1949-09-30

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to mention a subject that is in the minds of members of parliament, and, I believe, a large section of the public. My subject is a permanent home in Ottawa for Canada's prime ministers. Canada is one of the few countries that does not have an official residence for its prime minister. Most of us realize the difficulty of a prime minister, coming to Ottawa for an uncertain tenure, in obtaining the type of house suitable to the high office he holds.
Some years ago the government purchased the Edwards property, which is located on the banks of the Ottawa river adjacent to the French embassy The government purchased the property without any particular purpose in mind. At the moment it is rented to the Australian high commissioner and used as a legation. The lease on the property expires on the first of November. Today the government, acting in the absence of the Prime Minister, has decided to ask parliament to make it possible to rehabilitate the house by making provision for the cost of alterations, repairs and future maintenance. If there is no serious opposition to this program, the house will be asked, in the estimates for 1950, to provide funds for the required repairs, alterations and future maintenance of that property as a home for Canada's prime minister.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Shortly before the opening of this sitting, Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of. the government's decision to make arrangements for an official residence for Canada's prime ministers. I feel sure the decision is one which will meet with the general approval of the members of this house and of citizens in every part of Canada. Members of parliament know-it may not be known generally throughout the rest of the country-the extent to which the Prime Minister of Canada is called upon to receive official visitors.
Certain duties which are essential to that high office should be a part of the responsibility of the state.
I am not in a position to give any opinion as to the particular residence mentioned. I do wish to express our satisfaction that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity of carrying on his official duties and receiving official visitors in a manner more in keeping with Canada's present position in world affairs. These visits of important and distinguished visitors are no mere social engagements. They are part of world development in one of the most important periods of history. The fact that in these days Ottawa should be visited by so many of the leaders of other nations is in itself evidence of the importance that Canada has assumed in the minds of the governments of other countries. It will assist the Prime Minister of Canada, not only in receiving those important visitors but in carrying out his own heavy personal duties, to have a permanent home, where, as the elected head of the government of Canada, he can discharge his responsibilities in a manner that will be in keeping with the status of Canada in the world today.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the announcement was made this afternoon that a home will be provided for the prime ministers of Canada. I am also grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for mentioning this matter before the opening of this sitting, because I can now speak not only for myself, but for my colleagues, whom I have had an opportunity to consult.
The house that has been chosen is beautifully situated on the Ottawa river. I am sure that visitors to Canada who are entertained there will appreciate the beauty of the city more than they would if they were housed in a hotel in the heart of the city. I know where the house is, and I know something about it. Several times since the minister spoke about this matter, I have wondered whether the government might not be well advised to build a new house, with modern conveniences, and perhaps more suitable for the purpose in mind, instead of reconditioning or rebuilding the interior of an old house. I hope the government may give some consideration to this suggestion.
I am glad that the Prime Minister is to be suitably housed; and I hope that we in this
386	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Ministers parliament may all co-operate to the end that all the Canadian people, both rural and urban, may be suitably housed.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: It gives me considerable satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, to be able to say on behalf of our group in the house that we welcome the announcement which has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am not acquainted with the particular property he has mentioned, but I am sure the government has made ihvestigations and knows whether it would be better to build a new house or to recondition the old one.
While the government is making provision for a home for the Prime Minister, I think they should consider also the question of furnishing adequate recompense for him by way of indemnity. The prime ministers of this country have been notoriously underpaid. Over the years they have been called upon to make sacrifices far beyond the measure of the services they have given to the country.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: As all of
the prime ministers since confederation-Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, Lord Bennett and Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King-have lived in my riding, I think it is only fitting that the permanent home of the prime minister of Canada should remain in Ottawa East. I am thankful to the government for its decision.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: As the
one who first mentioned this matter in the house this year, Mr. Speaker, I am sure I express the gratitude of those who, in debate, urged that this very step be taken. I assume that this residence will be for any prime minister, the leader, male or female, of any government party.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have class II Canadian wheat prices been altered following the government's action in devaluing the Canadian dollar? If so, what is the change in price? *


Clarence Decatur Howe: Class II wheat is wheat sold outside the contract with the government of the United Kingdom, and outside the inter-


national wheat agreement. The price of Canadian wheat is the world price, adjusted to the value of the Canadian dollar. When the Canadian dollar was devalued, the price of class II wheat increased by roughly ten per cent.	*


Howard Charles Green: In other words the price was brought up as though the Canadian dollar were at par with the United States dollar?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us an assurance that such action will not retard the sale of this Canadian wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as I know, all wheat moving to class II countries is on the same price level. There are not many countries buying class II wheat today. I believe there are some thirty countries within the international wheat agreement, and those countries purchase wheat under the terms of the agreement. United Kingdom transactions are covered by a bilateral contract. It is only to countries outside the wheat agreement that sales of class II wheat are made. We have made sales of class II wheat in considerable volume this year, and I know of nothing in the revaluation that would change the situation. It is still as cheap as any other wheat.



DEVALUATION OF POUND STERLING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What steps are being taken by the government to offset the ill effects of devaluation of sterling on our newsprint trade with Britain, and to prevent the switch of Britain's newsprint imports from Canada to soft-currency Scandinavian countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The strongest possible representations have been made to the authorities in the United Kingdom as to the desirability of continuing the purchase of newsprint in Canada. British members of the United Kingdom-Canada continuing committee on trade have just left Canada. While they were here we placed the situation before them as strongly as we could. While we appreciate the right of the government of the United Kingdom to spend their dollars as they think best, we are hopeful that the trade in newsprint that has been going on for many years will continue under the present situation.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Thomas Richard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it true that the R.C.M.P. have reported that the ancient weapons used by the Argonauts to stampede the Alouettes are considered to be obsolete and extremely hazardous if used against the devastating attack of the supercharging Rough Riders tomorrow?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the special committee on government annuities, promised by the minister on June 30, 1948, be set up at this session?


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another broken promise.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is all right for my hon. friend to say that, Mr. Speaker; but when it comes to promises, I think he has the world licked, including this House of Commons.



OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to present a bill to establish under the direction of the Minister of Transport a corporation to be called Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation to take over the property and equipment of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, and Cable and Wireless, Limited, used in connection with the external communication services. These communication services to be operated by the corporation and co-ordinated with the ser-ices of other parts of the commonwealth.
The Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council to be authorized to pay to the corporation out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund an amount not exceeding in the aggregate four and one-half million dollars and in addition thereto such moneys as may be appropriated by parliament for the capital purposes of the corporation.
The Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council to be authorized to lend, from time to time, moneys to the corporation out of unappropriated moneys of the consolidated revenue
45781-25J
Overseas Telecommunication Act
fund, for temporary purposes, the aggregate outstanding at any time not to exceed $100,000.
The amount of losses suffered by the corporation in any year to be paid to the corporation from moneys appropriated by parliament for that purpose.
The amount of the profits realized by the corporation in any year to be paid to the Receiver General of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement explaining this proposed measure?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I thought the proper place to make it was on second reading, but I am prepared to make it at this stage.
In a statement to the house on November 8, 1945, concerning commonwealth communications, the then acting prime minister stated that the Canadian government had indicated its willingness to nationalize external telecommunication services-in other words to acquire the overseas telecommunication facilities owned and operated in Canada by the Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, and Cable and Wireless, Limited.
I think perhaps I should here give the house a brief outline of the history of external telecommunications. The present organization of these services goes back to 1928, when the position created by the competition between the beam wireless telegraph services and the submarine cable telegraph services came under review by the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, 1928.
The recommendations of the conference were approved by the governments of the commonwealth, and as a result two companies were formed: one, a merger company owning practically all the shares of the old cable companies and the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company; the other, now known as Cable and Wireless, Limited, an operating company owning all the communication assets of the merger company, certain cables previously-owned by the governments of the commonwealth, and a lease of the beam wireless stations in the United Kingdom then owned by the United Kingdom post office. At the same time there was established a communications advisory committee-now the commonwealth communications	council-a body which
included representatives of the dominion and which was given certain powers of control over policy and rates. This committee was the official means of communications between the various governments and the company.
Soon after the formation of Cable and Wireless, Limited, operating difficulties became apparent. There was serious contraction in international trade in 1930, and in addition the company had to face foreign competition, particularly from new wireless, telegraph services. These difficulties led to a review of the relationship between Cable and Wireless, Limited, and the governments of the

Overseas Telecommunication Act commonwealth, and certain changes were made in the operational and financial arrangements.
Coming down to the war years, I should mention that direct radio circuits were established between the United States and many parts of the commonwealth. Such circuits were opened on the understanding that their operation was limited to the duration of the war, but it later became evident that it would be inexpedient to close them, notwithstanding the fact that their retention would result in a loss of revenue to the commonwealth cable and radio circuits.
The problems which had arisen were *considered at the commonwealth telegraph conference held in Australia, and later by the [DOT]commonwealth communications council at a meeting in 1944. The view of the council was that the needs of the commonwealth telecommunications system were not being adequately served, and that there should be a change in the organization. Companies existed in the dominions and India; nevertheless the main instrument of commonwealth telecommunications was Cable and Wireless, Limited, a United Kingdom company owning a substantial interest in the capital of local companies. The council felt it was essential that the dominions and India should have a greater share in the administration of the commonwealth telecommunications system with a view to building it up as a whole on both cable and wireless sides. It was also felt that a company with obligations to private shareholders might not be in a position to provide a service which would fully satisfy public needs and strategic requirements.
Early in 1945 Lord Reith, on behalf of the United Kingdom government, visited the dominions and India to explain the point of view of the British government. Following these discussions the commonwealth telecommunications conference was held in London in 1945, and the conference unanimously recommended public ownership of the overseas telecommunication services of all the commonwealth governments. Pursuant to this recommendation the United Kingdom government purchased all the shares of Cable and Wireless Limited which it did not already own, and subsequently an agreement, designated as the "over-all agreement", and now known as the commonwealth telegraphs agreement, was signed in London on May 11, 1948, by representatives of each of the commonwealth governments, referred to in the agreement as the partner governments.
The agreement provided, in part, that each partner government in whose territory a local company is operating external telecommunication services shall purchase all the
[Mr. Chevrier.l
shares in the local company or otherwise acquire the local company's undertaking; that for the purpose of acquiring the local assets and of operating and maintaining its external telecommunication services each partner government shall either nominate an existing department or other body or establish a public corporation having the powers necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the agreement, such agency being referred to in the agreement as "the national body"; and that for the purpose of promoting the efficiency and development of the external telecommunication services of the commonwealth there shall be established a body known as the commonwealth telecommunications board.
The functions of this board will be mainly advisory, but substantially wider than those of the commonwealth communications council which it replaces, and including: (a) the formulation of joint telecommunication policy, including rates; (b) the co-ordination and development of the wireless and cable systems of the commonwealth; (c) the co-ordination with the appropriate authorities oJ telecommunication matters affecting the defence of the commonwealth; (d) the coordination and conduct of research; (e negotiations with foreign telecommunicatior interests, if requested to undertake these bj the commonwealth governments.
Cable and Wireless, Limited, was transferred to public ownership of the Unitec Kingdom under the Cable and Wireless Act effective January 1, 1947, with the shart capital of the company transferred to th( United Kingdom government. The company will remain in being as a government-ownec company and will continue to own the asset: and operate the telecommunication service; outside the United Kingdom apart from thosi to be operated by the respective nationa bodies of the partner governments. Thi commonwealth telegraphs bill which wa presented to the United Kingdom parliamen on February 1, 1949, provides for the estab lishment of the commonwealth telecom munications board and for the transfer of th assets of Cable and Wireless, Limited, in th United Kingdom to the United Kingdon general post office, its national body, effectiv April 1, 1950.
The governments of Australia, New Zea land and South Africa have already passe the necessary legislation to establish thei national bodies. Southern Rhodesia too: over operation of its external telecommuni cation services on April 1, 1949, and Indi on January 1, 1947, while the policy of th governments in Pakistan and Ceylon has nc yet been decided.

Overseas Telecommunication Act
Canada has approved the financial arrangements under the "over-all agreement", based on the wayleave scheme as recommended by a conference of financial experts from the commonwealth countries, including Canada, held in London in October, 1947, on the understanding that final acceptance will be conditional upon acceptance by all commonwealth governments concerned.
In brief, these arrangements call for, first, each country to retain all receipts on originating traffic, less out-payments to carrier companies handling such traffic other than carriers of the national bodies; second, each national body to make payments towards the expenses of the commonwealth telecommunications board, based on the proportion of its receipts to the total net receipts of all national bodies; third, each national body to make wayleave payments to the central board towards the over-all expenses of maintaining and operating all common user cable and radio services of the commonwealth telecommunications system, based on the proportion of its net receipts to the total receipts of all national bodies.
Under the wayleave scheme, the Canadian body, namely, the proposed Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, the establishment of which is provided for in the bill to be brought down, will, according to figures made available by the commonwealth communications council, based on 1947 traffic volume, show an annual profit of approximately $50,000. My technical officers are inclined to put this estimate at a higher figure. I might add that the financial effects of the wayleave scheme are to be reviewed by the central body immediately after figures for one year's operations are available from all national bodies.
The resolution now presented to the house can, I believe, be divided into five heads, which provide, first of all, for the establishment of a corporation to be known as the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, which will take over the telecommunication assets of Cable and Wireless, Limited, together with those of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited.
The object, too, of the corporation will be to operate these telecommunication services not only in this country but also in cooperation and in co-ordination with other commonwealth countries. The second part of the resolution provides for funds for this purpose. As stipulated there, they are not to exceed the sum of $4,500,000. It also provides for working capital.
The third part of the resolution provides for loans which may be made to the corporation from time to time, none of which on any occasion shall exceed the sum of $100,000. The two remaining paragraphs provide, first, for losses which may be made by the corporation, such losses to be voted by parliament, and, second, for payment to the Receiver General of Canada of profits which may be made by the corporation.
If the house so desired, I would be prepared to make any further remarks when the bill is presented. I understand in the resolution stage it is not the custom to debate the measure at length, and perhaps I might limit my remarks at the present time to what I have just said.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before going into committee, at which time questions may better be asked, perhaps I might direct one or two questions to the minister. He may indicate whether he would prefer to give the information now, or when the bill reaches the committee stage.


Lionel Chevrier: I would prefer to give it in committee on the resolution, if I may.


George Alexander Drew: Then I shall defer my questions until we reach the committee stage.
May I point out that the presentation of this resolution follows a course which has been followed in every one of the dominions, with the exception of Pakistan and Ceylon. It is in keeping with the conference held in 1945, as has been pointed out by the minister.
I think it would be more appropriate if I were to say at this time, rather than when the bill is in committee, that when a corresponding bill was before the House of Commons at Westminster-and that, of course, is the bill which creates the largest segment of this integrated organization-a special committee was set up to examine the consequences of the bill and to make recommendations in relation thereto.
It would seem to me most desirable that a special committee be appointed when this bill is presented, so that before the House of Commons is called upon to deal with it there may be an opportunity to go into certain of the questions which arise in connection with this operation. By way of illustration, the Canadian Marconi Company operates broadcasting stations CFCF and CFCF-FM in Montreal, and also short wave station CFCX. I should think members of the House of Commons might well have some opportunity to secure the advice of a committee appointed to consider that and other incidental results flowing from a decision of this kind. I put the proposal forward now so that the government may give it consideration before the bill is presented to the house.
390	HOUSE OF
Overseas Telecommunication Act


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the action now proposed is being taken more or less to consolidate this kind of service in the commonwealth. I hope, however, that the house will look into the financial structure of these organizations and give careful attention to the balance sheets of the companies, particularly the Canadian Marconi Company, which we propose to take over.
I have in mind the fact that from time to time when we have taken over an enterprise and placed it under public ownership we have been forced to become the owners of these facilities because of bankruptcy on the part of private enterprise in the operation of the services in question. The outstanding example of that in the history of Canada was the taking over of the systems which now comprise the Canadian National Railways. We should, therefore, guard the country against any overpayment.
I have looked at the amount mentioned in the resolution, and also at the records of the companies. When the matter comes before the house I hope hon. members will give careful consideration to this phase of the proposal made by the minister. I am not suggesting that the initial amount of $4,500,000 set out in the resolution is too great, although it may be. But the further amount that will be paid should be scrutinized carefully by the house in order that we may be protected from anything of the kind that happened after the last war in connection with our railway system.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word to what has been said by my leader (Mr. Coldwell). The one point in the measure which concerns me is the balance sheet of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited. I was checking this afternoon in Moody's, and I find that last year this company, which we now propose to take over, lost $408,000. In 1946 it lost $115,000. During the past year its current assets dropped by $468,000, and it had only $36,000 cash on hand. Moody's also points out that the shares dropped from $6 to $1.25. This company last year had a bank overdraft of $2,523,000; a year ago it was $2,300,000. Accounts payable accrued are $529,000. Among the assets are included patents with a valuation of $1,863,000-which may or may not be a fictitious valuation. I should like the minister to state whether or not the government is paying for those patents.
I agree that in principle this may be a sound scheme, but I am wondering whether the government is buying a lemon. If the company's profit and loss continue as they have been for the last several years, the


question may be asked whether this will be a good thing. If the company fails, then the government will start screaming that social enterprise did not work, that the company did not last because it was owned by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Social enterprise owns it now, since it is owned by the government of the United Kingdom.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Moose Jaw is destroying his own argument.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like the minister to be explicit about some of these details, because the record of the Canadian Marconi Company has not been good over the past several years. Why is it that every time a company gets into difficulties the government has to pull it out?


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether happy about this resolution. I know it is not unusual for resolutions to be brought down in the earlier part of a session, but there was no mention of this matter in the speech from the throne. I realize that the speech from the throne does not contain the details of all the legislation the government intends to bring down during the session, but it does seem to me that the taking over of a corporation of this size, and one which is of international importance, should warrant mention in the speech from the throne; so that hon. members would have been given ample time to think about it. We have not said a great deal about this resolution, and I fancy the reason is that we are not prepared to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman and ask him to consult page 15 of Votes and Proceedings, where he will find that in the speech from the throne there is mention of this bill to incorporate the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation?


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry that that particular point escaped my notice.
We are deciding now whether or not it is expedient to bring down this measure. We all know that the further along any measure goes, the more difficult it is to turn it down. If it is a dangerous thing, the best thing to do is to turn it down before it gets too far. I am not saying that it is dangerous; it might be the best thing in the world to pass a measure of this kind, but I do say that we are being asked to do it when we have only a little information.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) referred to the financial position of this company as set out in the volume he had in his hand. It might appear that the

company is going broke, and it might appear to some that that is private enterprise for you.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Moose Jaw says "hear, hear", but let me remind him that if it is private enterprise that is going broke, it is a good thing because the taxpayers will not have to foot the bill. If the government takes it over it will not go broke, because no government institution goes broke. Government institutions do not have to show profits, and if they do show a loss it does not matter because the taxpayers will come to their rescue. It is all right to say that eventually the country will go broke when the sources of taxation dry up-


Mr. Blackmore:: They are drying up now.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) says they are drying up now. In that case the country would go broke if its wealth were based on financial considerations; but that is not the true criterion for measuring a nation's wealth.
While a government corporation ostensibly may be responsible to parliament, it always feels that it can call upon parliament or the people to cover any losses. That is the thing I do not like about government enterprises. There is just too much of that sort of thing. I trust that this company is not being taken over because it is going broke. If it is being taken over so that greater service can be rendered to the commonwealth, that would be a different matter. But even then, if their solvency were involved they could always call upon the taxpayers, and that is what I do not like.
I hope that this matter will be gone into thoroughly and no stone left unturned until we get all the information, until we know where the people of Canada through their responsible government are heading in and heading out.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to one or two matters relating to this important resolution.
The war broke out in 1939, and after ten years-six of war and four of the aftermath of war-the government want to make a change, although they were satisfied during that period with the present method of external communication.
Originally there was a code. The idea of making a change started when the war broke out, because of the code used. I referred to that the other night in connection with the Statute of Westminster. Tb ere is a difference
Overseas Telecommunication Act between the old system and the new one. When the war broke out, what did they have? For two and a half years the dominions were the only countries behind the mother country, and they had a code system. The government had the right to make rules and regulations as to the code. After two and a half years of war, during which Great Britain and the dominions worked together, they decided to adopt a new code because of the entry of the United States into the conflict.
I have been reading extensively about this whole matter, and it arises out of the statute I have named. In the first place there are external communication services by other means. The radio is used extensively for external communication, so much so that there is a radiotelephone system between Canada and the old country. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation have the right to make rules and regulations as to their code, and today it has been expanded.
You will notice the change in the resolution. There used to be a federal censor in charge of this work. He was the man who typed the code and told them what they could do. Often during the war the censor prevented certain information from being given out in Canada. The information was held back, and even the House of Commons did not know about it. We were told that we could get some information in a secret session, but I did not attend for the reason I gave at that time-that I thought there would be nothing revealed that the Soviet did not know already.
Now they are adding something new. I must say that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has been obliging in any contacts I have had with him. But this is going to be a political organization, and I am not using the word "political" in any offensive way so far as the minister is concerned. I have a great deal of confidence in the present minister. I had a lot to do with him during the war. I am not using the word in any personal sense, but because every minister of the crown is more or less in politics. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce did a lot of good work during the war, but this new corporation is to have vast powers over the property and equipment of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, and Cable and Wireless, Limited, used in connection with external communication services. In the words of the resolution, these communication services are to be operated by the new corporation and they are to be co-ordinated with the services of other parts of the commonwealth. There is no definition of the word "co-ordinated". I linked this matter

Overseas Telecommunication Act the other evening with the Statute of Westminster. As you know, some of the former commonwealth countries are now out of the empire-India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon. Seven or eight of them are now out of the empire. They do not belong any more; they are separate organizations, so that this resolution will not apply to them.
You will notice that the Minister of Transport can also make rules and regulations for the corporation. A corporation is to be created called the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. It is to take over certain property and equipment. Without being subject to any censor at all, the minister is going to have the right to make rules and regulations.
I call your attention to another matter about the new code. The resolution reads, "co-ordinated with the services of other parts of the commonwealth." The Statute of Westminster does not apply in the same way to all parts of the commonwealth. For example, sections 6 to 13 of that statute did not apply to New Zealand and Australia until trouble arose about it over the dollar and the pound sterling and so forth. It is just as I said the other evening. Nevertheless the minister will be able to make rules and regulations.
There are other bodies that deal with external communication services. I have mentioned radio. Everybody knows what the radio corporation does. It takes quite a part in handling external communication services. In conjunction with the B.B.C., the C.B.C. has a code, and there is the power to make rules and regulations. I do not know where it is all going to end. In my view the resolution is simply an extension of the separatist policy of autonomy and sovereignty. That is all it amounts to. It is an extension of that principle which has caused so much trouble in the countries of the empire, and we do not know now who is in the empire and who is out of it.
The resolution proposes to co-ordinate the Canadian service with the services of other parts of the commonwealth. There are embassies all over the world. No wonder we are a separate country. We have ambassadors in the countries all over the seven seas, and the old empire is divided. They are all spending money. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), in a very witty speech, referred to these ambassadors as "so-called ambassadors", and the then member for Davenport said, "So-called is right."
Now you will have all these ambassadors in the countries all over the seven seas making use of the code. There will be different codes, and you will not know who is in the empire. These ambassadors learn only by


experience. They also have codes for communication in matters of external affairs. They all want to be ahead of the king and the queen in the procession. They are, as the hon. member for Temiscouata said last year, akin to the undertaker who is first in the procession, or the drum major who leads the band in the royal procession.
I fail to see any necessity for such a measure as this at the present time. Ten years after the beginning of the war you want to co-ordinate these services. Part of the resolution reads:
The Minister of Finance with the approval of the governor in council to be authorized to lend, from time to time, moneys to the corporation out of unappropriated moneys of the consolidated revenue fund, for temporary purposes, the aggregate outstanding at any time not to exceed $100,000.
If you ask me, this is a new policy, appropriating $4,500,000 for these services. I can tell you this, it is another form of separation akin to that of autonomy and sovereignty.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I do
not rise to make any extended comment upon the principle of the resolution. I should like, however, to make some brief references to the two statements made in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). I am sure the house listened to their statements with some interest because it must have seemed strange to most of us to hear those statements from people who hold such a belief in the principle of nationalization. Now, when the question of nationalization arises in what is admitted to be a public utility, it is strange there should be such grave questions raised from the socialists themselves. Apparently their belief in the idea of socialism has some exceptions and their approach is rather selective to the principle of nationalization.
Then, we heard some rather scathing references to the weak financial position of this company. Session after session we have heard these same people denounce profit; profit, according to them, is something inherently wicked. Now when we have a company that has no profits, this company is held up as the sort with which those people who believe in nationalization should have nothing to do. This company is in a very poor financial position. There does not seem to be much consistency in their position, but if we wait for consistency from the socialists, we will be waiting here a long time. I could not help making these observations. So many attacks have been made on companies with profits and now here is a company without those wicked profits. It seems to me this is a field

which is often regarded as the natural object for nationalization, namely, a public utility, and yet the socialists are warning us against nationalizing this company because it has none of these wicked profits.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am sure the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) wants to be fair both to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) and to myself. We said we agreed with the principle of this bill. We prefaced our remarks with that statement.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: I realize the difficulty we sometimes have in the committee of the whole as to whether our questions are proper. I have no right to question the minister at this stage, but at the appropriate time I should like him to give a full explanation of the implications in this bill. I am almost totally ignorant of overseas telecommunications. I am sure the house will agree that is not the only thing upon which I am in complete ignorance. Does it follow that one of the objects of the bill is to create a government monopoly in this field? I should like to know why we are taking over this company. Is it because present facilities are not sufficient? Is it for safety, so that in matters of defence we may have control over telecommunications? In the net result, does it mean we are creating a monopoly in this field?
I am not going to enter the argument which has been raised, but it seems to me this subject is quite important. When we come to the bill itself, it seems to me it requires examination from a committee dealing with the financial aspects and the necessity for doing this at all. I can think of reasons why it should be done. It is my opinion these things should be made very clear to us. I believe the proper time and place to do that is in a committee of the house where we may examine witnesses who are engaged or have been engaged in this business as well as officers of the department who have had to deal with it.
I hope the minister will remember I am not suggesting he is withholding anything, but I am suggesting he should give us full details, first, as to why we want it; second, as to the result that may be achieved or may flow in the event the bill is passed. There is no implied criticism; all I am seeking is full information and I think the house and the people are entitled to that. After all, $4,500,000 is not peanuts, although in comparison with other large sums it is not large. Still, it is a substantial sum of money.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I would hope the government is going into this business because it cannot help itself. It seems 45781-26	a 11
Overseas Telecommunication Act to me we are operating enough businesses at the moment. I do not think the government is going into this particular field because it desires to control more enterprises in Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not suggest they were; I am asking for information.


John Lambert Gibson: The Pacific terminus of this cable is in my constituency, and naturally a number of my constituents are employees of Cable and Wireless, Limited. When we reach the committee stage, I trust the minister will be able to give me an assurance that their working conditions will not be worsened by reason of the government taking over the company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might deal with some of the difficulties that seem to arise in the minds of hon. members. In the statement which I made at the outset, I believe, will be found most of the answers to the questions that have arisen. There appears to be a misapprehension in the minds of some of the members as to what is to be done. It may be that the statement I have prepared was not a clear one. I shall attempt to elaborate.
In the first place, this resolution which precedes the bill for the establishment of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation is made pursuant to an international convention. I could go into the history of the telecommunication services from 1928 to date, but that would be somewhat lengthy and it already appears in the statement. After 1928 difficulties in connection with telecommunication services arose in the commonwealth countries owing to competition between beam wireless circuits and cable circuits. The handling of messages by beam was far cheaper than those by cable. I believe I can put it succinctly when I say that about that time it cost twenty-five cents per word to send a message by cable, whereas it cost eighteen cents to send it by beam.
One or the other of these companies was going out of business. So the United Kingdom decided that the best thing to do was to form a merger company. That led to dissatisfaction among certain of the commonwealth countries, so they convened at a number of international conferences, one in 1942 in Australia, where the commonwealth communications council was set up, and that met in 1944. In 1945 Lord Reith, of the United Kingdom government, came to Canada and other commonwealth countries to survey the position and to ascertain what were the views in the various commonwealth countries. In the same year a commonwealth
3S4

Overseas Telecommunication Act telecommunications conference was called in London, and it was there that an agreement was made to which this country and the other commonwealth countries, namely Australia, New Zealand, India, Southern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom, became signatories. The agreement provided two things: (1) that the commonwealth countries should, just as quickly as it is possible to do so, nationalize the telecommunication services within their own territories; and (2) that there should be established what was known as a commonwealth telecommunications board which would act as an advisory board to the various commonwealth countries and co-ordinate the telecommunication services. At an international commonwealth telecommunications conference in 1945 we agreed to do this. We signed the agreement.
While this legislation seems to have been a matter of some surprise to one hon. member, I think it was mentioned not only in the speech from the throne of this session but also in the speech from the throne in the previous session of 1949. I therefore do not think there is a great deal to be said in favour of anyone's being taken by surprise any more than one is taken by surprise when a matter is brought before the house on the first occasion.
I realize that this is a matter of great technicality. While the hon. member for Calgary West says that he does not understand a great deal about it, I can assure him that it is not an easy matter to understand. I do not understand all the things that I should like to understand about it because many parts of it are highly technical and are not very readily comprehensible. As 1 go along, however, I shall attempt to clarify things as much as I can for the committee.
To come back to the apprehension which seems to be in the minds of the members, that this is a lemon that we are taking over, may I say in the first place that the resolution proposes to take over the assets of Cable and Wireless, Limited, and to take over the telecommunication assets of Canadian Marconi Company. The assets which it is proposed to take over are a wireless receiving station at Yamachiche, Quebec, a wireless transmitting station at Drum-mondville, Quebec, together with the Marconi building in the city of Montreal. That has nothing to do with the broadcasting stations of the Canadian Marconi Company; it has nothing to do with the industrial or manufacturing end of the Canadian Marconi Company; nor has it anything to do with the overdraft which was mentioned. This is not a lemon which is being bought. On the contrary, these are assets that have value.


I am informed that the telecommunications end of Canadian Marconi have shown, for the year 1948, a profit of approximately $100,000.


Mr. Fraser:: Net or gross?


Lionel Chevrier: This is a net profit of $100,000. This is therefore in no sense a liability. I would be tempted to say something to my hon. friend about the criticism he levelled at Cable and Wireless, Limited, but I do not want to follow the example of the hon. member for Eglinton. Suffice it for me to say that the shares of Cable and Wireless, Limited are owned by the United Kingdom government and I think the majority of the shares of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, are also owned by the British government-certainly fifty per cent if not seventy-five per cent or more. I will find out the exact situation when the bill is before the house.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will the minister say they are taking over no liabilities whatever of either of these companies?


Lionel Chevrier: No, none at all. I would say that we are certainly not taking over any liabilities. I think the hon. member for Calgary West asked a number of pertinent questions. He first asked why we are taking this business over. The answer is that we are committed to do so by a commonwealth telecommunications agreement signed by the various countries. We are taking this over because we agreed to do so at the convention and because it has already been announced in the house by the Acting Prime Minister; I believe the announcement was made some time in 1945. Why are we taking it over? Again, we are taking it over because it was decided at that international conference that, in order to further co-ordinate telecommunications in the commonwealth, it would be far better if our country nationalized the assets of this service. It was asked whether the bill would create a monopoly. My reply is no, the bill will not create a monopoly. The result to be achieved, I hope, will be one where some profit can be shown. I do not mean only monetary profit; I mean profit from the point of view of benefit to the commonwealth countries, and that is from the defence angle as well. That certainly was the intention of those who signed this agreement in London. I hope there will also be profit in the financial sense. The advice that I have from the technical officers in the department is that it is hoped that a substantial operating profit can be made in this corporation.


George Alexander Drew: A number of questions arise in connection with this matter, but I should like to take up right away one point men-

tioned by the Minister of Transport. He said that this would not create a monopoly. As I understand it, Cable and Wireless, Limited, through their holding company, control about eighty per cent of the world's cable communications. If that is the case, I should think that this would come as close to creating a monopoly within the commonwealth as it is possible to imagine. I should like to ask the minister what observations he has to make upon that part of this transaction.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to say whether Cable and Wireless, Limited, control eighty per cent of the world's telecommunication services.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but I would point out to him that I did not say "telecommunication services". I said "cable communications". This resolution includes both cables and wireless, does it not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does. I do not want to challenge that statement, but I would be surprised if that were the case. In any event, whether it is or is not the case, the Anglo-American Cable Company and Commercial Cable Company are in direct competition with both Cable and Wireless, Limited and Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, so there is no danger of a monopoly. From what I understand, in the international field exclusive of the commonwealth field there are telecommunication services, both wireless and cable, that are quite strong and quite competitive in these services.


George Alexander Drew: What effect does this have on the arrangements that are now in existence between Canadian Pacific Telegraphs and the Canadian Marconi?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it affects Canadian Pacific Telegraphs. For instance, the arrangement that exists today whereby a message goes over the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific will continue. I do not know what the amount is; but suppose that the rate for one word is twenty-five cents. I would imagine that four cents of that would be paid to the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National as it went to the cable head, and perhaps eighteen cents on the cable and another two or three cents in the United Kingdom to go by the land telegraph system there. If that is what my hon. friend has in mind I would think that those arrangements will not be changed.


John Lambert Gibson: Now that we are nationalizing the cable companies, would the minister not consider the Canadian National as the exclusive carrying agent?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it could not be because, as it is now, Cable and Wireless or Canadian 45781-26i
Overseas Telecommunication Act Marconi must use Canadian Pacific lines. I do not know what the arrangement is, but I suppose, if you go into a Canadian Pacific telegraph office to send a message, the message will go by the Canadian Pacific for a certain distance and then by cable or wireless for the remainder of the distance.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: For a great length of time on the Pacific the question of rates has been a problem. The Pacific coast of Canada is practically cut off by high rates from the coast of China, and from other countries on that side of the Pacific. I believe it would be a good investment for Canada if the minister could assure us that he will be able to reduce the commercial rates on the Pacific to a basis where they will be equal to those on the Atlantic. I refer more particularly to a reduction of rates on press messages. Today we hear a great deal about the iron curtain. Our newspaper friends in Canada are unable to penetrate beyond the iron curtain. The high rates existing on press messages on the Pacific are contributing to the security of the iron curtain. If we are to have prosperity on the Pacific we must be in close touch with business houses on the other side. If we are to have peace in the world the people of Canada should be daily in touch with the p'olitical and military events in Asia, and they can be in touch with them only if we have low rates for cable and wireless on the Pacific.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: While I am grateful to the minister for the way in which he explained this resolution I must confess I am very much in the dark about it. I feel that hon. members are entitled to have more detailed information. The resolution speaks of the property and equipment of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, and Cable and Wireless, Limited. I think that hon. members were under the impression that all the property, and the whole thing as a going concern, were being taken over. Now we know that only certain property and equipment are being taken over. The minister has not given us all the details that we should expect. He has not given us details of the property and equipment that are to be taken over and where it is located. The Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, is a large company and I suppose it has some ramifications all over the world. While it is intended to take over only the portion that is in Canada, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to give us more details and say where the property is located. The Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, is also in business of a different type from mere communication services. While the resolution speaks of the external communication services, I should

Overseas Telecommunication Act like to know the nature of the equipment that is to be taken over. At the same time the minister might be good enough to explain to us who has valued this equipment. I know that he has experts, but we might be told how this was done, and so forth.


Lionel Chevrier: Far be it from me to attempt to advise the hon. gentleman, but I am sure he will Understand that I do not want to be offensive when I say that what we are discussing now is a notice of what it is intended shall be done at a later date. In discussing a resolution I do not think it has been the practice to give all the detailed information to which the hon. gentleman would otherwise be entitled when the bill is in committee. It is not that I object to giving it to him, because I would not want him to think that I am attempting to withhold any information. I shall answer some of his questions in a moment. I am sure he will agree with me that the proper place in which to do that is when the bill is under consideration and the details are therein set out. The purpose of a resolution is to provide an opportunity to discuss it in a general manner and have the minister answer questions of a general nature. At the proper time the hon. member is entitled to get the information which he seeks.
A moment ago I did say that we intended to take over certain assets of the Canadian Marconi Company. The hon. member will be interested to know that so far as the assets of Cable and Wireless are concerned it is the intention to take over the buildings and equipment at Harbour Grace in the province of Newfoundland. There are other details which I would prefer not to give until the proper time arrives.
The hon. member for Cariboo inquired about rates. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the commonwealth telecommunications board, which is established under the agreement, provides that, among a number of other things, rates fall within its jurisdiction. It provides for the formulation of a joint telecommunication policy, including rates.


Mr. Applewhaile:: The resolution provides for a new corporation to take over the property and equipment of all existing companies used in connection with external communication services, and to operate them for that purpose. Will the minister be kind enough to tell us whether this in any way involves radio service for coastal or deep-sea shipping? I am particularly interested in the Pacific coast.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).)


Mr. Higgins:: Will the present services carried on in Newfoundland by both of these companies be continued as at present?


Lionel Chevrier: My information is that Canadian Marconi have no assets in Newfoundland, but Cable and Wireless have certain assets there, and they will be taken over. So far as the service in Canada is concerned it will be the same as it was heretofore.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Do I understand that Marconi carries on no service in Newfoundland at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not say that, and I did not mean to imply that. What I intended to say was that I was not aware that they had assets there which we were taking over. They may operate an industry of some sort there, but I am not in a position to say that. This bill does not provide for the taking over of any of Marconi's assets in Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If they are in business now, the business will not be taken over under this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: When my hon. friend speaks of "business", does he mean the manufacturing of radios?


Gordon Francis Higgins: No; I refer to the business of communications.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I would not think so.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee to certain features in connection with this resolution. In the first place it is said that some Conservatives in England approve of this policy. I can say there is a large body of public opinion that does not approve of such a drastic change as this.
We used to have an empire parliamentary association which was set up for the purpose of considering just such matters as this, involving unity within the empire. However they have forgotten all about the empire. They even want to change their name and turn themselves into something else. I believe they turned themselves into a PanAmerican organization. That is one organization to which matters of this kind should be sent, because it is supposed to be nonpolitical. It is the only place I know of where politics are forgotten for the good of the empire and the parliamentary institutions within the empire.
They held a meeting, and we saw what happened to it. Right Hon. Vincent Massey always opposed Pan-Americanism. I admit there are some Conservatives in the Old Country who support this program, but I am

r
absolutely opposed to it for the following reasons-and I shall take only a few moments of the time of the committee.
I was one of the members on this side of the house who, alone, opposed something which I thought would lead just to this new feature and this new program. What was that policy? It was called the Bretton Woods agreement and the monetary fund, which did more to cause disunity the world over than anything else I know of. I was the only Conservative on this side of the house who opposed that agreement-and I am very glad I did.
We have seen the consequences of it-this process of linking up with the international bank, as a result of which one country becomes forever the creditor of all the rest of the world. I was one who opposed it because of that feature in it.
Then, this summer we read about a meeting held near Orillia, on lake Couchiching. Was there any talk about empire up there? No. In fact, hardly any of the countries represented there are in the empire at the present time. Some of them have pledged themselves to a code. But Burma and other places are all out of it. That organization has done more than any other agency I know of to harm the empire. They even wanted to call it something else-to strike out the word "empire", and to call it by some high-sounding name such as "commonwealth". I believe it is now to be called the commonwealth organization, if you please.
The representative from Australia said that it had not been changed by any country within the empire or commonwealth. There was no evidence of it. In fact, I see no evidence of unity right here in the House of Commons. If we read what is proposed about unity within the empire, we find very little of it. The other night I read out a list of nine or ten such things, as they appeared in the debates and order papers of last session, and from the order papers of this session. Was there talk of unity? I say no.
This organization has held its meeting near Orillia. Well, if you ask me I will say this: I do not believe that, at a time when houses are needed so badly for the working-class people of this country, we should bother about these secondary matters. We should attend to primary matters-the ones we are now discussing are only secondary, in my opinion.
We have a large organization at Lake Success known as the United Nations. Up to date I think it would be far better if the name of that lake were changed to Lake Failure-because Russia knows everything that goes on there. They know all about everything. I can tell you that they know
Overseas Telecommunication Act more than we do right here in the House of Commons-and certainly more than we are told.
Is this Orillia organization going to lead to unity within the empire? No. The United Nations tore down buildings worth millions of dollars. They have asked for a code-a code for what? I fail to see any value in this so-called code; there is no unity in it. It is just a waste of public funds. Just wait until you see them next year; it will be a regular sinkhole for capital and maintenance.
And what control have we? Just yesterday we were presented with estimates, but we have no control over them. We pass estimates for this, that and the other thing; but post mortems are all we can ever hold. The people-of this country are worried about what Is becoming of our parliamentary institutions. The tremendous popularity of the monarchy was apparent everywhere in their 1939 visit. The peoples of the empire support the king and queen today, but we see a threat to the dignity of parliament, and we see the decline of the House of Commons, when we hand over all our rights and privileges to these outside organizations such as the one here proposed. Wait until you see the codes which issue from it.
They all make rules and regulations. We have all sorts of organizations, radio, and all the rest of them. I fail to see any value in this proposal, and I venture to say that in the days to come it will prove what I have said when we were discussing the Bretton Woods-, agreement and the international monetary fund. I am absolutely opposed to the expenditure.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, some hon. members have found it a little strange that C.C.F. members should question this bill in any way. I assure hon. members, including the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, that C.C.F. members object to the spending of several millions of dollars more for assets than they are worth, just the same as Liberal members or any other members-if that is what we are doing. I am not saying that we are.
A moment ago the minister assured us that we were not buying a lemon. But the fact is that this particular company last year had a deficit in net earnings amounting to $408,000. Is the minister suggesting that most of that loss was entailed in other activities of the company? In other words, did the actual assets we are purchasing from them show a profit? Do you suggest that?


Lionel Chevrier: I said that; the profit shown was approximately $100,000.


Mr. Sinclair:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw gave the balance sheet of the company

Overseas Telecommunication Act when it was operated by the United Kingdom government. Can he show the profit made by the company before 1945 when they were operating under private hands?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: As I understand it, the hon. member is mixing up the cable company with the Canadian Marconi Company.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is the cable company I am talking about.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am talking about the Marconi Company.


John Ewen Sinclair: Let us have the cable company as well.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am interested in the Marconi Company.


John Ewen Sinclair: Why not ask about the cable company? The British government is not in [DOT]that at all.


John Lambert Gibson: What steps did the minister's department take to determine this amount of $4,500,000? Was it the appraised value of independent appraisers of the value of the assets taken over?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Departmental officers, after going over the various assets of both Cable and Wireless, Limited and Canadian Marconi Company, Limited came to the conclusion that they could be purchased for at least the amount asked for in the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say that there were to be extensions or improvements in the inter-commonwealth system. The resolution, as I understand it, makes provision not only for $4,500,000, with which to acquire the interests of these two companies, but also there is provision for such other moneys as may be appropriated by parliament for capital purposes of the corporation. Are there any extensions or improvements in mind; and if so, can the minister give us an idea of approximately how much is involved on Canada's part?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that that is what is meant by the paragraph in the resolution. It is a question of expropriating the assets of the companies for which $4,500,000 may be required. But then money would be required to pay the staff and the day to day expenses for a period of perhaps three or four months until the company begins taking in revenue. I think the amount required in that paragraph is for that purpose, not for capital.


Howard Charles Green: No extensions are in contemplation at the moment?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: What is Canada's representation on the commonwealth telecommunications board? It seems to me that it is important that Canada should have strong representation on the board if for no other reason than to deal with the question put by the hon. member for Cariboo. He is quite right when he says that the cable rates on the Pacific are far too high. If we have not strong representation on the board there is not much likelihood of those rates being reduced. Have any representations been made to the board by the Canadian representatives for the reduction of rates?


Lionel Chevrier: The board has not begun to operate and it will not until the agreement goes into effect.


Howard Charles Green: There has been a conference?


Lionel Chevrier: There was an international telecommunications conference at which the agreement was entered into. That agreement stipulates that the assets shall be taken over and a board established. It then goes on to stipulate that, until the partner governments have signified their intention of abiding by the terms of the agreement by passing the necessary legislation, it shall not go into force. I think that date will be about April 1, 1950. When that is done I presume that each partner government will appoint a member to the board.


Howard Charles Green: Has it been decided yet what representation Canada will have on the board?


Lionel Chevrier: Canada will have one
member.


Howard Charles Green: What will be the total membership of the board?


Lionel Chevrier: Each partner government is entitled to appoint one member.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Canadian government make representations to the board that the Pacific rates be reduced?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in position to say whether they will or will not, but I can tell my hon. friend that that is the object of setting up this board. There has been competition from foreign telecommunication services and there was a danger that the commonwealth group might go out of existence. Therefore they merged together to protect themselves against competition. I would not expect that they will try to boost rates but rather to move in the other direction.


Howard Charles Green: 
Lionel Chevrier: There was an understanding between the United Kingdom and the United States whereby the one country would carry the messages of the other. During the war years direct circuits were set up from commonwealth countries to the United States. Those circuits were opened on the understanding that they would be closed at the end of the war, but they have been operating, and operating satisfactorily in the sense that they provide additional service which did not exist before. The feeling all round is that it would not be a good thing to close them down and I should think that they will continue as they were before. There is no intention of changing the position by the implementation of this resolution. On the contrary, the hope is that they will be continued.


Howard Charles Green: I do not understand how the circuits between the United States and commonwealth countries are to be operated. Are they to be operated by the different commonwealth companies or by United States companies? Just what is the picture?


Lionel Chevrier: To be quite frank, I do not know what the picture is. I presume the commonwealth telecommunications board will enter into some sort of understanding with the United States companies.


Howard Charles Green: The board will?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This resolution is
intended to do two things: to take over the assets and to operate an external telecommunication service to the various commonwealth and other countries. I stated a moment ago that I considered I had been quite fair in answering all sorts of questions that had been put to me on the resolution. My hon. friend is asking questions which should be asked on the bill and not on the resolution.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: When the technical officers are here.


Lionel Chevrier: As the Minister of Public Works says, when the technical men are here and can provide information of a technical nature. I do not want to refuse to answer any questions, but I do not want the hon. member to take undue advantage of the position.


Howard Charles Green: I am not trying to take undue advantage of the minister at all. Earlier in the afternoon when replying to an hon. member, one of the hon. members from St. John's, I believe, the minister stated that
Overseas Telecommunication Act there was a limit on questions that could be asked. I think the minister was drawing a very fine line in a way that I have never seen done in committee before. If the minister has not the information I have asked for, that is perfectly all right; but I do ask him to try to get that information so that when we are in committee on the bill he can tell us just how this commonwealth board will carry on with the United States companies. Is it the intention that the new crown corporation will retain the same management and personnel, or is there to be an entirely new staff?


Lionel Chevrier: That is clearly a question which should be asked on the bill, but I shall answer it now. I do not know where the dividing line is between questions which should be asked on the resolution and questions which should be asked on the bill. However, the intention is to take over the present staffs of Cable and Wireless, Limited and Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, along with perhaps some other officers who are not members of those corporations. I am not in a position at this time to say how many.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would the minister put me right as to what would be the exact effect if this resolution did not pass? Would there be a curtailment of services in any way?


Lionel Chevrier: If this resolution did not pass we would be denying a responsibility which we have undertaken as a government at an interntaional conference. Canada's reputation for living up to its commitments has so far been excellent, I think. In so far as actual results are concerned, I presume Cable and Wireless, Limited would continue to operate through the United Kingdom company; but that certainly was not the intention at the conference. The intention was that because of reasons that I mentioned a moment ago the commonwealth countries would operate their own services.


Mr. Pearkes:: Can the minister say whether or not the assets include a cable-laying or cable-repairing vessel? I hope that will not be considered too detailed a question, but it involves the maintenance of cables, and where the responsibility would rest for their maintenance.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not think so. I am not able to say, but I would be very greatly surprised if it did. I do not think that is an asset of either Cable and Wireless, Limited, or Canadian Marconi Company, Limited.


George Alexander Drew: I do not think there is any occasion to press for a distinction between what can be asked at this stage and what can be asked at a later stage, but the very
400	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Overseas Telecommunication Act fact that a number of questions have been asked which indicate a feeling on the part of hon. members that they are not very clear as to what result will be produced by the bill, and the fact that so many of the questions are directed towards technical aspects of the problem, suggest the desirability of this measure being sent to a special committee, or one of the standing committees of the house.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Banking and commerce.


George Alexander Drew: Any one of the standing committees will be satisfactory as long as it goes before a committee of the house. Then there will be an opportunity to ask those with technical information questions that cannot be satisfactorily asked in the house, and the answer to which, in all fairness, the minister cannot be expected to have at his fingertips. While there is a system of deputies coming into the house to assist ministers on certain occasions, the nature of the problem is such that it calls for an examination by a committee, as was done in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, where a similar bill dealing with the same subject, and under the same agreement, was placed before that body.
The minister has said that a monopoly will not be created. That is a most important statement. If the measure does not create a monopoly, but simply has the effect of placing certain Canadian communication facilities within the intercommonwealth communications system, then that differs greatly from the situation which would be created if the bill were to grant something in the nature of a commonwealth monopoly, leaving certain other interests outside, but which would of necessity be subject to the overriding arrangement in their own activities.
Then again there are certain details as to the relationship of these companies to other organizations which, it seems to me, can best be examined before a committee. I recognize that a publication such as Moody's Public Utilities has no official status, but nevertheless it is highly regarded by all those who want information on matters of this kind. The 1949 edition of Moody's Public Utilities, in describing the activities of the Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, says:
Operates a world-wide wireless telegraph service in association with Canadian Pacific Telegraphs, whose offices throughout the dominion act as collection and delivery agents, and a trans-Atlantic wireless telephone service and others between Canada and Newfoundland, and various places in West Indies.
Surely a committee would be the place where hon. members could best ask such questions as would give them information about the extent to which the commonwealth communications system would be taking over

wireless telephone services, the extent to which it would be absorbing the telegraph activities of Canadian Pacific Telegraphs outside of Canada, and other details of that kind that are suggested by the statement I have just read as to the nature of the activities of Canadian Marconi Company, Limited.
Then there is also the fact that Cable and Wireless, Limited, is a company which has world-wide ramifications, and the position of the Canadian properties within that system is something that might far better be discussed before a committee than by asking questions in the house, subject to the limitations that are necessarily placed thereon in this chamber.
As I mentioned before, there is the question of the radio broadcasting stations which are under the control of the Canadian Marconi Company, Limited, and what is to become of them, whether they are a part of this transaction. I grant you that the minister can answer those questions when the bill is in committee, but it seems to me that if the house is to deal effectively with this matter hon. members should have technical information and the technical advice of those who would be brought before such a committee so that they might be able to make recommendations based upon a full examination. It might well be that a committee might suggest that certain properties be included that are not now suggested, in the interests of a wider and fuller intercommonwealth communications service. In mentioning this, the minister used words that I think should be borne in mind, and about which there can be no suggested secrecy whatever. In his first statement, which gave a very broad and comprehensive explanation of the purposes of the bill, the minister used the words "strategic requirements". There again it seems to me that by setting up a committee the members could secure the evidence they wished in regard to what the strategic requirements are, in so far as they do not affect any matters of national concern or national interest from the point of view of secrecy, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the integrated communications system that is to be built up in this way which will obviously be related to what those strategic requirements actually are.
A committee can obtain that information much better than can hon. members in the house by the rather casual method of asking questions which are not directed to any particular expert, or to any particular technical aspect of the problem at a given time.
Furthermore, there is the important question of how this business is to be managed when acquired. The whole concept of the operation of public business by crown companies is relatively new on its present scale,

and it took form largely because of the necessities of war. Of course there were many crown companies operated for years here and elsewhere before the last war, but this rather convenient method of operating certain types of public activities, or semi-public activities, expanded enormously at that time. Now that crown companies are being carried forward fairly extensively into the years of peace, it seems to me when we have this particular matter before us it will be a good time for the members of the House of Commons to examine not only how crown companies of this kind are set up, but also how crown companies can best be operated in the interests of the public for whom they are created, and ilso what methods will be employed which vill determine how they will be managed luring the time that they continue to operate, and what safeguards there will be in the handling of these crown corporations by way of disposition or otherwise at some future time.
Now that we have this matter before us, it is an opportune time to make an inquiry into that very important aspect of this problem. I am raising these points now more for the purpose of emphasizing what I believe to be a very good reason for setting up a committee or referring the matter to a standing committee. I would ask the minister to give us assurance that when this bill is presented it will be referred either to a special committee or a standing committee, as was done in the United Kingdom. If that is done, there will be no necessity for asking further questions. The members will then have all the technical and other information before they are called upon to make a decision on this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no feeling one way or the other in the matter, nor have I considered whether or not this bill should be sent to a committee. I believe my hon. friend will agree with me when I say that the proper time to decide that is when the bill is before the house. It would strike me that there is nothing secret about what is proposed. Since it will be under my jurisdiction, I would welcome a complete airing of the whole matter, either in committee of the whole house or in some other committee. Would my hon. friend allow this matter to stand until the bill is before the house? I believe it is the practice to decide whether or not a bill is to go to a special committee at that time.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to press the point. My main purpose has been to place before the minister, as well as the other members of the house, the reasons why I believe this bill should go before a committee. I thought it was proper that I should do so now so that
Overseas Telecommunication Act the government would have an opportunity of considering the matter. I would hope, in view of the nature of the transaction and the difficulty there is in dealing with a subject of this kind in general discussion, that it might be decided to set up a committee to which it could be referred.


Mr. Maclnnis:: The leader of the opposition has made out a good case for referring this matter to some committee of the house. I do agree with the minister, however, that we should wait until the bill is before us. During the time I have been here, there has always been some difference of opinion as to whether there should be a debate on measures of this kind at the resolution stage. I understand there is no debate at the resolution stage in the United Kingdom parliament. When the matter is as important as this, having a debate on the resolution stage puts the members at a disadvantage because they have nothing to go on except conjectures.
Surely, there is no purpose in going into the committee of the whole on the resolution except to get information. We are entitled to all the information that is available. The only way in which the minister can safeguard himself is to say quite frankly he has not got that information and it is not available until the people who understand these technical matters are able to assist him. I agree with both the minister and the leader of the opposition that we could save time by not going into the subject any further. The minister does not seem to have the information now, and when the bill comes down more details will be available. The members will be in a better position to ask questions and to decide whether or not the subject should be referred to a committee of the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: One thing the minister said, with which I do not agree, was that this would not create a monopoly. Is it not true that when this corporation is set up it will not pay any federal, provincial, or municipal taxes?


Lionel Chevrier: No; it will pay taxes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It will pay federal taxes?


Lionel Chevrier: It will pay municipal taxes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It will not pay federal taxes, and yet last year's profits amounted to $100,000.


Lionel Chevrier: That would be paid into the federal treasury as provided in the resolution.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The corporation would not pay any excess profits taxes or income taxes.


Mr. Wright:: Everything is paid into the federal treasury.	[DOT]
402	HOUSE OF
Exchequer Court Act
.Mr. Fraser: Yes, even if it only makes $10. However, this company puts other companies at a disadvantage owing to the fact that it does not pay these taxes. Where do these government corporations pay municipal taxes? No government body pays municipal taxes.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not discussing that angle with the hon. gentleman. This is not before the house. I wish he would not bring the question of municipal taxation into the debate at this time. All I am saying is that there is provision here for that being done. I do not want to enter into a discussion of federal or municipal taxation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I still say this does create a monopoly. You cannot get away from it. The government has an advantage over the other firms.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to establish the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to make a statement on this bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This bill is a simple one, consisting in the main of procedural amendments. Clause 1 provides a new and simplified statement on one part of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the court which is now covered by section 18 of the act. There is no change in substance. Clause 2 provides a simplified procedure on appeal. There are only two new items, of which the first provides for appeal from interlocutory judgment and the second extends from thirty to sixty days the time in which an appeal may be lodged. Clause 3 provides that when an appeal is made on behalf of the crown, the usual deposit of $50 is not necessary. Clause 4 empowers the judges of the exchequer court to make rules and orders for regulating the practice and procedure of and in the exchequer court, as formerly, and adds two new subsections to provide:	(1) for rules dealing with the
examination for discovery in proceedings to which the crown is a party; and (2) for rules providing for the medical examination of a person in respect of whose injury a claim is made before the exchequer court.
[Mr. Wright.1

I am informed that the judges of the exchequer court have already made rules of this sort, but that there has been some question as to their right to do so. The purpose of this particular clause is to remove any doubt upon the point. I believe the judges have also made one or two orders about medical examination of a person in a case of this kind. Some doubt also exists as to their right to do that. It is to remove that doubt that this clause is introduced.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now that we are bringing in an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act, does the minister not think that consideration should be given to the whole problem of the right of the individual to sue the crown? If I am correct in my law-and I think I am, unless some amendment that I do not remember has been made-we are now in the position that we must get leave-from the minister, I take it-before we can bring any action. I have no doubt that hundreds of years ago there probably was a reason for such a rule. But in this day and age I can think of no legitimate reason why an individual who has been injured cannot sue the crown just in the same manner as he is able to sue the minister or me, provided that he alleges responsibility in us for the damage he suffered. There is nothing like making one bite of a cherry, and I really think the minister should give some consideration to that aspect of the matter. It is all right to say that the consent is given, and perhaps generously given. But there are times when, in my own experience, consent has been withheld perhaps not so much , here as in provincial matters.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Consent is never withheld here.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let me make it plain that I think it was in provincial matters that the consent was withheld; but it was in fact the crown moving in the right of the province. Many cases arise in which the government maintains army depots and institutions of that kind. If, as the minister has just advised me, consent is never withheld, why have the rule at all? Why should the individual not be in the same position to sue the crown as to sue any member sitting in this house? The minister has told me that consent is never withheld. That statement is the most complete support for my contention. If it is never withheld, why have the prohibition and put people to all the extra trouble involved and incidentally to the expense of paying extra lawyers' fees in obtaining that consent from the crown?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Justice speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, may I say that I think no substantial injustice is done to anyone under the procedure which is followed by this government in respect of these claims. I would say that over ninety-nine per cent of the claims made against the government are those which arise in cases of negligence. That is one form of tort. Other torts, if indeed there are any others, are quite insignificant in number. In case of negligence I think the procedure that we follow is not without advantage to the subject, for this reason. When the claim is made and a fiat is requested, we have the claim investigated. In the course of that investigation we discover whether, in the opinion of our law officers, the applicant for the fiat has or has not a case against the crown. The judgment arrived at in that regard is the same type of judgment as that which would be arrived at by a lawyer advising an ordinary citizen against whom such a damage claim was made. Where the advantage of applying for the flat comes in is that, in many of these cases, we are able by reason of that inquiry to arrive at a settlement before any damage action at all is started.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But you must have arrived at a conclusion as to whether he had any claim before you made the settlement.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. The application is made. We investigate the occurrence. We decide whether, in our opinion, the claim is a good one or not. If the claim is a good one, we endeavour to make a settlement that is fair before there is any litigation at all. In all those cases the applicant for the fiat is saved what otherwise would have been the costs of starting a case unnecessarily if he were able to launch it without any further difficulty.
What about the cases in which, in the opinion of the law officers of the crown, the applicant for the fiat has no case at all? I grant at once that if, in those cases, we refused a fiat, our position would be an unreasonable one. But the practice is such that, no matter whether we think there is no case or whether we think there is a case, the applicant does not suffer. If in our opinion there is a case, we try to make a settlement without litigation. If in our opinion there is absolutely no case for the plaintiff and he has not a leg to stand on, we nevertheless grant the fiat but we express our view that we do not think so much of the case. I think that procedure might be of some benefit to the plaintiff. While I concede at once that in the abstract it seems like an anachronism,
Exchequer Court Act
shall I say, that in 1949 we are still following a practice that is fairly ancient, I would point out that, when you analyse the practical aspect of the matter, I do not think any substantial injustice is done. Indeed, it may well be-although I do not allege this as an assertion for which I take any responsibility- that upon balance those suffering damage as a result of the negligence of the crown are, in the mass, better off. In respect of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police activities, which come under my jurisdiction, I know that from time to time I sign cheques in settlement of claims of this sort, where settlement is arrived at without the necessity for any litigation at all. Those cases could not have been investigated before the writ was issued if the person who had the claim could rush into court and file his statement of claim without making an application to the crown for a fiat.
I will admit this in relation to what my hon. friend said about some of the provinces. A great deal depends upon the fairness with which the fiat is granted or refused. Where the fiat, as with us, is granted as a matter of course, after we have made an investigation, whether we have a defence or not, then no substantial injustice accrues. If, on the other hand, the crown, even in a minority of cases, were disposed to hide behind its immunity from liability and refuse a fiat arbitrarily, I will concede that there would be some injustice to the applicant for a fiat. But I assure my hon. friend that is not the case with this government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Exclusive original jurisdiction of the court.
Arthur Leroy Smith: May I assure the minister that I accept everything he has said, and that he has given a completely honest view of the practice. May I discuss it on another basis? I am going to give the minister a concrete example where this thing might go completely wrong. I am glad he mentioned the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Let us assume that a citizen had some complaint about the way he was used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As we all know, they are enforcing many laws in nearly all the provinces of the Dominion of Canada. We then come down to the minister's department. The minister has one of his employees look into the matter. Through that employee we seek to get justice, some sort of reparation for injuries, whether physical or otherwise. The minister is then put in this difficult position of saying whether

Exchequer Court Act
or not a fiat should be granted to the citizen who was injured or thought he was injured. The minister is then put in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of having to decide whether or not the fiat should be granted. Let us assume that we have another minister whose ideals of the administration of justice do not coincide with those of the present incumbent of that office, and he says, "I am running a good show; I am running this in the best way that I can and I am not going to have any lawsuits against any of my boys." That is just a natural human feeling that any minister may have under these circumstances. Therefore, sir, with the greatest respect I go back to where I started. It is all right to say that this is never done. Why not make it the law that it can never be done?
I intend to go back and answer one or two other points the minister made. He said that we did not want somebody to fly into the courthouse before the department, whatever department it may be, has had time to make some investigation. I have been in this business of law for a long, long time, and I have never known anybody to sue anybody else, seeking some sort of remedy, without first making a demand on him for the remedial action to which he thinks he is entitled. The minister may think that I am conjuring up something that does not happen, but in saying what he said I think that he was probably conjuring up something that, in the life of this profession, I will not say never happens, but has never been known to me to happen.
Suppose I have a bad lawsuit on my hands. What I would do first of all would be to make a big demand hoping that I would sort of overawe the other fellow. Having some doubt about what my client is entitled to, I think that half a loaf is better than no bread, and I make some settlement in that way. My point is this. If the minister is right in saying that a fiat is never withheld, then I come squarely back and ask: If it is never withheld, why have the prohibition at all? If that were done, then I would hope that the provinces might follow the excellent example which would be set by the Minister of Justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Hon. members know that I have not been Minister of Justice for long, and therefore my statement that a fiat had never been refused applies only to the period of the past seven or eight months.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Generally I think it has been issued.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Anticipating the type of questions that my hon. friend would raise I took the matter up with my deputy, through a

telephone conversation which was recorded. In our department we have an interdepartmental communication system which enables us to exchange instructions of this sort and have a transcript of them. I have the transcript here and this is what my deputy says:
Well, mind you, we are in no difficult position here because we have had this law in force, well, for a great many years by admitting liability, that is, in the sense of granting a fiat for tort.
Then I said:
Even where we think we are not liable?
Oh, yes, oh, yes, we have never refused a fiat for many years.
You could not get anything more categorical than that, because that is not just myself speaking; that is the deputy, and he is speaking of a period under several ministers. In other words, the practice in relation to this discussion with my hon. friend, in which he said that it might depend to some extent upon the judgment and the temperament of the minister who was exercising it, is not to have even the discretion. I have personally signed fiats where the report from the law offices of the crown was to the effect that we had an excellent defence to the case and that they did not think the plaintiff could succeed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The law offices of the crown have been wrong before.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, of course they have, but the point is this. My hon. friend asks, is not that a terrible responsibility in relation to my staff? I do not think so, because the only responsibility that the minister takes is that of saying: Let justice be done, let the courts decide that the plaintiff has a case against the employees of the department or that there is no such case.
To repeat what I said before: If there were any substantial miscarriage of justice as a result of the withholding of this, then I would be the first to admit the validity of my hon. friend's point. But where the practice is not to withhold the fiat, I am sure the practice does result in a large number of settlements before litigation-because, in relation to that, I have signed many cheques for such settlements.
Beyond a certain amount of delay and a certain amount of extra trouble-and one must admit that-there is no substantial miscarriage of justice at all, and no one is denied justice as a result of the practice followed.


Mr. Johnston:: As hon. members are aware, I am not a lawyer. I understand, however, that no cases can be brought before this court unless they are against the crown. Am I right in that understanding?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that is not right. For example, this court deals with patent cases.

If my hon. friend would turn to section 19 of the Exchequer Court Act he would find the duties set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). All these paragraphs deal with different types of jurisdiction the court may exercise.
Then, under sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, the various jurisdictions of the court are set out, dealing with railroad debts, and so on. The court has a much wider jurisdiction than merely actions against the crown. However, that is one of the important jurisdictions.


Charles Edward Johnston: What would be the position where the crown is partner with another company-let us say an insurance company? Can such action be brought jointly before the exchequer court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member detail a set of facts in respect of which a claim of that kind has arisen?


Mr. Fulton:: The National Housing Act.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, the National Housing Act. There is a case pending now where the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are joint partners with the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company. That case was brought before the ordinary courts, and the ruling handed down that the prosecution could not be brought against the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in any court other than the exchequer court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Right.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the position when the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company is in partnership with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? Can they both be prosecuted before the exchequer court, or must they be taken separately? My understanding is they cannot be taken separately because the court would not allow that to be done, and said the only place the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could be prosecuted would be before the exchequer court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What my hon. friend has said is that action could not be taken against them jointly in the ordinary provincial courts. But that still leaves the question as to whether action might be taken against them jointly in the exchequer court. I suppose it is the answer to that question the hon. member would like me to give at the present time. Unfortunately, I say frankly, I am not able to give it just now. However, I shall get that information, as to whether joint actions of that sort can be brought.
Certainly I would agree that it should be possible either in the provincial court or in the exchequer court to have the rights of the
Exchequer Court Act
parties determined in a single lawsuit; and I think that is the objective my hon. friend has in mind.


Charles Edward Johnston: I must repeat that I have no knowledge of the operations of the law in this regard, but when an individual such as a home owner under the National Housing Act finds himself in difficulties with the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and the government, and finds that he must go to court -bearing in mind that his financial position is not strong-he finds himself in the position where the ordinary court rules that it cannot hear the case because a crown corporation is involved. Then, when further advice is obtained, they cannot sue the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company because if they carried it to the exchequer court they could not bring in the insurance company, which is not a crown corporation.
There you find a situation which confronts the individual whose finances are limited. He cannot sue the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation jointly with the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company in the ordinary courts. He cannot sue the insurance company and the mortgage corporation in the exchequer court because the insurance company is a partner.
It seems to me some provision should be made-and I do not know whether this would be the proper place to make it-whereby a crown corporation could be sued jointly with a private company in the ordinary courts. There are two reasons for that: the first is that the ordinary home owner under the National Housing Act may-and this is most problematical-be able to raise the money to press the prosecution in the ordinary courts. Certainly however he could not raise the money required to carry an action to Ottawa so that it might be heard before the exchequer court.
I hesitate to ask my question, because I do not know what the answer will be. I would ask however what the costs would be to the ordinary individual who prosecutes the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before the exchequer court. I have no doubt that depends upon the length of the case, and upon other matters; but I have in mind an average case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It would depend upon a great many factors. Even if one knew what the tariff was, and the extent of the court costs, I do not believe he could possibly give an intelligent answer to that question. He would have to know the nature of the claim, the number of witnesses called, and all such information.
However, when the hon. member says that it would cost more to prosecute the case in

Exchequer Court Act
Ottawa, I suggest he is overlooking the fact that the exchequer court sits in different parts of Canada. It goes out on circuit. Proceedings can be instituted through Ottawa agents, following which it is not necessary for counsel in, let us say, Calgary or Edmonton or Winnipeg, to attend at Ottawa with their witnesses.
If all the witnesses on both sides of the case are in some city of Canada, the case can be tried there-provided it is one of the cities on the circuit of the exchequer court judges. In that way I should think the costs of prosecuting a case would be substantially the same in the exchequer court as they would be in the supreme court of a province.
I believe the real point in my hon. friend's remarks, if he will permit my saying so, is his suggestion that an amendment is required to the act to make it clear that in a case where a crown corporation, or the crown itself, is involved with a private company such as the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, it would be possible to bring action against the crown in the exchequer court and in that action to join the private company as a party in such case, where it appears that there is some business connection between the private company and the crown.
This would enable the case to be brought in the exchequer court where, according to the information the hon. member has given, a court has held that it is impossible to bring a case against both party defendants in the provincial court. His point, as I understand it, is that a plaintiff should be able to get redress against both defendants in the same court at one time.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe we could agree on that.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I thank the minister for the observations he has just made. I would assume that this would be the proper place to make such a change in the act, and I believe it would be most beneficial if the minister would bring down some amendment at this time, so that it might be incorporated in the legislation.
I would join with the hon. member for Calgary West when he objects to the way a fiat is issued by the officers of the minister's department and by the minister himself. The case I have in mind-and it will do no harm to repeat it now-is that of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company versus these home owners I have mentioned.
Here was a case where almost every officer of the crown thus far has disclaimed any responsibility whatsoever in the matter. If it is left in the hands of the minister, or the
IMr. Garson.]
hands of the officers who advise him, to decide whether or not a fiat shall be issued, before a prosecution may take place, then it seems to me that that is not a proper position for the minister to find himself in. This would be the time to enact legislation so that if such an action was brought the court itself could decide the merits of the case and not have the Department of Justice decide whether a fiat should be issued.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not sure whether I have made myself clear to the hon. gentleman. I must apologize to other hon. members because I think I have said about four times that we grant a fiat as a matter of course.


Charles Edward Johnston: But not as a matter of right or as an obligation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As a matter of course. In no case is it refused. Once the fiat is granted the case is then proceeded with against the crown in the same way as it would be proceeded with against another subject.


Charles Edward Johnston: But it could be refused?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It could be refused. I am sure my hon. friend has been around the halls of parliament long enough to understand that when a settled practice is developed over a number of years in British countries like Canada the subject can depend upon that practice being followed. As I said before, my deputy minister, who has been at his desk for many years, tells me that he does not know of a single case where a fiat was refused.


Mr.   Johnsion@: It is because I have been around these halls for over fourteen years that I would rather see it in the resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A point arises in my mind out of the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. Crown companies are entering more and more into the commercial life of the country. Because of their very nature these crown companies must enter into commercial transactions and I think they should be subject to suit in the ordinary way in the provincial courts. It seems to me that this is a matter that should be taken into consideration because there must be an increasing number of cases where the subject wishes to enter suit against crown corporations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That could be taken care of either by a provision here or by a provision in the act of incorporation of the crown company, that the company shall have a right to sue and be sued in the courts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that the minister take that into consideration in view of the discussion which has taken place.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a rather unusual situation that exists in Newfoundland at the present time and which has existed for some two or three years. As the minister knows, there is a foreign power, a friendly foreign power, occupying part of our country. From time to time actions for negligence and indeed of a more serious character have taken place. I speak from a full personal knowledge of a couple of actions for negligence which were taken against members of the United States forces. An action could not be taken against the United States government.
In the one case a member of the United States forces was carrying out his regular duties when the cause of action occurred. He was taken before our supreme court where he was represented by United States officers from the judge advocate's office. Judgment was obtained against the soldier and formally entered. When it came to trying to collect the judgment we were informed that the United States army would not recognize it and that we would have to go through some claims commission procedure if we wanted to obtain the amount of the judgment. I know of two cases where that has taken place, where the judgment was not satisfied.
I know of another case where a judgment was obtained in the district court and a promise given that it would be recognized. Afterward that promise was disregarded and the plaintiff received no compensation of any kind. I do not know whether I am right in bringing this to the attention of the minister now, but it is certainly a rather extraordinary position of which the minister should be cognizant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understand why the hon. member would wish to bring up this matter but I point out that it is not relevant to what we are discussing here. My reluctance to discuss it is based on the fact that I do not want to discuss a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of one of my colleagues for fear that I might muddy the waters for him.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Will the minister bring it to his attention?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to.


Ernest George Hansell: Would the minister clarify something which has arisen in the last couple of days? He has been discussing the type of case that would come before the exchequer court. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance a question with regard to taxation. I am not going to read from Hansard because you might not permit me to do so, as that discussion took place on another matter. The minister said that the taxpayer always had
Exchequer Court Act
the opportunity to appeal to the court. At the time I thought he said that the taxpayer always had recourse, and I do not know whether the word used was "recourse" or "court". Then when the hon. member for Peterborough West asked a further question the minister said that the taxpayer always had the right to appeal. We know that a tax appeal board has been set up and is in operation and I should like to know if a taxpayer who is not satisfied with the decision of the taxation authorities is to take his grievance before that tax appeal board; or did the Minister of Finance mean that he should take his grievance to the exchequer court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is another instance where I should not be undertaking to reply to a question which could be replied to more properly by the Minister of Finance. My recollection of the procedure is this: The officials of the income tax branch, having received an income tax return from a personal or corporate taxpayer, make an assessment of the taxes on the basis of that return. If the taxpayer disagrees or dissents from the assessment he has an appeal to this income tax appeal board. If he is dissatisfied with this disposition of the matter, he has an appeal to the courts.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the exchequer court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Ultimately the supreme court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While we are discussing the question of jurisdiction, may I ask the minister whether there has been further progress in the catching up by the courts with what was apparently a considerable backlog of judgments?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, there has been. Since the time the matter was last discussed in the house the situation had improved materially up to the time I got a report at the end of August this year. At that time there were only four judgments which were in arrears prior to 1948. I made a check today, and those four are still outstanding, but I would hope they would soon be cleaned up. The others are within the last two years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Carroll:: I do not know if anything was said about section 2 while section 1 was being discussed, but there is one instance where I think hardship might frequently occur. The new section reads:
82. (1) An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada lies
(a)	from a final judgment or a judgment upon a demurrer or point of law raised by the pleadings, and,

Exchequer Court Act
(b)	with leave of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, from an interlocutory judgment . . .
That puts a litigant to a lot of trouble and expense. I do not expect ever to practise in the exchequer court or in any other court again, but it seems to me it puts litigants to a lot of expense to come to Ottawa, or to retain counsel at Ottawa to go before a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to obtain leave to appeal. In cases where there is a final judgment there is the right to give notice of appeal without obtaining leave.
Subsection 2 of the new section reads:
(2) An appeal under this section shall be brought by serving a notice of appeal on all parties directly affected-
And so on. There seems to be some confusion. You take away the right of appeal without leave from an interlocutory judgment. Then in the general procedure as to how an appeal should be made there is no distinction between the two.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think what is intended there is that subsection 2 of the new section 82 applies to all cases where there is the right to give notice of appeal. In the case of an appeal from an interlocutory judgment the application would first be to a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal. When leave to appeal had been granted, then the appellant would serve the usual notice of appeal on the other side.
As to the other point raised by the hon. member, I could agree entirely with him if it were an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of some provincial court; but in this particular case it is from an interlocutory judgment of the exchequer court which, although it goes out on circuit throughout the country, has its headquarters in Ottawa. I suppose there may be occasions when the interlocutory application might be made to a judge of the exchequer court when he was on circuit, but ordinarily I think it would be made by an Ottawa solicitor acting as agent for the party to the judges here. If it was not inconvenient for them to make their interlocutory application in Ottawa and have it disposed of here, then one would not think it would be any more inconvenient for them to go across the street in Ottawa and apply to a supreme court judge for leave to appeal.


William F. Carroll: It seems to me it may develop into a hardship for people who have very little financial backing. I think that the minister should give serious consideration to the matter before the passage of the bill. It might mean that often litigants might not have sufficient funds to retain a lawyer in Ottawa, which would be necessary in practically all cases, unless the judges were on circuit.
[Mr. Carroll.l


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The suggestion of the hon. member is that, in those cases in which it was desirable that they should be as economical as possible, counsel would make the interlocutory application to a judge of the exchequer court on circuit. Then, if the interlocutory judgment was unfavourable, does the hon. member mean they should be able to apply to an exchequer court judge on circuit for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada?


William F. Carroll: No; I should like to see it left exactly as the first section puts it, that there shall be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Some of these interlocutory judgments are just as important as the final judgments to both sides of the case. I do not see why litigants should be put to the expense of asking for leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From anybody?


William F. Carroll: From anybody.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Ernest George Hansell: Six o'clock. I only have one short question.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Later this day.


Alphonse Fournier: Next sitting of the house. The intention is to proceed with estimates after public bills.


Howard Charles Green: Which department?


Alphonse Fournier: We will commence with agriculture.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, September 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to declare the meat packing industry works for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: I notice the sponsor of the bill is not in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that necessary? The hon. member who moved the adjournment of the debate is here.


Mr. Speaker:: We shall proceed with the debate.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: The bill before the house has been put forward, I am sure, because of the difficulties the meat packing industry has known in the past. I wish to give credit to the sponsor of the bill for his good intentions in bringing such a matter to the attention of the house. The immediate purpose of this proposed legislation is to take away from provincial legislatures all matters pertaining to industrial relations in the meat packing industry and place them under the control of the federal authorities. To that end, the bill proposes to have the meat packing industry declared a work for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces.
In my view the fate of this bill will rest entirely upon the interpretation of this qualification, "works for the general advantage of Canada". After listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), I have a definite impression, if not a conviction, that both of them are placing a broad interpretation on those words "for the general advantage of Canada." The introductory remarks of the sponsor of the bill, supported by the address delivered by the member for Vancouver East, would justify the introduction of a bill making other industries in Canada works for the general advantage of Canada. In my opinion, this broad interpretation does not give sufficient reason for singling out the meat packing industry.
If I may refer to the last issue of the Canada Year Book, that of 1948-49, I should like to give an illustration of the practical result of this attempt on their part. This latest issue contains a comprehensive table of the principal industries in Canada. It is found at page 566 and contains a listing of the forty most important industries according to the gross value of their products. I should like to mention the ten industries appearing at the top of that list.
The first one is the pulp and paper industry, with 113 establishments; slaughtering and meat packing, 147; non-ferrous metal smelting and refining, 15; saw mills, 6,001; flour and feed mills, 974; butter and cheese, 2,161; electrical apparatus and supplies, 266; petroleum products, 43; automobiles, 9; and clothing, women's factory, 1,108. The gross value of the first in importance of these industries is $527,814,916, while the gross value of the products of the tenth industry is $174,353,223. We can say, therefore, with-
Meat Packing Industry out any fear of contradiction that these ten leading industries in Canada would afford just as good grounds as the meat packing industry for the placing of their industrial relations under the federal authorities.
In order to better appreciate the table I have given, I should like to refer to another table appearing in the same year book at page 572. This table lists the leading industries according to the number of male wage earners employed. On that basis the tenth largest is the slaughtering and meat packing industry, so we find it has given way in importance to shipbuilding and repairs with 58,000 male wage earners; the pulp and paper industry with 36,000; railway rolling stock, 31,000; primary iron and steel, 28,000; aircraft and parts, 37,000; electrical apparatus and supplies, 23,000; machinery, 21,000; bread and other bakery products, 18,000; and miscellaneous chemical products, 26,000. The slaughtering and meat packing industry is listed as having 18,000 wage earners. I may say that those figures in the table I have just mentioned are for the month of peak employment during 1945.
Having regard to these important industries which operate in this country, and to which I have referred, one may ask himself how it is that the sponsor of this bill has drawn the special attention of this house to the meat packing industry. If it is because he considers that food is the main necessity for the ordinary consumer in this country, he might consider the same necessity existing in the matter of the flour and feed mills, the butter and cheese industry, bread and other bakery products, fruit and vegetables, fish curing and processing and so on. Outside of food there are other essential commodities that the ordinary citizen cannot dispense with, such as clothing, certain varieties of personal items, house furnishings, building materials and so on. The interpretation which is given to that particular word in section 53, paragraph (g) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which is in terms identical with section 92 of the British North America Act, subsection 10 (c), opens wide the door to the introduction of dozens of other similar bills which would surreptitiously take away from the ambit of the provincial legislatures' power a good number of matters which by our constitution have been left to their exclusive jurisdiction. There would be no way of drawing the line of demarcation after this bill in its present form has been adopted, if it is adopted.
What are the powers of this parliament in regard to this particular bill? Are we authorized to give any favourable consideration to it? To answer that question, I cannot do any better than to refer to the constitution

Meat Packing Industry itself. All the powers possessed by the federal authority derive from section 91 of the constitution, and all the powers possessed by the provincial legislatures derive from section 92. These two sections are the keystones of our system of government, predicated on the principle of division of authority. Section 91 and section 92 are, I would say, the agents of the distribution of all legislative authority and power in this country. They should complete each other and not come in conflict with each other. They should be interpreted in the same spirit that motivated the fathers of confederation when they wanted to build up a country which, though young, would develop to become one of the leading countries in the world. If one is to give to section 92, and more particularly to subsection 10 (c) thereof, an interpretation which would not conflict with section 91 but would complete it, one cannot be satisfied with the application which the sponsor of the bill has made of the words "for the general advantage of Canada" because section 91, which is the source of the federal parliament's powers of legislation, has a preamble which reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces;
and so on.
With regard to this idea of the federal parliament's taking over powers which have not been specifically assigned to it by the constitution, I cannot think of any better reference in the last few years than that of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. One may say that the situation was absolutely inevitable at that time, without any possible controversy. I would answer by saying that is true; but, if the situation was more far-reaching or sweeping, the character of the circumstances which were invoked at that time should not be any different from those which should be the basis of similar legislation, such as that now before us. I could not find any better authority to give an outline of the circumstances which brought about the introduction of this special legislation in 1945 than the statement made by the then minister of justice, now Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). When he moved the second reading of that bill he had this to say, as reported at page 2448 of Hansard of 1945:
The adoption of the motion for second reading of the bill will mean two things, two very important things, both matters of principle: one, that in the opinion of this house the circumstances in which Canada as a whole finds herself during this period of transition to normal from the exceptional conditions existing during the war are still such as

to give some matters comprised within the subjects enumerated in section 92 of the British North America Act aspects of such paramount significance as to take them outside the sphere of that section;
Then he went on with his second point, which referred particularly to the powers given to the governor in council. During his address on that occasion he referred to the jurisprudence laid down by the privy council in the Fort Frances case. He gave several quotations from that judgment, and I should like to draw attention to the following:
In the event of war, when the national life may require for its preservation the employment of very exceptional means, the provision of peace, order and good government for the country as a whole may involve effort on behalf of the whole nation, in which the interests of individuals may have to be subordinated to that of the community in a fashion which requires section 91 to be interpreted as providing for such an emergency. The general control of property and civil rights for normal purposes remains with the provincial legislatures. But questions may arise by reason of the special circumstances of the national emergency which concern nothing short of the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole.
The speaker then continued and gave a dramatic picture of the situation with which the country would be confronted in the event that the legislation would not pass at that time. In passing, I wish to draw my hon. friend's attention to a statement which the then representative of his party, participating in the debate from which I have quoted, made on that occasion. The gentleman to whom I am referring is Mr. Jaenicke, who was then the hon. member for Kindersley, for whom I have always had great admiration. I have always considered him to be an outstanding lawyer in his province, and I am happy to quote the remarks he made on that occasion. This is what he said, as reported at page 2462 of Hansard of November 23, 1945:
The bill before us, however, enables the ministry to legislate and enact substantive law, and, generally speaking, that is intolerable in democracy in ordinary times, the more so under our constitution because the government by such legislation not only takes over the function of parliament but interferes seriously with the powers of our provinces with respect to subjects which are specifically assigned to provincial legislatures. If we were living in ordinary times, we would undoubtedly oppose the passing of such a bill most vigorously.
In my humble opinion, there is no difference in the character of the circumstances which should prevail in the country to allow the federal parliament by a mere act of parliament and under the authority of section 92 subsection 10 (c) to take away from the provinces some of the matters which had been given to them in a very exclusive and explicit way.
Hon. members who sat on the industrial relations committee in 1947 will recall that a doubt arose in the minds of several hon.

members of that committee about the possibility of the committee recommending what was termed a national labour code. It was thought appropriate to invite the Department of Justice to express an opinion on the jurisdiction of the federal parliament over labour matters. On July 3, 1947, Mr. Driedger, senior advisory counsel of the Department of Justice, appeared and made a lengthy statement, giving his comments and conclusions on the jurisprudence of the privy council which would have some bearing on the matter, and these are the final remarks which he made on that occasion:
(c)	Finally, parliament may, in special circumstances, legislate with respect to labour relations under the initial words of s. 91, namely, for the peace, order and good government of Canada. This was done during the war. The Canada Temperance case (1946) A.C. 193 is the most recent decision of the privy council on the authority of parliament to legislate on this ground. Viscount Simon said that the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation; if it is such that it goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the dominion as a whole then it will fall within the competence of the dominion parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada though it may in another aspect touch on matters especially reserved to the provincial legislature.
These are general principles and there may be difficulty in applying them to particular cases. No exact test has been laid down as to when or in what circumstances a matter goes beyond local or provincial concern but it is clear that some special circumstances must exist. The authorities are against the view that parliament can in normal times cover the whole field of labour relations in Canada. In the Snider case the point was expressly decided and although the doctrine as expounded by Viscount Simon in the Canada Temperance case is somewhat broader than indicated in the Snider case, it is to be noted that nowhere did Viscount Simon suggest that the Snider case was wrongly decided.
And so on. These are the descriptions referred to in the judgment as the circumstances justifying the federal government intervening in the provincial field of legislation: "abnormal circumstances"; "exceptional conditions"; "standard of necessity"; "some extraordinary peril to the national life of Canada"; "highly exceptional"; "epidemic of pestilence"; and so on.
The situation which now exists in the meat packing industry is something which in no reasonable way meets the circumstances which the higher courts of justice have described in a precise way to give rise to the transfer of powers from the legislatures to parliament.
During the war, under P.C. 1003, the meat packing industry was regulated by the federal government in its labour relations. Through the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner, or at the later stage in 1946 by the appointment of a controller and seven deputy controllers, a stoppage of work could
Meat Packing Industry be avoided. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) was kind enough to refer to the able and effective assistance which was provided by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and his officials in the settlement of that industrial dispute and of those which came about during the war years and in the immediate period thereafter. Since the war, jurisdiction over labour matters which did not belong to the federal parliament was returned to the provinces on May 15, 1947. Not long after, in August, 1947, a strike broke out in the meat packing industry which kept idle six plants of Swift Canadian, and shortly afterwards spread to eleven plants of Canada Packers and six plants of Burns and Company. In all, at the peak of the strike 14,150 men were idle and 47 establishments were closed. This strike situation lasted two months. On October 18 the Swift Canadian Company and the united packing-house workers reached a settlement. An agreement was signed granting a ten-cent-an-hour wage increase, and other difficulties were solved. A few days after that, so far as the other plants were concerned the conciliation machinery of the Ontario department of labour was put to work. A provisional settlement was reached which called for an increase of seven cents an hour, with the proviso that the additional wage increase would be submitted to an arbitrator, Mr. C. P. McTague. The matter was finally closed.
Since then, for the past two years, we have had in the meat packing industry a situation which does not warrant any special attention from a legislative body such as ours The constitution absolutely closes the way for this parliament in connection with matters concerning industrial relations in the meat packing industry.
I submit that the situation now, in thai industry, does not justify our interference with it. This bill is predicated upon a situation of the past and the eventuality of further difficulties in the future. But if this is so, there is no reason why the bill should leave aside all the other industries of importance in Canada, which should be regarded as industries for the general advantage of Canada.
The sponsor of the bill may take to himself the credit for having drawn our attention to this matter. He referred particularly to the effectiveness of the federal Department of Labour during the war, and the transitional period thereafter. He has recognized the soundness of our labour code. The introduction of this bill, in itself, is a recognition of the great qualities of our federal legislation relating to labour relations.

Meat Packing Industry


Arthur Leroy Smith: What does the hon. member mean by saying, "our labour code"? We all did that.


Paul-Émile Côté: I submit the
remedy for any abnormal situation which may exist in the field of labour relations, or which may develop in the future, should rest with the provinces themselves. They are the authorities, constitutionally, in these matters. I am sure the federal Department of Labour would be only too pleased to offer and to give the kind of co-operation it has given in the past. Does not section 62 of the labour code constitute a clear offer of collaboration in matters where the importance of a dispute in labour relations generally is nation-wide?
In view of the fact that in the immediate future there is to be a consultation between the provincial premiers and the federal authorities on matters touching the constitution, I suggest the wise course would be to let that consultation take place. There will be drawn a more precise line of demarcation between the responsibilities of the legislatures and those of the federal government. A matter such as the one we are discussing tonight, and other similar problems, could be discussed at that time.
I should think that the best way to achieve a reasonable degree of unity in labour relations, or in any other field of equivalent category, is through a process of consultation and co-operation with the provinces. In my submission, to a certain extent this has already been achieved-and achieved to an important extent, if one recalls that our labour code has already served as a model or inspiration for labour legislation in five or six provinces.
I suggest the bill before the house is not within the jurisdiction of this legislative body, and that we should not attempt to do anything which not only would be trespassing upon provincial rights but would be provocative to the provinces, the co-operation of which is so much needed at this time when, after having developed such a wonderful effort in production and in social legislation, our country now ranks among the most important in the world.
I suggest that in the interests of our country we should not attempt to lay the foundations of any further disagreement with the provinces, and that this bill should not be passed.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I shall discuss this bill briefly. Ours is a federal constitution. I know that some trade union organizations have some knowledge of the jurisdictional disputes affecting labour organizations. It is my belief that the fathers of confederation

planned better than they knew when they established a federal constitution in Canada.
This bill is predicated upon the assumption of taking over complete jurisdiction in connection with labour disputes and other matters of that kind in Canada. If it is logical- and I am not now discussing the legal aspect of it-to take over this one industry, then it is just as logical to take over all industries. As I have said before in the House of Commons, Canada is not a country in the same sense as are Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain or Holland. This is a continent.
My hon. friends smile. Let me say this, in a kindly way, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), that it was sweet music to my ears when he paid tribute to the Department of Labour during the war under the War Measures Act. It will be understood that I have heard different expressions of opinion.
In confirmation of what was said by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), when he interrupted a short time ago, let me say that I believe the labour legislation of this country compares favourably with any labour legislation under the canopy of heaven. If my hon. friend will wait just a minute he will learn something as he gets older. There is one difference between my hon. friend and myself; I know what I am talking about and he does not.
I think a tribute is due to all parties in this house for having framed our national labour legislation. We went through a stage during the great war when jurisdiction over labour matters was with the federal government. Since that time stronger labour departments have been developed in all the provinces, and in the main the basic principles enunciated in the federal labour legislation have been copied. This legislation has been in operation for two years and I think it should be given a fair trial. I think it has worked reasonably well; it certainly has worked much better than the legislation in force in other countries. In one country in particular strikes are in the offing in some national industries, something that we have not suffered in this country.


John Lambert Gibson: Touch wood.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not need to touch wood. Recently the workers' organization in the packing industry negotiated a national agreement with the large employers providing a six and a half cents per hour increase in wages. As I said before, you cannot negotiate labour agreements on the floor of the House of Commons. The proper place to do that is around the conference table and there is no substitute for it. There are countries in

Europe where that is not done at the moment, and when certain ideologies come in through the kitchen, freedom goes out the front door.
From the very nature of things the people in British Columbia have a clearer understanding of the economic conditions affecting the large industries in that province. The people in Nova Scotia I believe have a better understanding of the broad industrial problems of that province. You can go on to New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where of course there is not much industry.


An hon. Member:: But good labour laws.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the use of having labour laws if you have no industry. That is merely window-dressing. My hon. friends who come from Saskatchewan know very well that in their scheme of socialization, so-called, they have run into trouble in the industries operated by the government. Even with the wonderful labour legislation they talk of, it was not possible to prevent dislocation in those small industries-I believe one was a box factory.


An hon. Member:: Shoe factory.


An hon. Member:: Horse meat.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just point that out in passing.
I wish I had more time to speak, but I have not.


An hon. Member:: You have ten minutes yet.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is far better to build with candour than it is with cant. I think we in this House of Commons, we in this Dominion of Canada, particularly those of us in the industrial provinces know something about the difficulties and complexities that exist in a practical way between labour and the great industrial structures of this country. I would rather rely on our experience than on the theories of some schoolteacher or some other person. In saying that, I do not intend to be disrespectful of the school-teaching profession, but I am sure that my hon. friends would object if I tried to read a lecture on how to teach children in school. That is not my profession.
I do not say that on proper grounds and in the proper circumstances a valid declaration could not be framed to declare a meatpacking plant to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, but I point out that the express purpose of the declaration in Bill No. 5 is to enable parliament to legislate in matters of labour relations in the meat packing industry. In effect it is an attempt to do indirectly what parliament cannot do directly, since labour relations fall under
Meat Packing Industry the heading of civil rights and are, therefore, within provincial jurisdiction. The advice that I have from the officers of the Department of Justice is that the declaration as proposed and framed in this bill is open to very serious objections as to its validity.
However, even if the legislation were valid, and even though I were in agreement with the views of the member who has proposed this bill, that the meat packing industry should in the matter of labour relations be under the jurisdiction of parliament, I would still vote against the bill as being the wrong method of procedure to achieve the desired purpose.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no equivocation about it. There is in principle nothing to prevent the extension of the principle which it is proposed to apply to the meat packing industry in this bill to any other industry where there are establishments in more than one province, as, for example, departmental-store chains and mail order businesses of all kinds. If a man were fortunate enough to own a hotel in Ottawa and one in Hull he would naturally come under the jurisdiction, as would Canadian Industries Limited which have various types of industrial establishments in a number of provinces.
The device certainly provides a very easy method of procedure for the redistribution of the respective powers assigned to parliament and to the provincial legislatures by the British North America Act. I should think it is quite apparent that legislation of the type illustrated by Bill No. 5 would be regarded by the provinces as an unwarranted invasion of provincial rights and as an opening wedge and a precedent for unilateral action by parliament, having the same effect as an amendment to the British North America Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May we quote the minister on that tomorrow?


Humphrey Mitchell: You may quote me on that now. Even in the case of provinces that might be favourable to the ultimate transfer of jurisdiction, in labour matters in the packing industry, from the provincial to the dominion authorities, the procedure proposed in this instance for this purpose would be regarded as objectionable.
I believe therefore that, if and when there is agreement, that jurisdiction in matters relating to labour relations in the meat packing industry should be vested in this parliament, the proper method to follow is by amendment to the British North America Act, as was done prior to the enactment of the unemployment insurance legislation.

Meat Packing Industry


Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg North):: What about Beauharnois Light Heat and Power Company?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will come to that if you wish. I say to my hon. friend that I am making this speech and I think I know what I am talking about. While there have been a number of instances where specific works have been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, in any instances involving a substantial number of industrial establishments the purpose was to enable parliament to legislate so as to regulate the management and operation of the industry as a whole as, for example, in the case of grain elevators, which were declared by parliament to be works for the general advantage of Canada. The enactment of the Canada Grain Act, which regulated grain elevator operations, followed upon this declaration.
Reference was made in the debate to the legislation which was passed declaring the Flin Flon works of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and it was represented that the declaration in that case constituted a precedent for the legislation put forward in Bill No. 5.
The two cases are clearly distinguishable. In the case of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company operation, the work declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada was a mine shaft which runs across the interprovincial boundary line between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As a work connecting two provinces, it was the opinion of the Department of Justice, as I recall it, that this undertaking fell within dominion jurisdiction without the necessity of special legislation. The two provinces concerned, however, desired to have the work declared a work for the general advantage of Canada so as to fortify the assumption of federal jurisdiction.
I should like to say to some of my hon. friends, the jurisdiction of whose provinces is very dear to their hearts, that if we in the federal parliament were to do what the hon. member wants us to do in this one particular instance, I am certain that some of the provinces would object. I am certain if I were a member of one of the provincial legislatures I would object.
I should point out, however, that the declaration in that case was an unqualified declaration. The important distinction, however, is that the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company declaration covered a unique situation, and does not, therefore, establish a precedent. It also had the concurrence of the interested provinces.

Do not overlook the fact that when an industry is brought within the exclusive legislative authority of parliament, workers in the industry lose the benefit of provincial labour legislation regulating wages, hours and conditions of employment enacted for the benefit of industrial workers in provincial industries.
Consequently, in a case such as this one which affects a large number of local plants and a large number of local workers, and in fact the major part of an entire industry, a very strong case must be made for the necessity of the declaration in order to justify it. I do not believe that those who propose this bill will have such a case.
May I say in conclusion that I suppose my department has probably worked in co-operation, and is still doing so, with the provincial governments on more matters than any other department of the federal government. I think if there had been a serious disagreement on policy we would have heard something about it in the House of Commons. 1 can say in all sincerity, I know that my personal relations as minister with every province in the Dominion of Canada have been excellent. I hope they will continue so, and I hope I will not be charged with the responsibility of saying to them, in contravention of the B.N.A. Act, that we are endeavouring to take away from them jurisdiction which belongs to them. I hope that when the house votes on this measure it will agree accordingly.
On motion of Mr. Byrne the debate was adjourned.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production service-
21.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $475,900.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Just a moment. You did not give me time to get my book open. I do not know what item 21 is. It is item No. 22 in which I am interested, grants to agricultural organizations.


Mr. Quelch:: I wish to draw to the attention of the minister a matter that at first may not appear to be relevant, but I believe the point which I wish to make is directly connected with the item. I think the minister is aware that until quite recently it was the practice of the railways to allow a reduced rate on exhibits sent to fairs and exhibitions. I understand that rate was discontinued quite recently. Has the minister or his depart-

ment made any representations to the railways to try to get that rate reinstated? If the railways are not prepared to reinstate the reduced rate, would it not be worth while for the government to take steps to provide for a subsidy or grant? I think the minister will agree that it is to the advantage of Canada that farmers from the far corners of the nation should be able to ship their exhibits to central points. I have in mind, for instance, the royal winter fair at Toronto. It is quite an expensive matter for farmers to ship stock from western Canada to the royal winter fair. They used to receive a reduced rate, but I understand that it has been cancelled. It may not cost much to ship an exhibit to a local fair, but it is quite a heavy cost to ship livestock a long distance from western Canada to the royal winter fair or to the United States or, vice versa, for farmers of the United States to ship stock to exhibitions in Canada. Has the minister considered that matter?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: For many years the railways gave a special rate on livestock moving to fairs, and livestock moving for certain breeding purposes, but they gave notice some time ago that the rate would not continue beyond the end of this year. It is still in existence, and has applied up until now, but we understand their intention is to remove it. We have made protests with regard to it, but up to the moment we have no definite undertaking from them that the rate will be continued beyond the end of the year.


Mr. Laing:: I should like to say a word on behalf of the Pacific national exhibition. At Vancouver we have a fair that has developed very rapidly. Its president is Dr. Harry King of the university of British Columbia. Our fair is overbalanced as to agriculture for a reason that I shall try to explain. The minister is more fully aware than I am that these magnificent herds of stock go on show circuits, and they would not go out on the prairie circuit unless there was that inevitable pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in the form of considerable prizes. The Vancouver exhibition has a heavy prize list in the livestock section of the fair. To that extent, it is thereby assisting and subsidizing those herds that are on the show circuits. I would ask that some consideration be given, not a large grant by any means, but a token grant to acknowledge that that assistance is being given towards the maintenance of the show circuits.
While I am speaking, Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of joining with the members on all sides of the house in complimenting the minister on the excellent
Supply-Agriculture
work he has done for agriculture in this country. I believe agriculture is one of the two great sources of funds for expenditure in this country, the other being the wages of labour. I believe the administration of our agricultural department has been admirable.
I should like to comment on the remark of the hon member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie), who seemed to be somewhat concerned about irrigation in the province of Alberta. I want to assure him we are proud of our minister from British Columbia for the work he has done in connection with irrigation in the federal riding of Kamloops. Unfortunately for some of us on this side of the house, those who are happiest about irrigation are the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones).


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to make a remark or two about this item, Mr. Chairman, but before doing so may I thank the hon. member who has just spoken for his reference to irrigation in my constituency. While appreciating all that he has said, perhaps I should point out to him that in the part of the country from which he comes the need is not so much for irrigation as for a little drought.


Mr. Cruickshank:: That is what you think.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Fraser valley found that out last year. A lot of dams and dikes were required.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and the government treated us very well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What we require is irrigation, extra moisture. In looking at the detail for this item as shown on page 109, I notice that practically every other province in Canada receives grants of $5,000 or more while British Columbia receives only $900. I feel that is a most inadequate grant, not only in consideration of the work that is carried on by the various fairs# in British Columbia but in view of the importance of the cattle industry in that province.
Speaking from my own knowledge, we have two very important fairs in the interior of British Columbia sponsored by the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers Association, which receives this grant of $900. Those shows are the Christmas fat stock show in the month of December and the spring show in the month of March. Both of those exhibitions attract large numbers of exhibitors from every province in Canada. I believe all members from British Columbia will feel a sense of justifiable pride when I point out to the committee that most of the beef cattle prizes at the Ontario Royal Agricultural Winter Fair in Toronto last year were won

Supply-Agriculture
by an exhibitor from British Columbia. I refer, of course, to the Earlscourt herd of Colonel Victor Spencer, which is bred at Lytton and on his other farm, the Diamond S ranch, up in the interior.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, it used to be in the Fraser Valley riding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Lytton once was, but the main Diamond S never was. However, let us not enter into a competition. I believe I am speaking for the whole province when I say I think a grant of $900 is most inadequate.


Mr. Fair:: Is there a fair interested in agriculture-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the minister give us some reason why we get only $900 when the others get $5,000? I do not believe he can.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know just what my hon. friend was talking about.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to tell the minister. I was talking about item 21 on page 109. Perhaps he would like to turn up the page.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did turn up the page, but I did not find what you are talking about. That $900 is a grant to the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers Association; it is not a grant that goes to the Vancouver A fair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was not talking about the Vancouver A fair because that is not sponsored by the beef cattle growers association.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of those sales that are held from time to time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not see any grant for the Vancouver fair here either.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have it here, if you will sit down long enough for me to read it to you. The Pacific national exhibition grant is $1,000 for junior works, $500 for judges, and $3,000 for permanent improvements, making a total of $4,500, which is the total amount allowed any class A fair. The Vancouver fair, which is known as the Pacific national exhibition, has received the same grant as similar fairs are receiving. In addition to that, we have a two-way arrangement with the exhibition in Vancouver under which capitalized grants over a period are received.
I think my hon. friend remembers that some years ago I went out and opened that exhibition as the first act in starting a building program which resulted in the largest building there is on the grounds. This building was partially financed by Ottawa, just as similar buildings in Ottawa and London, Ontario, are partially financed. In other words, the exhibition in Vancouver has been

well treated. I believe my files contain more letters from Vancouver congratulating us on what we have done than from any other fair in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you gave them $4,500, I would not be at all surprised. The item $4,500 is included in the grants to class A and B provincial summer fairs. There is an item for grants to winter and spring fairs in which I see items varying from $50,000 down to $4,500, with the exception of the miserable grant to the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers Association of $900. It is that I am protesting, because that association, in spite of the meagre assistance from the dominion government of $900, puts on two shows a year. As I said, those shows attract exhibitors from many other provinces in Canada.
I believe hon. members will agree with me, certainly the members from British Columbia will, when I say the centre of beef cattle producing in the province is Kamloops. As I have said, the beef herd of Colonel Victor Spencer from Lytton won every major award for the white-faced class at the Toronto fair last year. I certainly believe that a grant of $900 to an association which stages two major fairs a year is most inadequate, particularly in comparison with those other grants ranging from $50,000 down to $4,500.


James Garfield Gardiner: For his information, I may tell my hon. friend that that is the only show in Canada that gets that $900 grant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I know. The others get $5,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the others do not. Here is the list. For class A fairs, at Calgary their total was $3,500; Canada's Great Eastern exhibition, $4,500; Canadian National Exhibition Association, $4,000; Central Canada exhibition, $4,500. To come down to the Pacific national exhibition the amount is $4,500. The grants are just the same for all those fairs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not asking about the Pacific national exhibition.


James Garfield Gardiner: In addition, this $900 grant you are talking about is not paid anywhere else except through the association you are talking about. So you are not being deprived of anything that anybody else is getting. You are getting something that others do not get.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Look at the Great Eastern winter fair at Sherbrooke, which gets $5,000. Is Sherbrooke a great beef cattle producing area?


Mr. Weir:: It is a great dairy cattle producing area.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a winter show. If you put on a winter show in Vancouver, you will get the same amount.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not put on a winter show at Vancouver. We put on a winter show at Kamloops.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you put on one that is similar and get the same classification for that show, they will get a grant. These grants are paid on that basis right across Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We put on a much better show. We get exhibitors from a wider area than any other show in British Columbia in connection with the cattle industry. As a matter of fact, for two years in succession the show in Vancouver was not even held.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a beef cattle and ranchers association only. It is not like those other shows at all. That other organization is a beef cattle and ranchers association, and they have obtained that grant of $900.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May it be increased?


George Alexander Cruickshank: In order to solve this problem, I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. I should like to back up the hon. member for Kamloops-anything for British Columbia-but he is all wet in his argument. The one is a fair and the other is a beef show. He knows that perfectly well. I think the solution is that this $900 be transferred to Chilliwack. We will take it.


Robert Fair: Has the government considered replacing, if necessary, the assistance that has been given by the railroads to those who are sending exhibits to the various exhibitions?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I were to answer that question in the affirmative, I am sure it would be the surest way of seeing to it that the railways would never provide it again. I am not going to give any such undertaking as that tonight. We are still discussing the question with the railways.


Robert Fair: We will discuss that matter a little bit later on when we find out definitely what the railroads' answer is going to be.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there a grant of any amount to Newfoundland for fairs or exhibitions?


James Garfield Gardiner: Newfoundland will be
entitled to grants on exactly the same basis as organizations in other provinces in Canada. I can assure my hon. friend that the matter will be checked up and they will be treated just like everybody else.


William Joseph Browne: This is the season for fairs. I think it is worthy of comment to point out that there is no vote, 45781-27
Supply-Agriculture
either here or in the supplementary estimates, for Newfoundland fairs during this season.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing voted in that way in connection with any of them. There is a vote of $250,000 to make provision for grants to fairs. If there is a fair in Newfoundland that meets the conditions required in order to put it in the B or A class, it will be treated the same as a similar fair anywhere else is treated.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Can we get the balance that is left from the $250,000?


Mr. Jones:: Will the minister explain the classifications for fairs. The fair at Vernon could not quite qualify because it is a semiagricultural and a semi-industrial fair. I think they are doing good work. They are promoting a good deal of assistance to the agriculturists of that area and are deserving of help. They have been turned down on a technicality.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact that they are partly industrial and partly agricultural does not disqualify them. All of the fairs I have been speaking of are partly agricultural and partly industrial. The fair must have paid for three years a prize list amounting to at least $3,000. If they have fulfilled that condition each year for three years, they are entitled to be considered as a B fair. It is to B fairs that we are making payments, and to A fairs. The A fair has a higher qualification than the B fair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The grants for permanent buildings amounting to $3,000 were put in force many years ago; I think it was nearly fifteen or twenty years ago. Am I right on that point?


James Garfield Gardiner: This particular system, as it is now provided for, was established in 1945. Prior to the war we had a system of making grants, but it was not exactly the same as it is now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but it was the same amount, was it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was a similar amount; I do not think it was exactly the same.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wondered if the minister had considered raising that amount for permanent buildings, because the fairs find it hard to get their buildings put up, and they all need new ones.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the beginning of the war we discontinued all grants to exhibitions. Before the war began there was a good deal of difference of opinion as to how these grants should be based. Then at the end of the war the Canadian National Association was called together, and they met with representatives

Supp ly-A griculture
of the government and worked out this present plan. It was unanimously agreed that this was the system that was to be brought into effect and it was finally brought into effect.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What I am getting at is this. In 1945 the cost of buildings was not as high as it is today. The cost has gone up nearly one hundred per cent. I think the minister ought to consider the suggestion I have made.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Before the item carries I would ask the minister if he would furnish the committee with detailed information as to the distribution of the amounts paid out under this heading in the last fiscal year. Under the heading, grants to class A and class B fairs and provincial summer fairs, the amount shown is $206,500. Will the minister give the committee the information, or put it on Hansard, as to just where this sum of $206,500 was distributed last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I read that information into Hansard the last time we were on these estimates.


Percy Chapman Black: Do I understand that information is now on Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand so.


Percy Chapman Black: That is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-[DOT]
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $43,500.
Arthur Leroy Smith: The details of this item are to be found at page 110. The item in which I am interested is Canadian national livestock records. The amount is only $18,000, and it is exactly the same as it was last year. These records represent the government's keeping track of records of various associations having to do with livestock. I am anxious to say at the outset that the records with respect to cattle are well kept and have a splendid reputation and are accepted for example at the Chicago livestock exhibition as being final and first class. In regard to thoroughbred horses, they are not worth a nickel. You cannot race any thoroughbred horse on any track in Canada, for example the Calgary track, unless that horse be registered with the New York Jockey Club. What I am saying is not a criticism.
Then, coming to the animals in which I am so much interested, I am glad we have a new member for Regina City because he is interested in the same animals, namely, hunting dogs. Suppose I have a dog and he is worth $50 as an unregistered dog. I registered it in Canada and it is probably

worth $45 by the time I have done that, irrespective of what it costs me to register it. It is nothing; it is no good; it does not mean anything. The only place you can register a purebred dog and get any assistance from that registration is in Chicago, in a newspaper which I think is called Kennel and Bench. My hon. friend who was so annoyed with me a moment ago thinks that you bench only judges. You bench dogs occasionally. Some of the judges I know would be better on another bench, but that is neither here nor there. What I am talking about, trying to get suggestions from the minister, is this. I am trying to get some way of improving the character of registration of purebred animals in Canada. It seems to me that we have, or should have at least, come out of our swaddling clothes in connection with these things. I do not know what the $18,000 is spent for. It is not very much; but, whatever it is spent for, we are getting nothing from it. We might just as well save our money and get one of these machines on which you copy things out and put them on files which are never read by anybody. It seems to me that these Canadian livestock records could be elevated into a lot higher position than they hold in North America.
With respect to purebred racing stock, I think, although I am not sure, there is some arrangement between the stud book in England and the New York Jockey Club under which animals are registered in either place and may race in either country. I know that it applies to France. I think there is an interchange between the three countries. But I have no race horses. Perhaps that is the reason 1 was able to pay my way down here. I mean the sleeping accommodation. The rest I got on a pass. The point I am trying to make is that with a little life, a little initiative, a little enthusiasm somewhere there is no reason why Canada should occupy the backward position which we do occupy.
May I make it plain, Mr. Chairman, that I know this grant is only in aid of organizations. The government does not register animals, be they cattle, thoroughbred horses, or Dr. McCusker's dogs, which of course are a breed all their own. Surely we can do something with this $18,000-make it $36,000 or some other figure-to elevate the classification given our purebred stock in other countries.
I gave the minister notice of my question in an informal way. He has Mr. Taggart in front of him. I am sure he is tired of dealing with dead animals. He was in the meat business for a long long time. I should

like to hear from the minister on the matter. [ am quite sure that we can get some assistance here to put our livestock records on a par with, or perhaps even better than, those immediately to the south of us. I would not spend 10 cents on registering an English setter in Canada. It is no good to you. The same thing applies to the Labradors of the hon. member for Regina City. We heard a lot from the Minister of Justice about the badge of colonialism. This is a badge of inferiority. If he interested himself in it be would go a great deal farther than he lid the other night on the badge of colonialism.


James Garfield Gardiner: The records work in connection with the pedigrees of livestock is not taken care of by the government. The records are kept by an organization that is ;et up by the breeders' association. It is an )rganization of Shorthorn breeders, Holstein oreeders, Clyde breeders and all breeders of ivestock. I think these records are accepted ay people who are desirous of purchasing purebred stock as of much the same standard ar on much the same basis as are the records cither of the United States or of Great Britain.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with ;hat.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think our records ere ever questioned in the United States on my of our livestock or on any of the animals ;hat are registered under it. We pay $18,000 ;o that organization in order to assist it in conducting an office here in Ottawa, set up ay itself and not by the government, just as ve do make grants to some other organiza-;ions that are carrying on work in connection yith agriculture.
With respect to horse racing, that is an entirely different thing. My understanding las always been that those who own ihoroughbred running horses here and who vant to race them in the United States, or yant to have the benefits of the much wider [DOT]ange of the races they have there, must *egister them with that organization, and hat there is reciprocity back and forth. Their lorses come here and our horses go there. That is an arrangement among themselves.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are all *egistered with the New York Jockey Club.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an arrangement that s carried out as between the people who are nterested in racing all over the United States md this country. There must be some central dace of registration-I presume there must ce-and they compel the registration of all lorses there. That is not something that the 45781-27J
Supply-Agriculture
government does or can undo. We do not know what action we could take in order to undo it.
With regard to dogs, perhaps there is some justification for the criticisms which are made. The kennel association has no more authority than has the Holstein association or the Shorthorn association or the Clyde association or any other. They have no more authority than these others have, but I must say, in so far as our experience with the kennel association is concerned, there has been more trouble in connection with the manner in which it has conducted its affairs than there has been with some of the others. I am not going to try to say what the reason for that is. All I am going to say tonight is that last session we introduced a bill. It was introduced in the Senate. It passed through the Senate, and had its first reading in the house before parliament was dissolved. That bill was brought in in the first instance to correct a difficulty which had been experienced among dog breeders, and those who were showing dogs, by amending the whole act and not giving the range of authority to any of the associations that they were presumed to have before. I am not sure that the bill has yet been introduced into the Senate at this session, but if not it is on its way there. It will be in the house immediately after it passes the Senate again.
We can then discuss this whole question as to whether the bill takes care of the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary West. We realize there are difficulties. For two or three years we have been struggling with them, and we drafted legislation two years ago in the first instance. That legislation reached the house last year, but unfortunately it had not gone all the way through before parliament dissolved. It will be back this session, and I hope it will have its final reading.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will they include tomcats too?


George Randolph Pearkes: In these exhibitions where there are classes for thoroughbred mares and foals, and thoroughbred yearlings, do they have to be registered with the New York Jockey Club before they can be shown in the exhibition class?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I understand not-just for racing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
23.	Marketing service-marketing service administration. $150,090.
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word with respect to an item which perhaps is as applicable here as at any other

Supply-Agriculture
point in the estimates. Hon. members opposite spent an hour discussing matters connected with meat packing, and it should be a comparatively simple transition now to discuss the matter of meat wrapping.
The other day a distinguished visitor expressed himself as being amazed at the pains we take to wrap meat in what he considered fancy packages. He was astonished that under the present condition of the high cost of living we should spend our money in that way rather than spending it on more of the material wrapped. I wonder whether we as consumers actually insist upon these fancy wrappings, or whether they are forced upon us?
It was by sheer accident that only this morning I happened to pick up the report of a questionnaire and the answers thereto sent out by, I presume, a body of women, known as the Canadian Association of Consumers. They circularized their members with questions in regard to this particular matter, and the answers are interesting. Some of them maintained-and I suggest that some department of government should take note of this -that it was impossible to buy many products in other than these so-called fancy packages in their particular districts. The answers mentioned several commodities, emphasized the needless expense involved in fancy wrappings of certain items, and mentioned in particular some of the lithographing appearing on these wrappings.
But, sir, there are some marketing practices which are perhaps even questionable. Before the cost of foods became so high, certain vegetables and fruits were put out in 20-ounce cans. It was discovered however that with the high cost of living the average family found that these items were somewhat expensive. The result was that the manufacturers produced a 15-ounce can, these being placed on the shelves currently with the 20-ounce can.
The difficulty however was that after a while the 20-ounce can began to disappear, and it was discovered that the 15-ounce can became the regular item available for purchase. But somehow or other, the price of the 15-ounce can began to approach the price of the 20-ounce can, with the result that we have the substitution of 15 ounces of food for what was formerly 20 ounces, but at the same price.
This reminds me of the days when I was homesteading. I remember the transitional period between the five-pound tin of jam which eventually turned into a four-pound tin of jam, but at exactly the same price charged for the larger can. This is an old device.

This matter of packaging may be a small thing to bring up in parliament; but after all we come in contact with these small things in our daily lives and in our housekeeping arrangements. These matters have some importance to us in the House of Commons who represent the people, and particularly the housewives of this country.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley is no1 in his seat, but hon. members will recall the agitation which developed and the great joy taken by the hon. member for Fraser Valley in pointing out the miserable, little green anc worm-eaten peaches with which Ontario hac been afflicted in that particular season. Lei me say to the hon. member who provided us a few days ago with some very fine peaches that there was no condition like that this year.
On that occasion the hon. member foi Fraser Valley protested against the glamorizing of those hard and unpalatable peaches by the use of pink gauze, which made then look rather attractive, and resulted in then being purchased readily, but were the source of great disappointment when the frur reached the buyer's home.
I understand that the use of deceptive devices of that sort, and in particular tha' type of netting, was declared illegal-and ir my opinion properly so. I do not know by what process, whether it was by a dominior or a provincial law.
At previous sessions the minister and ] have had occasional arguments about the quality of Canadian bacon. Tonight I intenc to talk for a few moments about the wrapping on that same bacon. I was surprisec the other morning when, after someone hac bought a package of bacon-I was going te say at our house, but we have never had i house or a dwelling of any sort since cominj here, although we still do have bacon-we discovered this peculiar wrapping.
I notice the minister is looking toward me and I am sure he would imagine that wha I now hold in my hand is a nice, clean piece of back bacon. May I inform him that i is no such thing. When it is sold in slicec form bacon is wrapped in cellophane. I this were a nice, clear piece of cellophane through which one could see clearly, I woulc have no complaint to make about it. It is ; sanitary packaging, even if it is costly.
Formerly packaged bacon was wrapped ii clear cellophane. It was noticed, however that in the packaged bacon the slices were laid in the package so that the lean showee and the fat did not show. The fat showee on the last slice-but there has to be a las slice of everything. Otherwise one woult think that it was all lean. However wher it is opened up, and you are prepared t<

:ry it, you find that you are buying lard at .he same price as you expect to pay for lean neat. Now they have thought up this new lodge, and I think they have crossed the oorderline between honesty and deceit.
I do not know whether the practice is uni-/ersal, but I can say that in respect of the ;wo brands we have purchased-and this me I hold in my hand is Maple Leaf brand, :rom Canada Packers-the bacon is now wrapped in cellophane with red lines on it. This bacon is wrapped in cellophane on which i series of red lines are printed. From across :he counter it makes bacon look pinker and perhaps encourages the customer to buy, Decause he thinks he is buying lean bacon.
[ suggest that it might be a device to cover ip the fatness of the bacon in the package.
[ do not know whether there has been any change in the quality since this device has Deen adopted. When you see a package of .his bacon you might think you were getting i bit of Irish bacon, that nice bacon with alternate strips of lean and fat. In my opinion ;hat result is obtained only by the farmer who keeps one pig that is fed preferably on outtermilk and potatoes, corn meal and table scraps. They have never been able to achieve that result when hogs are fed in quantity. They are generally fed too much grain and too little of other things.
Having talked a bit about bacon, I shall come back to the package. I shall conclude my argument by submitting that this type Df package should be prohibited by law in that it is deceptive. When I picked up this morning the questionnaire I mentioned, I was surprised to find that this very subject had been dealt with. I did not know that these ladies had taken cognizance of this matter. At the bottom of this particular pamphlet put out by the Canadian Association of Consumers I find set out the answers received to questions asked in connection with this very thing. One question was:
What is your opinion of the red and white striped bacon wrapping?
The opinions were compiled as follows:
(a)	Over 61 per cent thought it deceiving.
(b)	About 15 per cent were indifferent or had not noticed that type of wrapping.
(c)	About two per cent preferred that type of wrapping.
(d)	Less than two per cent thought it better quality.
(e)	Over 19 per cent stated they preferred plain wrapping.
Some of the comments were:
Misleading and annoying, deceptive, too much fat. think they are trying to fool the buyer, the dye comes off, detracting to quality, a snare and a delusion, taints the meat, looks messy, keeps too moist and hastens molding, silly and unnecessary, takes the clerk's time opening it up to show the customer, eye appeal and draws the crowd.
Supply-Agriculture
I would not think the red dye would have anything to do with the molding, but that that would be due to the close cellophane wrapping. There are too many ways in which businesses, large and small, set out to deceive the buyer. I admit that it may be fair enough to offer a horse on the end of a halter, as the dealers say; I know that caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware, is an admonition that one should heed, but when one buys a horse on the end of a halter he has a right to expect at least that his blemishes have not been disguised with paint of the same colour as his hair. I say to the minister that this practice of deceptive wrapping and others like it should be discouraged. If there are laws preventing this sort of thing they should be enforced. In the meantime I should like to have the minister's comments.


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as cans are concerned I think there used to be 145 different sizes and forms. Through agreement and regulation this number has been reduced to about 40. This was not done for the purpose of increasing the cost; it was done for the purpose of lowering the cost.
I realize that one can say that for a period of time the price of meat has been going up, but the fact is that the price of meat has been going up constantly since 1938. It is very difficult to say whether it has stopped going up or not at this time. Anyone could quote figures for any part of that period to indicate that no matter what you did with cans or what you did with wrappers the price of meat has constantly gone up.
The hon. member referred to the bacon wrappers. I do not know very much about that because when bacon is bought for our house I do not buy it. However, I do notice that often it is in these wrapped packages and I notice also that that is true right across the country. I suppose those who have the product for sale are trying to put it up in the form in which people are most likely to buy it. If somebody in Canada Packers has made a mistake in the type of package they are using, if it does not suit the public, then I presume it will not be very long until Burns or Swifts will find that out and put out some other form of package. In any case the public buys it.
The hon. member wants to know who has control over this. In so far as the last few weeks or possibly months are concerned, this government certainly would have no control or at the most very little. We have not been able to get any bacon to send out of the country and our control is confined to the regulation of products in international or interprovincial trade. There is very little bacon crossing even the provincial boundaries at the

Supply-Agriculture
present time as most of the bacon produced is consumed in the province where it is produced. Therefore the control would be entirely with the provinces.
The province in which we are now meeting is perhaps the highest producer and the greatest consumer of pork products. If there is anything seriously wrong with the conditions under which this particular product is being marketed I have no doubt they will see fit to take action in connection therewith. In so far as we are concerned, we could take action only with regard to a very small percentage.
During the period when we were sending 700 million pounds of bacon to Great Britain we had considerable control over what was done. We had the War Measures Act, but even if we had not we still would have had considerable control when such large quantities were being shipped.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Just as a matter of interest, would the minister state what method was used to stop the use of coloured gauze on peaches?


James Garfield Gardiner: We put out an order and if my hon'. friend will go back and read the newspapers of the time he will find that we were told the next morning that it was really none of our business. As a matter of fact our order did not have much effect, but the Ontario government took some action and others took action and the final understanding was that the gauze would not be put on peaches.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister will remember that it was the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) who did a lot of talking against it in the house, and public opinion eventually demanded that it be taken off.


Mr. Hatfield:: Is anything being done in regard to recovering our markets in blocked sterling countries such as the West Indies? They will not allow sterling to be sent to a dollar country. We have a Canada-West Indies treaty. We have a steamer service, and our boats are going down there empty. We are not allowed to ship any goods there. We have lost that market. Has anything been done since sterling was devalued? When sterling was at a higher level Great Britain had to protect it up to $4.03, but it is now $3.07| and they do not have to protect it. Has anything been done to persuade the British to allow sterling to come out of the British West Indies for agricultural goods purchased from Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether or not the house will permit me to put this 
table on Hansard, but I will indicate what the purport of it is, and if it is desired to have it on Hansard that can be done. I think it will at least refute some of the suggestions that are made in asking for certain information.
The Department of Agriculture is concerned of course in seeing to it that all of the produce of the farms is sold. We are not so much concerned whether it is sold in the West Indies or whether it is sold somewhere else, but we are concerned that it all be sold. I should like to place on Hansard a table which I compiled this afternoon from much more complete records I have here, but which would take far too much space in Hansard. I should like to indicate just what the position has been. I have purposely left out of this table all of the years except 1938, 1944 and 1948. I stopped with 1948 because that is the last year for which we have information. I have had to take 1947 as to apples and potatoes, and also with regard to some items of honey, because complete records for 1948 were not provided to me for those products.
By way of illustration, let us begin with one of the grains that all farmers are concerned with, oats. If I were to take wheat -I have wheat in the table and it will be there if the complete table is put on Hansard- it would not concern so many farmers as oats does. The production of oats in Canada in 1938 was 371 million bushels. In 1944 the production was 500 million bushels, and in 1948 was 358 million bushels. The year 1948 was not a good crop year in many parts of Canada, but the margin between 1938 and 1948 is not very great, 371 million in 1938 and 358 million in 1948.
As to barley, production in 1938 was 102 million, in 1944, 195 million, and in 1948, 155 million. In other words, barley production has risen considerably, and that is partly because the acreage is up.
The domestic disappearance of oats in 1938 was 332 million bushels; in 1944, 424 million bushels; and in 1948, 325 million bushels, just 7 million bushels difference between 1938 and 1948. The figures with regard to barley are 81 million, 172 million and 136 million.
In those figures as to the production and consumption of grains I have omitted the years 1942 and 1943 because we were paying farmers to do certain things with regard to those grains and the figures would be much higher than the figures I have used here for
1944.
Taking exports, we exported 13 million bushels of oats in 1938, 86 million bushels in 1944, and 23 million bushels in 1948. For barley the figures are similar, but if I am

permitted to do so I will put the whole table on Hansard and then I will not need to read all these figures. So far as oats are concerned, we had a carryover of oats at the end of the year 1938 of 49 million, at the end of the year 1944 of 98 million and at the end of the year 1948 of 58 million. The set of figures that refers to oats and barley has to do with grains that are used to feed other products.
When we come to beef we find that in 1938 the production was 588 million pounds; in 1944, 924 million pounds; and in 1948, 891 million pounds. Taking domestic disappearance, consumption of beef, it was 563 million pounds in 1938, 785 million pounds in 1944, and still remains at 734 million pounds in 1948. It was considerably over 800 million in 1947, the year before.
As to pork products, production in 1938 was 646 million pounds; in 1944, 1,737 million; and in 1948 it is still 1,046 million pounds. That is as against 646 million pounds in the year before the war; and for the last year for which we have figures it is 1,046 million pounds. When you come to home consumption, it was 483 million pounds in 1938; 1,056 million pounds in 1944, even in the middle of the war, away above what it was before, and even higher than it is now. It was 839 million pounds in 1948, which is very close to double what it was in the years preceding the war. We are consuming the pork in this country.
Our exports of pork products in 1938 were 178 million pounds; in 1944, 717 million pounds; and in 1948, 226 million pounds. Our exports were still higher in 1948 than they were in 1938 by a considerable margin. We had a carryover of 27 million at the end of the year in 1938, 49 million in 1944, and 16 million in 1948.
I do not think it is necessary for me to read any of the other figures if I am permitted to put the whole table on Hansard. I have here butter, cheese, poultry, eggs, apples and other products. There is a very interesting thing about apples. When you look at these figures you find that our production of apples in 1938 was 15-6 million; in 1944 it was 17-8 million; and the production in 1947, which is the last year for which I have a record, was 15 -6 million. The production for 1948 was a little over 13 million.
Let us take domestic disappearance, which is the important factor in connection with apples. In round figures the disappearance in Canada, that is, the marketing of apples in Canada, was 7 million bushels in 1938, 12 million bushels in 1944 and 14 million bushels in 1947. In other words, there were twice as many apples marketed in Canada in 1947 as there were in 1938. I have always understood the problem in connection with
Supply-Agriculture
apple marketing in this country was the fact that, prior to the war, fifty per cent of our apples were marketed in Great Britain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say from what country we imported apples last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not any figures here for imports.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not know we imported any.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not know that we had, either.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You said we consumed a million more bushels than we produced. You said we produced 13 million bushels in 1948.


James Garfield Gardiner: When I started to give the figures relating to apples, I explained that the production figures were for 1947, not 1948. The production figures for the year 1947 were 15-6 million bushels and the Canadian consumption was 14 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When you said "last year" you meant 1947.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I asked the minister a question about blocked sterling and he goes on to talk about grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: You based your statement about sterling on the fact we were not marketing our farm products. I am trying to show you that statement was not correct. Of potatoes, which my hon. friend has on his mind when he talks about the West Indies, our production in 1938 was 60 million bushels; in 1944, it was 82 million; and in 1947, 75 million. Our domestic disappearance in 1938 was 58 million bushels; in 1944, 72 million; and in 1947 it was 68 million. After the war, our disappearance was about 10 million bushels more than it was before the war.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What about 1948?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I explained, I have not the figures for 1948 for apples or potatoes. I think my hon. friend will find production was very high in 1948, and some trouble was experienced marketing potatoes. Something over a million dollars was spent in order to help market those potatoes, and I think they were successfully marketed.


Heber Harold Hatfield: A million dollars was spent to help us dump them.


James Garfield Gardiner: You fed them to your pigs just as you did before, and were paid for doing so.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Some were resold, but most were dumped.


James Garfield Gardiner: The purpose of this chart is to show members just exactly what has happened in connection with production and

Supply-Agriculture
domestic consumption. If I have the permission of the committee, I should like to have this table reproduced in Hansard.
With regard to exchange, I may say that exchange is not my particular responsibility. I am not going to attempt to explain the intricacies of it tonight. If my hon. friend wants to find out what the views are with regard to the possibility of accepting sterling instead of dollars for our products, then I would suggest he discuss that matter on the financial estimates because those officials are familiar with the whole question.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We are talking about the marketing of agricultural products.


Mr. Argue:: While the minister is dealing with production figures, I wonder if he could inform the house what stocks of butter are on hand and whether or not he thinks those stocks are excessive? Does he expect the government will be able to get rid of that butter? Will the floor price under butter be continued for another year?


James Garfield Gardiner: A long-term record is about 63 million pounds of butter in storage at this time of year and, in previous years, that butter has been held by various concerns. This year, on a similar date, there are 68 million pounds of butter in storage. The government holds about 46 or 47 million pounds of that and the trade holds the remainder. I may say that the trade has taken much more into storage since the announcement in August of our intention to market the butter at a price that would give us a clearance above the 58-cent floor price. After that statement I presume the trade has taken for granted that they will be permitted to do the same and will, therefore, carry on business in the usual way.
The government's intention is not to go into the wholesaling or retailing of butter. We have all the records of the stock these companies have held in storage in the past and we have records of what they required in
Production
	1938	1944	1948
	million bus.		
Wheat 	416-	393Oats 	500-	358Barley 	195-	155million lbs.	Beef 	924-	891Pork 	1,737-	1,046Milk 	16,500Butter 	403-	407Cheese 	183-	89Poultry 	272-	227Eggs (million doz.)	... 213-	361-	356million bus.	1947Apples 	17-8-	15-61947Potatoes 	82-	75million lbs.	1947Honey 	36-	37
order to supply their customers. From time to time these companies will be supplied with butter and the butter will be sold at wholesale and retail in the same manner it has been previously. Our estimates indicate there will be no great difficulty in connection with the handling of the butter. We have not experienced any difficulty in connection with the trade or anyone else in the handling of it up to date and we have no reason to believe we will.
I may give some further figures which may be of interest to the committee. We have now about 15 million pounds more butter in storage, held by both the government and the trade, than was held on the same date a year ago. It will be recalled, however, that we had to purchase 15 million pounds of butter in order to supply our own market. From this it will be seen that we have no more butter this year than was made available last year. To answer the question more fully, I shall read the figures with regard to butter similar to those I read with regard to the other products a few moments ago. In 1938, butter production amounted to 360 million pounds; in 1944, it was 403 million pounds; and in 1948, 407 million pounds. In 1938 the domestic disappearance was 345 million pounds; in 1944, 357 million pounds; and in 1948, 375 million pounds. The exports were very small, being 4 million pounds for the first year; 5 million pounds for the second year; and -8 million pounds for 1948. The surplus we had in Canada in 1938 was 45 million pounds; in 1944, 41 million pounds; and in 1948 it was 32 million pounds. Those figures will be in the table which I have indicated will appear in the records. It would seem that our position now is not any different, to any considerable extent at any rate, from what it has been in any one of the fifteen years I have been in the department. I am sure it is not much different from what it was 20 years before that. I will hand the table to Hansard:
Domestic disappearance Exports Carryover
1938 1944 1948	1938 1944 1948	1938 1944 1948million bus.	million bus.	million bus.123- 172-141	160-343-231	103-258-99332- 424-325	13- 86- 23	49- 98-5881- 172-136	15- 39- 21	13- 29-29million lbs.	million lbs.	million lbs.563- 785-734	5-107-127	19- 32-29483-1,056-839	178-717-226	27- 49-16345- 357-375	4- 5- -8	45- 41-3242- 55- 46	81-131- 40	31- 40-32176- 255-228	2- 16- 15	7- 19-13217- 284-272	2- 56- 88	3-6- 27-8-5million bus. 1947	million bus.	7- 12- 14	9-5-5- 2	1947	58- 72- 68	2-10-7-6-7	million lbs.	million lbs.	40- 36- 38	5- 34- 9


Mr. Harkness:: I want to ask the minister if he thinks he was quite fair in relating the stocks of butter on hand at the present time to the stocks that were on hand on the same date in previous years? He must realize, as everyone else does, that people are now able to buy margarine, which I am sure will have quite an effect on the disappearance rate of buttter. I should like him to comment on that particular phase of the matter. Has the department made an estimate of how much butter is going to disappear as compared with the disappearance rate in the past? This is the season when butter that was accumulated during the summer is released to the trade. I am sure the minister does not want us to expect that the same thing that happened in the past will happen today, and that this butter will rapidly disappear.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same thing is not going to happen this year as happened some years ago when other governments dealt with oleomargarine. We have seen to that. A floor price has been put under butter. I am not going any further into the matter than to say the same thing did not happen this year with regard to butter as happened when oleomargarine was brought in before. At that time butter was up, as I recall it-and I am speaking from memory now-around 70 cents a pound, and before they got through with the experiment it was down in the twenties. This time butter was held up around 70 cents a pound when oleomargarine was introduced; and there is no doubt in my mind that, if the government had done nothing about it, butter would again have gone down to at least 40 cents and might have gone down further. But the government put a floor under it and kept it at 58 cents during the summer. The policy that is being followed is one of stabilizing the price; it is not one of holding the price up to the consumer but one of stabilizing the price at around 58 cents. The government has some 46 million or 47 million pounds of butter in its possession in order to see to it that no one charges an outrageous price for butter between now and next spring, when our cows go out on the grass again to produce butter in great quantity. In other words, there is some regulation upon it. While the farmer benefited during the summer months by the fact that the price did not run down, the consumer will benefit during the winter months by the fact that it will not run away up out of all proportion to what it should be.
To answer the other part of the question, as to what difference oleomargarine has made, I am not too sure. Last spring everybody was telling me that no one knew the 45781-28
Supply-Agriculture
difference between oleomargarine and butter, but along in the middle of the summer oleomargarine went down from something over 40 cents to around 30 cents, while butter was holding at 58 cents. Some people must have known something about it.
I was just telling someone across the floor tonight that I had something to do with a massive Great Dane dog that was fond of butter. His mistress gave him bread with butter spread thickly on it; but being Scotch, she came to the conclusion that there was no use spending so much money, so she went and got a pound of oleomargarine and spread the bread with it. The dog sniffed at it, put his tail between his legs and went and lay down in a corner as far away as he could get from it. In other words, if individuals do not know the difference between butter and oleomargarine, dogs do.
I do not know whether or not oleomargarine is entirely responsible for the lower consumption recently; but the consumption of butter during the last few months, as compared with the months immediately preceding, is down about 3 million pounds. That does not get it down to the long-term average, but it is down by 3 million pounds. That is shown by the records that we are able to compile. Our records are confined to the storages, and are based upon the records in a number of cities across Canada. But everyone in this committee knows that today there is a great deal of butter stored in freezers all over the country; and I am not so sure that the 3 million pounds that is indicated as the reduction, on the general statistics as we have compiled them over the years, indicates the true picture. There is a possibility that the consumption is not down as much as has been suggested by the figures I have given. But the outside figure in any case is 3 million pounds down in the last few months as compared with those immediately preceding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On this item, is the minister able to say anything in connection with the marketing act which was introduced at the end of last April, at the end of the session of the previous parliament? Have any requests been received from the provinces for application of dominion authority in the marketing of any of their produce, or has the act been applied as yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been three occasions on which it has been applied. The Nova Scotia apple marketing board made application quite early, and they were granted the authority; the tree fruits board of British Columbia also made application and were granted authority; and only today I signed

Supply-Agriculture
an order in council granting the authority to the vegetable producers of British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Apart from the Nova Scotia application, which I think was in connection with export trade, were the other applications concerned with interprovincial trade or export trade?


James Garfield Gardiner: They will include both, but I imagine that quite a part of the operation will be interprovincial. They have, however, power to do both.


Mr. Herridge:: I was happy to see a news item in the paper a few days ago to the effect that a considerable quantity of apples was going forward from Canada to Great Britain out of this year's crop. According to the news item, a portion of those apples was being paid for by Britain and a portion was being paid for by Canada. Can the minister give the committee some information as to the quantity and the distribution of those shipments in Canada? In addition to that, I notice that the statement indicated that the British government had agreed that the fruit organizations of this country or others could ship gift apples to Britain direct to the consumer. Will the minister tell the committee what the situation is?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I remember the transaction, it was to this effect. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was over in Britain he negotiated an arrangement with the British government whereby there would be taken from Canada $3 million worth of apples; and at that time what was in their minds mostly was Nova Scotia apples. The arrangement was that Britain would pay the first $1,500,000 and that the Canadian government would finance the second $1,500,000. Up to date the Nova Scotians have agreed to ship 400,000 barrels of apples. The item in the press the other day stated, I believe, that British Columbia had also undertaken to ship approximately 450,000 barrels. That should have been boxes, which means that the amount is a little more than one-third of what Nova Scotia has agreed to ship up to now. But I understand that there is another quantity of something over 100,000 barrels which has still to be taken up. From what I said a few moments ago, it will be evident that there will be no difficulty about the financing of them. The quantity which it has already been arranged should be shipped from Nova Scotia and the quantity being shipped from British Columbia will much more than make up the $1,500,000 that Britain has agreed to pay, and the remainder will go forward to all intents and purposes in the nature of a gift, because the Canadian government is paying 
for them; and they will go forward. There cannot be any question about the total amount going in due course and the apple growers receiving the full amount for the arranged shipment.


Mr. McLure:: A little while ago the minister was speaking about margarine. What is the cost of manufacturing a pound of margarine as compared with a pound of butter? There has always been some dispute over this matter. Surely the Department of Agriculture will have some figures on the actual cost of margarine.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say what the cost of producing oleomargarine is. I can only assume that, when the manufacturers reduced the price from somewhere in the forties down to somewhere in the thirties, they would still get their cost of production. I do not think they would have reduced the price below that. I assume it is somewhere in that neighbourhood. I am not in a position to say how much. I am bound to say it would be very difficult to state what the cost of producing a pound of butter is. It is certainly much less in the summertime than it is in the wintertime in most sections of Canada, and at 58 cents as a floor price I am quite sure that in most cases the farmer should make a profit. There may be some areas where he does not, but I do not think he would produce very long if he could not make a profit at 58 cents in the summertime. In the winter there may be places where it may be difficult for him to produce at 58 cents. I would not like to argue that point with anyone. But I think it is right to say that over the whole twelve months in any part of Canada where they should be producing butter to be marketed farmers ought to be able to make a profit at the present level.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Margarine is manufactured from oils which are imported. It should be easy to find out the cost of a pound of margarine. The Department of Agriculture must know that it is different from manufacturing a pound of butter. Different things go into it. These people are buying the oils. The minister knows the set-up. The government took all the duties off so that they could make it as cheaply as possible and get as high a margin of profit on it as they could. If we had the figures, this committee would learn that it does not cost 20 cents to manufacture the finest margarine that is put on the market.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is still no good.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Did I understand the minister to say that he had a list of the average retail prices of butter in the different provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume what my friend has in mind is the average price in each province.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, that is what I meant. What would the average price be in the province of Newfoundland?


James Garfield Gardiner: The table which I put in dealt with the setting of the floor price. It takes 58 cents at Montreal as the basis. Basing it on 58 cents at Montreal it is about two cents lower in Winnipeg, which makes it 56. It is 2J, cents lower in Regina, which makes it about 55J. As we go west it goes up again in British Columbia. The reason for that is that their butter is largely supplied from Alberta; that is the butter which is brought in from the outside. Going in the opposite direction from Montreal, it is one cent higher in Halifax. When the table to which I refer was made up, Newfoundland was not one of us. I am sorry I am not able to give the figure for Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What price does the minister believe it should sell at in Newfoundland?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, whatever the profit margin is in the freight costs as between Halifax and the island of Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If the figure is 85 cents would the minister consider that high?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I would say it is very high.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say whether the powei's which the dominion government has been able to transfer to the provinces, or to the provincial marketing boards, in connection with marketing will extend to the regulation of imports from the United States? The reason I ask that question is that in British Columbia in the marketing of tomatoes for a time this summer we were faced with a certain influx of United States tomatoes which resulted in a sudden deterioration of the market for local producers. After consulting with the producers and the marketing board officials, it seemed to me that they were powerless to control that situation. I just wondered whether the marketing act passed last April would be of any assistance in that connection.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that once fruit gets into British Columbia they can control the price of it within their province, and that would be true of any other products. I do not think there would ever be any question about that. I think that is the position that was taken. On the other matter which the hon. member raised with regard to Newfoundland, I would say that if anybody is paying 85 cents a pound for butter down there he had better get in touch with our board and get some 58-cent butter.
45781-28i
Supply-Agriculture


Edmund Davie Fulton: The actual importation and the price at which it is imported into the province are not within the control of the marketing board of the province even under the marketing act which was passed last spring. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no way in which the British Columbia authorities can say at what the Americans from the state of Washington must sell apples, let us say, or any other fruit in British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They would never be able to sell their apples into our province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tomatoes are much more perishable than apples.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not matter what the product is. I presume the people in British Columbia will not buy a product if it is at a higher price than that at which it can be supplied by their own people. But if an attempt is made to break your market price in British Columbia by dumping products out of the state of Washington into British Columbia, then your organization certainly has control, under this legislation, of the price factor in relation to what has been brought in. In other words, they can hold the price level to their own people if anything of that kind is attempted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point. I am not trying to get a sort of offhand admission from the minister, but it is quite an important point as to whether the marketing board can control that situation, or whether it involves some anti-dumping legislation under the Tariff Act. That is actually the point I have in mind. I am not trying to get some admission from the minister which on reflection he might not wish to have made.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is a better lawyer than I am, and he might give himself an opinion on that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking for an opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is a matter of practical common sense that no one is going to buy apples out of Washington, or any other fruit, tomatoes or anything else, at a price which is higher than he could get it supplied for in the province. On the other hand, I do not think that the board is going to permit someone to come in from outside and dump a product in there and have it sold at any lower price than the other. I would think that that is a matter of just ordinary common sense; but so far as the local authority that some people have to act in connection with dumping is concerned, I am not too sure about that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will put it this way. My impression is that they felt that they had no

Supply-Agriculture
power as a marketing board to prevent the importation of tomatoes into the province at a lower price than that at which the domestic growers could produce them, even under the powers given to them in the recent marketing act.


James Garfield Gardiner: But they could prevent anyone from selling them at a lower price in British Columbia. They could not prevent a party from getting fruit from across the line into British Columbia but once it gets there they can prevent that individual from selling it and dumping it in competition with the other growers.


Mr. Charlton:: I question the minister's statement in that regard because, unless the board bought that fruit as it came across the border, I do not see how they could control the price of it in the province. The fruit does not belong to the board itself. If that is true, the board have no need to worry about tariffs because they can control it themselves. But they are worrying about tariffs.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member had better go out to British Columbia and have a look around. The population of that province, or a very considerable part of it, is concentrated in a large city where most of the marketing is done. In the days when I was out there, when these laws were first brought into effect, one could not get across a bridge into the city except by passing a policeman who made a very careful check of what you had and what you took into the city. That, as I recall, has been a matter of interest out there for some time.
On the other question, I agree that no one proposes to stop the articles from actually crossing the boundary line, unless it were done under the old dumping laws which the federal government has. However, once it has got there, either through smuggling or in some other way, anyone who handles those apples in British Columbia is subject to prosecution. And my understanding is that they do not hesitate to prosecute in British Columbia under that act.


Owen Lewis Jones: There is one other difficulty in connection with the possibility of dumping of inferior fruit in British Columbia, and that is the regulation regarding containers. I find the inspection service or control of the fruit within given containers is lax. I have seen cull apples or inferior apples placed in Okanagan apple boxes for sale in our larger cities. I have seen it in Vancouver. Has the minister an item in his estimates to take care of some facilities for checking the nature of the contents of a given box or package, or a given quality?


Mr. Stick:: Is the price of butter pegged in Canada, and what is that price? I ask this
[Mr. Fulton. 1
question because I understand something was mentioned a moment ago about the price of butter in Newfoundland being eight-five cents retail per pound. I know it was eighty-five cents before the union, but the retail price is now seventy-five cents. I am asking this question because, if I am given the pegged price, I can figure out exactly what the price should be in Newfoundland, and find out if some of our people down there are charging us too much.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no pegged price, but there is a floor price. Last spring we said that for a twelve month period we would take delivery of butter at 58 cents a pound, grade A. If anyone else wanted to get the butter he had to pay at least 58 cents for it. They might in some cases have to pay a little more than that; but they would have to pay at least 58 cents, because we were on the market all the time to take it at 58 cents. We had about 46 million or 47 million pounds of butter, and we will probably have a little more before the winter season comes on. Everyone else who has butter has about half that amount, or not quite half that amount.
We are in a position of holding that butter. If anyone is selling butter at 75 cents where he should be charging only 65 cents for it, some trader there will find that out and will apply to the government for butter. If he gets butter from us under the policy we are following it will be at 58 cents, plus the freight to the point to which it has to go, and all other costs of setting it down in that place. This leaves us with our return of 58 cents, grade A butter. The butter will be regraded and put out at its proper grade and at whatever the price is in relation to 58 cents.
Just stating what I would do if I were doing it-they usually ask me about these things-if we found that a certain individual, after getting butter down there, could retail it and get the same profit as men are getting elsewhere across Canada by selling it at 65 cents, let us say, and if he were selling it at 75 cents, he would not get any more butter from the board. The butter would go to those who were selling at reasonable prices to the consumer.
If butter is out of line in Newfoundland, we will be looking very shortly for places to put our surplus butter when it comes in, and we will look to Newfoundland as well as to other places.


Mr. Ferguson:: The county of Simcoe, as I am sure hon. members are aware, has been given the highest award for the finest apples grown in the world. That is well-known, of course. Owing to the fact that there will be several by-elections in Ontario in the not far distant future, might not the government be

well advised to pay the farmers in Ontario a bigger price than was paid in the Annapolis valley to farmers who had to cut down their trees? I should like to know that, so that I could inform our farmers in Simcoe whether it might pay them to burn them down, or to take off the apples.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The class of apples you grow, I think it would.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask a question or two in connection with the hog industry. At the present time there is a certain amount of perturbation in the minds of people engaged in the production of hogs as to just what the situation is likely to be in the coming year. This feeling of alarm arises from several factors.
First of all there is the matter of the devaluation of the British pound. As everyone familiar with the hog industry knows, for some considerable time we have had in Great Britain a market for our surplus bacon. In other words, they have taken the surplus of our pork products above what we consumed ourselves. During the last year a floor price had been in effect under hogs, owing to the existence of the British contract.
The question in the minds of a large number of producers of hogs is whether that contract can be renewed on anything like the terms we have had in the past, or whether the devaluation of the British pound is going to make it impossible for us to sell our bacon to Great Britain in competition with that from soft-currency countries?
Allied with that, of course, is the fact that in the past year we have not come anywhere near meeting our contract with Great Britain for bacon. The contract is for 160 million pounds. I notice in this publication put out by the department, dealing with the livestock and meat trade, it is stated, in the issue for September 22, that the total amount of bacon sent to Great Britain up to September 17 of this year was just over 25 million pounds. Only three months of the year are left, and it is quite clear that we are not going to come even close to meeting our contract.
The thought in my mind, and in the minds of many producers, is what effect this will have upon our ability to get another contract. Naturally, when one enters into a contract and does not fulfil it, there is bound to be a certain amount of wonder as to whether or not another contract will be offered. Therefore this is a natural fear. The fact that we have not made our contract is certainly not the fault of the people engaged at this time in the production of hogs. It is due to other factors I have discussed with
Supply-Agriculture
the minister at various times, and the basis of which I shall not go into at the moment.
There is another factor which adds to the alarm, namely the large corn crop in the United States, and the fact that their pig crop in that country is greater than it has been normally. The probability is that the price of pork will drop in that country owing to the over-supply of feed, and that will likely make available a considerable amount of pork and pork products for export. Of course, that is bound to affect those overseas markets in which our pork might be sold. I should like the minister, so far as he can, to outline to the committee and to the country at large what the situation is likely to be or what the government estimates it is likely to be in 1950 as far as hogs are concerned.
I should like the minister to tell us to what extent production in this country is down. The department has very good figures, some of which they put out from time to time, and I think the minister would be in position to tell us what the departmental estimate is for hog production during the first six months of 1950. It may be that on the basis of that estimate we will not be producing any more pork than we can consume in Canada and therefore the fears entertained by the hog producers will be considerably allayed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Current marketings are
running a little ahead of last year; they have been increasing week by week for some time over the marketings of a year ago. At the moment production is on the upward march and the estimate is that that will continue. We do not think that production will be lower in the first six months of 1950 than it was in the first six months of 1949.
Coming to the other question of what effect our deliveries may have upon the British market, I can only say what I said during the last session, namely, that when the British came here about two years ago they did not want any bacon; they did not want any of our products except wheat. For anyone to say that there is any reason for disappointment in Britain because we did not deliver any of these products is to fail to take into consideration the facts of the case.
The British said two years ago, "We have not the dollars with which to buy anything but wheat." Then a year ago they took the position that they only had dollars with which to buy wheat and cheese. We said to them at the time, "We do not think it is a good thing, either for our people or for your people, to drop these agreements just because you have not the dollars. We think it would be much more to the advantage of both of us if we did enter into contracts."

Supply-Agriculture
We gave them a definite undertaking at the time that we would try to hold our contracts down to realities.
In the years during the war and immediately before the war we were writing into the contracts more than we anticipated our farmers would be able to produce. In other words, we were trying to increase production because Britain required the bacon during the early part of the war. When it would be suggested that so many million pounds be put into the contract we added another fifty million pounds and said to everybody, "Go out and produce it." Our farmers produced it, and more on top of it.
When we got down to the latter part of the war, when Britain wanted grain instead of meat products, we did not say to the farmers, "Do not produce hogs as you produced them before." But apparently, looking at the records that were coming over the radio and from Great Britain in one way or another, those farmers who wanted to grow grain particularly, and there are farmers in the west who have always been accustomed to producing grain and who like to grow grain better than anything else, finding they could make more money doing that, or could make some profit thereby-we were not urging them to produce more hogs, because the British had already told us they did not want to buy them-were told to go ahead and do the thing they felt they were best equipped to do and which they wanted to do.
The result has been as I indicated by the figures I gave a few minutes ago. They are producing more hogs than they produced before the war, but our people are eating around seventy per cent more pork products than they did before the war. The result of those two things leaves us with less pork products to send to Britain than we have sent over a long term of years.
We have said to the British, "We have always met your contention that you do not want to buy bacon. We have almost made it unnecessary for you to put up dollars to buy bacon, but some day this thing is going to turn". It has turned already with cheese. We got the quantities down in the cheese contracts to a figure of 50 million pounds. When we wrote that figure into the contract we did not think we would be able to fill it, neither did the British. But the price of canned milk went down and farmers switched over to the production of cheese with the result that we got 60 million pounds which we could have sent to Britain. Then we said to the British, "In view of the fact that you are not getting bacon and do not want to get it, in view of the fact that you were prepared to pay so many dollars for the

bacon, why not take the other 10 million pounds of cheese?" But they would not take it.
All I am suggesting is that there was no lack of understanding with regard to bacon between those who negotiated the contracts. They understood that if we could persuade our own people to eat it at a better price than they were paying for it, or if we could send it to the United States at a better price than they were paying for it, that was quite all right with them; they did not want the bacon. Perhaps I should not say they did not want the bacon; they did not feel that they had enough dollars to be able to buy the bacon. There has not been any misunderstanding created in Britain that would take that market away from us. We have said to them that they do not have to pay dollars for products that we can sell for dollars in our own country or in the United States.
Then with regard to next year. I am not in position to report what the British are prepared to do next year with regard to contracts, but I am in position to say that we are insisting in every way we possibly can that we do have a contract on bacon, whether we can deliver it or not. We think it would be a good thing, both for Britain and for ourselves, if they were prepared to say, "If you do have a surplus, we are prepared to take at least a certain amount of it". We would like a contract with regard to cheese. I do not think we will have much difficulty getting one in regard to cheese. We would like a contract in regard to eggs.
We would like contracts with regard to the four products, cheese, bacon, eggs and wheat, the four products in connection with which we now have contracts. We are still trying to negotiate contracts for the year that is ahead and for a longer time if we can. That is the position at the present time. I do not think that anything we have done up to date has jeopardized our position in the British market. On the other hand, what we have been doing has got rid of the production of our farms.


Mr. Fulford:: I should like to direct a few remarks to the Minister of Agriculture about what may be termed the orphan of the dairy industry. When I was a boy we were always told that Leeds leads in the production of cheese, but through the years our cheese factories have gradually diminished with the advent of milk condenseries. Today we have three milk condenseries looking after 2,250 milk patrons. That is the equivalent of 75 cheese factories, figuring 30 patrons to a factory. At the present time 520 of those patrons who have been going to the condenseries are sending their milk to the cheese factories but this is only a temporary situ-

ation. Apparently the condenseries have cut their production by 20 per cent. In fact they have cut it to such a serious degree that they cannot economically produce evaporated milk. Stocks of evaporated milk have increased enormously. I should like to quote some figures from the bureau of statistics. Last year there were 26,892,000 pounds in storage, and on the first of August of this year there were 55,147,000 pounds in storage. In the county of Leeds alone we have over 8 million pounds in storage. One plant has leased a Canadian Pacific roundhouse; it has it stocked to the roof, and they are still looking for further storage space. When the cold weather comes it is going to be a problem to keep it heated. Another plant has leased an old church, and it is rapidly being filled with milk powder.
I commend the minister for the attitude of his department in bonusing premium cheese, and in buying up supplies of cheese now that we have filled the British contract. I commend the minister for maintaining a floor price on butter, and also for purchasing the surplus production of butter, but we are facing a very serious situation in those sections of Canada where condensed milk and evaporated milk are being produced. In the spring, stocks of powdered skim milk were bought up, but this year stocks have increased in one year from 9,130,000 pounds as at September 1, 1948, to 12,162,000 pounds. There are no bonuses and no premiums paid to the producers of evaporated milk, and yet these factories are paying the highest price to their patrons for their milk.
The situation is getting quite desperate. Milk is being sold on world markets at a loss to reduce inventories. Evaporated milk is being sold in Canada today at a loss. The same thing may be said in respect to heavy shipments to Belgium, western Germany and Cuba. The sterling zone of the British empire used to be the biggest market for Canadian producers of evaporated milk. Today that area is buying its milk from Holland and Australia, both being soft-currency countries. Last year Great Britain withdrew orders for 300,000 cases of evaporated milk, which means that not one drop of Canadian evaporated milk has entered the British market in nearly two years. Today evaporated milk producers are facing a loss of markets even in the British West Indies, which has been a constant market since long before the war, and a heavy consumer of Canadian evaporated milk products during the war.
I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce were here, because I know that to a large extent marketing comes under his department. It seems to me that markets could be found abroad for evaporated milk in
Supply-Agriculture
the central American countries. We could buy their citrus fruits and their coffee and sell them some of our surplus milk. They are tropical countries, and it is hard to produce milk products there. I also suggest that we try to get into certain parts of the empire such as Malaya, India, Pakistan, South Africa and West Africa, and that further negotiations be conducted. I understand that we are going to buy more tin and rubber from Malaya. Could we not buy peanuts from West Africa, and cotton from Egypt? Surely some method can be devised to diminish these stocks which are now becoming a serious problem for all producers of evaporated milk across Canada.
An attempt might be made to increase the domestic use by asking bakers to include a certain amount of evaporated milk powder in their bread. I believe that was done during the war in the standard loaf served to the armed forces. Perhaps we could get rid of a large surplus in the home market. I understand that it makes better-tasting bread and increases its vitamin content.	[DOT]
I repeat that in the county of Leeds alone there are 2,250 farmers dependent on the condenseries for their livelihood, and they are naturally becoming anxious about their future. May I suggest that attention be paid first to finding methods of regaining markets that we have lost, second, to increasing home consumption of evaporated and condensed milk, and skim milk powder, and third, to the purchase of surplus stocks of processed milk products by the government in order to relieve a situation that is now assuming really serious proportions. Farmers producing milk for condenseries in the county of Leeds are becoming so apprehensive that they hardly know which way to turn. They are asking that some course be followed that will assure them of a constant market for their products, because I can imagine no greater calamity befalling the farmers in this great dairying section of Canada than if it were necessary for any of these plants to close their doors. Item stands.
Progress reported.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): Monday is private members' day.


[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]
21.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $475,900.
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $43,500.
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]


Monday, October 3, 1949