts in order to show that the central part of Canada has not been left entirely out of the picture. We have kept the surplus apples off the market until such time as they have had an opportunity to supply any market that there is. We have not even given apples away until it was found that the position had been fairly well taken care of in so far as the purchases of apples were concerned. We now come down to this year.
Britain did not want any apples. I was over there in January and told them about the hundreds of thousands of trees that had been pulled out because they could not buy the apples. I must say that that statement obtained more circulation in the press of Great Britain than anything else I had ever said in that country. They thought it was a rather difficult position to see Canadians in, after what they had done during the war, where they were compelled to pull out hundreds of thousands of trees simply because the British could not take the apples. The Minister of Trade and Commerce went over there a little later and was able to prevail upon them to put $1,500,000 into buying, as they thought in the beginning, Nova Scotia apples. I do not think they had in mind any other apples at the time they were talking first, largely because of the story that had been circulated with regard to pulling out trees and doing all these things to try to suit our position to the new developments. They agreed to that, conditional upon our putting $1,500,000 into the purchase of apples too.
The people of Nova Scotia are still asking us to do for their apple crop this year something similar to what we have done in other years. We suggested to them that we thought, before discussing that question, that they ought to take part of the offer the British had made. The British offered to take $1,500,000 worth of those apples at 80 per cent of the 1946 price. They said they thought the price had been too high last year, that it had been too high the year before, and that the price which was being asked this year was too high; but they said they were prepared to take $1,500,000 worth at 80 per cent of the 1946 price. As will be recalled, that was the year when Britain took a considerable part of the apple crop of the maritimes and of British Columbia.
We discussed the matter with the apple producers of Nova Scotia and suggested that we thought that it would not be a bad thing, from the point of view either of the present or of future possibilities of marketing apples
6S2

Supply-Agriculture
in Great Britain, if they would accept the offer at 80 per cent of the 1946 price. They went home with that intention. Now I understand that, when they examined into the varieties that they had, it is true to say that they have not been prepared up to now to undertake to supply this season the total quantity of apples that the British are prepared to take from them. They are reserving the right to decide later on a certain proportion of the amount that is required. British Columbia has agreed to take up its proportion of the apples, and to ship at the prices that have been indicated. I understand that in the area that is spoken of, down around Northumberland, they feel that they would like to fill part of this contract. I am given to understand that if they are prepared to take the price that is offered by the British for the apples, namely 80 per cent of the 1946 price, there probably will not be much difficulty in their selling part of those apples. Up to now it has not been indicated to us that Nova Scotia is prepared to provide them all. I think there must be some limitation upon the time during which they will be required to provide them; and if they are not prepared to provide the remainder of the quantity at the price which is indicated, and if there are others elsewhere in Canada who are prepared to put the apples up at those prices, I think the government would be in duty bound to accept their offer to do so and to see to it that the apples are sent forward. That is the present position in relation to the matter.
I wish to say without any hesitation that we are desirous of getting out of the apple business just as fast as we can. We have said to the people of Nova Scotia: If you can sell your apples at a price which is sufficiently good to make it unnecessary for you to accept this British offer, then we are not so sure that you are having any great difficulty in marketing your apples. When I look at the figures which indicate that we are eating in Canada now more apples than we marketed altogether inside and outside of Canada in the last year before the war, I am beginning to think that there may be something in their contention that they can sell their apples to better advantage in Canada than they can by sending them to Britain under the offer that Britain has made. And I would be a little afraid that, if that is true of Nova Scotia, it will be true of Ontario as well, and perhaps more so, and we may find it a little difficult to get apples at those prices.


Mr. Herridge:: The minister has clearly explained the situation with regard to apples being purchased by Britain and the apples being paid for by the Canadian government and going to England. He will remember

that for some years the British government refused to accept gift apples unless consigned direct to the ministry of food. A few days ago I saw some report in the press of a change in that situation whereby they would accept from the producer organization or grower organization apples consigned direct to the consumer in Great Britain. Can the minister explain to the house what the situation is at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: This latter matter of boxes going from others to the government is just individual to individual. If any hon. member desires to send a box of apples over to a friend in Britain he would be permitted to do so, but that is not a matter-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The British have agreed to that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; but it is not a matter of providing apples to the trade direct if they are a gift, and the $1,500,000 worth of Canadian apples to all intents and purposes is a gift.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did I understand the minister to say that the Canadian government has in fact provided $1,500,000 and the British government $1,500,000, making $3 million in all?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the British government have agreed to take their $1,500,000 first, and as they are being delivered they are paying for them. From there on the Canadian government will be paying for whatever apples are purchased, and they have agreed to purchase all the $1,500,000, provided the apples are offered at the price.


Mr. Quelch:: Is the price paid by the Canadian government based upon the 1946 price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the same price.


George Alexander Cruickshank: From all parts of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present arrangement is from the maritimes and Nova Scotia largely and from British Columbia. Definite amounts are set, but, as I indicated a few moments ago, the Nova Scotians are not sure that they want to provide all the quantity that has been allotted to them, in which case we have said to other parts of Canada: if you want to supply them at the price, that will be possible.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to touch on another aspect of the fruit and vegetable matter. It has nothing to do with the point which has just been discussed. As the minister well knows, the lifting of the import restrictions on many classifications of fresh fruits and vegetables coming into Canada, which was announced by the Minister of Finance not so very long ago, has a direct bearing and may have a material effect upon the future of some of our growers. I mention

that only for this particular reason, namely, to emphasize a point which is very often brought to my attention by the growers in my section of the country. I refer specifically to what is commonly known as the dumping duties on the tail end of the United States surplus produce coming into this country and competing with the initial period of the market for many of our crops. In view of the fact that this is one of the delicate subjects that growers from time to time find on their doorsteps, perhaps the government might give consideration to it. I know that the minister himself does not actually set the time limit and the timing of the application of the dumping duties on the imports of Unijed States fruits and vegetables, but his department does have an important part to play, together with the recommendation of the growers and others, in the timing. I should like to emphasize this one fact, because since the import restrictions have been lifted the necessity becomes greater than ever before to protect the growers when the first part of their crop is about to be marketed, particularly in the spring or in other times of the year. As the minister knows, from time to time there has been a disposition to allow the United States stuff to spill over onto the market which our growers feel should be theirs at the beginning of their season. The minister and the committee will readily agree that many of our growers of fresh fruits and vegetables find that the early part of their market is their best market, and for that reason it is that much more essential that that period should be protected. The complaint, which no doubt the minister and many of us who come from fruit and vegetable areas receive, is that when the time is set for the dumping duties to operate an immense amount of rolling stock is on its way here and in the first period of the marketing season of our own fresh fruits and vegetables the United States stuff, which is surplus very largely, is dumped upon our markets to the detriment of our own producers. There has been a disposition to work out a reasonable solution of the problem. When they are not in a position to serve the domestic market in Canada with many of these delicious fresh foods our growers may not have objected quite so strenuously to the market being taken care of in other ways, but they do seriously object when they themselves are able to fill the market, and particularly in the first part of their producing season. At that time they do seriously object to the United States surplus being dumped on the market, thereby spoiling what would otherwise be a very good market for many of the growers. What my argument is attempting to buttress is this. In some instances there ought to be a little
Supply-Agriculture
earlier application of the dumping duties on some of the fresh fruits and vegetables. I make these remarks in a general way because I do not want to take up the time of the committee except to urge the government to review the situation very carefully. In view of the import restrictions having been lifted, my argument becomes more forceful in regard to the point I am trying to make, and that is, an earlier application of the dumping duties to enable our growers to get the best advantage of the early part of the market for their produce.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to say one word. The term "dumping duties", as the hon. member for Peel will understand, is not usually applied to this particular operation. There is a dumping duty provided for in the act which operates automatically with regard to different products. We have usually called these seasonal duties. They are put on for the purpose of regulating the coming onto this market of fruits and vegetables largely from the United States at a time just prior to the coming onto the market of Canadian products, at a time, as has been suggested, when the fruits and vegetables coming from farther south are at the tail end of their season.
There is no act that is administered by the different departments that is more carefully administered than this particular one. The initial action is taken by the horticultural association in indicating when they desire to have certain things done. That is then checked by the department concerned; and, as has been said, the Department of Agriculture has a great deal to do with setting dates when the act comes into operation in connection with certain vegetables or fruits. That is all done most carefully. The hon. member said he did not think that the minister had much to do with it. As a matter of fact the minister had nearly everything to do with it up to a certain point, and the minister finally said that he did not think he had the time to examine into all of these matters in the manner in which they should be examined into, and insisted upon some others doing that particular job. I must admit now that I do not do as much of the work in connection with it as was done by the minister at one time, but I do not think it means that it is done any less efficiently than it was done before. I had an idea that it would be done more efficiently if it were done in the manner in which it is done now. I have had little, if any, complaint about it during the time it was in operation. It is true that while the special provision that shut out certain American fruits and vegetables altogether was on it was not necessary for the act to operate. Now that that has been

Supply-Agriculture
done away with, the other act does operate. The greatest of care will be taken in deciding upon the dates.


Mr. Knight:: Perhaps honey would fall under this item. It would be interesting to the committee and the country if the minister would tell us the situation with respect to honey this year, in somewhat the same manner that he told us about the government's operations in apples. My recollection is that last year there was a surplus to the extent of several million pounds of honey. The matter was so serious that the government was forced to place a floor price under it. As I recall-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-I believe that price was thirteen cents a pound.
Would the minister give some information in regard to that operation? For example, what loss to the government was involved, if any; and what is the situation this year in connection with a possible surplus on the market?


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year it was represented to us that there was a surplus of 5 million pounds of honey on the Canadian market. Statistics presented to us by the honey producers led us to believe that that was correct. The question was discussed in the house last session and was also discussed with the government. Finally the government decided, and the announcement was made to the house, that we were prepared to provide funds sufficient to purchase 5 million pounds of honey in surplus supply, and to take it off the Canadian market for the time being with a view to finding a market elsewhere for it.
The fact is that we were never able to find more than 3 million pounds. We did buy that amount at prices ranging from 10 to 13 cents a pound. As this honey is pasteurized it will keep. We know that this year the producers have a short crop, and it will require the whole 3 million pounds-and probably we could use a little more-to supply the market with honey this year. So that there is no problem in connection with that. It is simply a matter of our having taken off last year's market 3 million pounds of honey, carrying it over to this year. Now we are able to put it back on the market to increase the short supply produced this year.


Gordon Graydon: Had the drought something to do with that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it had a great deal to do with it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is it correct that last year the growers of raspberries and strawberries were threatened with penalties by the
[Mr. Gardiner.)
states of Oregon and Washington in which state legislation was proposed whereby we would not be able to ship our produce to those states; and is it a fact that we took steps pointing out to them that we purchased from those states and that in turn we should be allowed to make deliveries to them?


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that the legislation passed last year by the state of Washington along the lines suggested by the hon. member was later rescinded.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was due to the fact that, after representations from British Columbia, the government here in Ottawa made representations to the Capitol at Washington, and they in turn made representations to the state of Washington as a result of which the legislation was rescinded. I am not aware of any legislation put forward this year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I do not think there is any.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there were any further difficulties, they would meet with similar treatment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28. Marketing service-livestock and livestock products, $1,113,750.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I notice there is an increase in the vote for the administration of this item. What new arrangements have been made with reference to the marketing of raw furs this year? Are we going to adopt a system similar to what we had last year, one which was not too successful so far as the producer is concerned?
This industry was cruelly treated by the late government in matters of taxation, and it took out of the industry, through taxes large sums of money-so much indeed that it drove the industry almost into bankruptcy.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What do you mean by "the late government"?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Just you keep quiet. Now that times have changed a little, I suggest the government should adopt a different system of grading. Does it intend to drive the industry off the face of the earth altogether? Four years ago this country was producing 285,000 silver fox skins; today production will be down below 45,000. There should be an advantage in the market, when there is no surplus.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We got 182 skins this year.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If there is going to be a surplus, we want to know how these skins are

going to be marketed. I see a provision here for two graders, one of whom receives $4,000 or $5,000 and the other $3,000 or $4,000. That is all right, but the government is making the grade so exclusive and so high that no producer today, unless he is producing the very top from all his animals, can get anywhere near the cost of feed and wages from the sale of the furs.
It is time we had some consideration, because it is only a few years ago the government was warned that because of the unjust taxation they were placing upon raw furs they were driving the industry out of production altogether. They had a process tax on the raw article, and then on top of that a sales tax. These were the most unjust forms of taxation ever perpetrated upon any product of the farm.
There is now an opportunity for the government to look into the marketing of furs. If the government is going to give assistance to the fur producers by way of subsidy, let it subsidize sales so that the producers will receive at least the cost of production. That can be done by putting in a grading system whereby they will not grade against the price of the article, but rather grade the article as it is needed on the market.
I say the minister should give these people an opportunity to come back and receive some of the money taken from them by taxation, so they may be established once again and kept in business. I would ask that the minister give this matter some consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
29. Marketing service-marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $75,000.
A. Earl Catherwood: Perhaps the minister
would answer a question at this time about the marketing of poultry products. In December of this year the Anglo-Canadian contract for poultry products expires. By the end of this year we will have produced and shipped to England some 46 million dozen eggs, dried, shell and frozen. It looks as though the production will be increased in 1950 and we will need a market for something like 400 million dozen eggs in all forms. A total of 350 million dozen eggs will be produced this year of which, as I said before, 46 million dozen will be shipped to the mother country.
I know the minister is concerned about the marketing of our egg products and I wonder if he could give us some assurance that this market will be maintained next year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, as has been stated during the war, we did develop a
Supply-Agriculture
market in Great Britain for nur eggs. In the year before the war we marketed one million dozen eggs in Britain. But at the peak during the war or at the end of the war we marketed 83 million dozen. Part of those were marketed as shell or fresh eggs, part as storage eggs and part as dried or frozen eggs.
About 24 months ago we were just at the peak of supplying the British market. It is true that the year before last the British came over and suggested that they would have difficulty in taking all our eggs, but they finally entered into a contract to take them last year. Then last year they came over and suggested that they could get along without our eggs. It was not a case of their not wanting them, it was not a case of there not being a market there, it was a case of their trying to determine where they might spend the limited amount of dollars that they had.
They said that they could get eggs from other places, or at least supplies which would permit them to get along without ours. At that time we indicated to them that we would have some difficulty in meeting their wishes in that regard. In that regard I must emphasize to the committee that our position in relation to the British has not been quite what it has been pictured throughout the country.
The British have come to us with a problem. They have said that they found it difficult to get enough dollars with which to buy in Canada all the things they would like to buy. We have told them that we could scarcely be expected to ask our people to take lower returns and could scarcely be expected to feed a nation of much greater numbers of people than we have unless we could receive some return.
We told them that we were prepared to try to find a market for what they were not able to take and pay for. As has been indicated in this discussion, in some cases where we have failed to find a market for a product, such as apples, we have provided some of the product to them at our own cost. But we have avoided that as much as we could recently. In connection with eggs, we told them that we thought we could find a market for all of our shell eggs in Canada or the United States, that we could induce our people to eat a few more and be careful when marketing in the United States to do so without causing any difficulty.
If we just said to our producers that they could ship all the eggs they wished to the United States probably most of those eggs would find their way to border cities like Detroit, Buffalo and a few other places. Then there would be trouble with the producers in the vicinity of those particular cities. Instead of doing that, our people went down to cities like St. Louis and other points in the centre

Supply-Agriculture
of the United States away from the boundary and made arrangements for our fresh eggs to be delivered to those interior points.
We had expected to sell far more eggs in the United States on that basis than we did. We could have sold far more eggs but the eggs were not available to be sold. In other words, that quantity of eggs, which the British were not required to take and which we thought we could sell on this and the United States market, we did not have to supply to any market.
I am not blaming anybody for that. I think our producers, whether of eggs or of any other product, look at the whole position and try to meet the situation as they find it to their best advantage. I presume that they handled their position in a manner which was satisfactory.
When it came to dried eggs we insisted on the British taking the 46 million dozen which we estimated at that time could be produced in that form. The British agreed to take them but it would appear at the moment that we probably will not supply more than 34 million dozen.
I merely cite this in order to say to people who are always talking about our having lost markets, about our not being able to find markets for our products, that one of our difficulties has been that we have not been able to find the product to put on the market. There is a good reason for that. Something was said about grading furs. This does not apply in just the same way to furs as it does to eggs. You can soon get eggs into a position where nobody wants to eat them, and it is not so many years ago that that was the position in this country. But we undertook to grade all eggs that were going on the market and in a few years we doubled the consumption in Canada per head of population. We have gone on to increase that from time to time by getting out a product that everyone is desirous of eating.
To answer the last part of the hon. member's question, may I say that we are attempting to make a contract with the British. We hope to make one that will take
care of any surplus we may have. We are hopeful that when these contracts are made our people will put forth an effort to see that the product is produced to supply the market. I do not think anyone up to now is contending that the price range on all these products in the last few years has not been fairly good. If it has been fairly good, and if we want to market more products in the markets that are available, then I think we ought to produce them and put them on the market.


A. Earl Catherwood: I know the minister feels sure that our farmers would like to be assured that there will be a market for 1950. Does the minister feel in his own mind that there will be a substantial market in 1950 for poultry products?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing has happened which would indicate that it will be in any respect different from what it has been in the past year, and we did find markets for more than they were able to produce.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Tomorrow is private members' day and the rules provide that notices of motions will have priority over other matters.


[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]
Marketing service-
23.	Marketing service administration, $150,090.
24.	Agricultural economics, $390,120.
25.	Dairy products, $594,077.
26.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $1,201,923.
27.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian horticultural council, $928,660.
28.	Live stock and live stock products, $1,113,750.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 12, 1949