1949-03-24

[Stage Direction]
?
)
[Stage Direction]


Thursday, March 24, 1949


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minisier of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Croll be substituted for that of Mr. Gladstone; and that the name of Mr. Mutch be substituted for that of Mr. Kirk; and that the name of Mr. Sinclair be substituted for that of Mr. Grant; and that the name of Mr. Langlois be substituted for that of Mr. Fournier (Hull) on the select standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alphonse Fournier: That the name of Mr. Barrett be substituted for that of Mr. Lennard on the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
^	PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
J	Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public
j Works) moved:
That the name of Mr. Gauthier (Nipissing) be substituted for that of Mr. Ross (Hamilton East) on the j select standing committee on mines, forests and 3 waters.
i	Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public
, Works) moved:
I*
, That the name of Mr. Whitman be substituted for j that of Mr. Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville) j on the select standing committee on printing.
Motion agreed to.
i
| RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

Alphonse Fournier: That the name of Mr. Beaudry be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine on the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Morna Elsa Kott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Doris Christina Meldrum Franklin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Francis Thomas Lariviere.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Maurice Abraham Rodier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Liselotte Karola Roer Goode.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Albert Labreche.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Bessie Drink-water Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Bessie Shafer Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Ludmila Mach Morawetz.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Ernest Cecil George Thackway.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of May Garnet Greene Lofting.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Henry John Bobinski.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Mary Eileen Birks Moorhouse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Florence Ruby Robbins Cumby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Flookes Kerr.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Berthe Marie Madeleine Brunet Egar.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Mary Alice Eva Rivard Sharkey.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Evelyn Florence Brigden Piper.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Beatrice Violet Hudson Hineson.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Fernand Dupuis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Frances Strakosch Alexander.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Peonie Taub Joseph.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Doris Mabel Garwood Cunningham Watt.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Marion Dorothy Hill Parker Jeffryes.-Mr. Emmerson.
[Stage Direction]

Questions

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


Mr. Church:: 1.	Under what order in council and by what cjjunty court judge of York county, Ontario, has Mr. Leslie Jones of Mimico, Ontario, been committed to the Toronto jail (Broadview constituency) for his refusal to house at his Cavell avenue home at Mimico, what he contends are "undesirable tenants"?
2.	Is Leslie Jones a returned soldier and what section of Ontario did the said county court judge Who issued the committal come from, and what was his occupation before appointment to the York county, Ontario, court?
3.	Is said committal by the York county court judge based or not on rules and regulations issued under the Transitional Measures Act, 1949, not yet law?
4.	On what other rule or regulation is the said committal based?
5.	What action, if any, will be taken by the government in the matter?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	The wartime prices and trade board has no information upon this subject. It would appear that the litigation is being carried on before the ordinary courts of civil jurisdiction.
2.	The wartime prices and trade board has no information upon this subject.
3.	It would appear that Leslie Jones was the landlord of shared accommodation and the tenant was one C. Holmes. The tenants of shared accommodation are given security of tenure by the provisions of order No. 428 of wartime prices and trade board. This security of tenure may be removed by the court of rental appeals on the ground that the conduct of the tenant or someone living with the tenant is incompatible or obnoxious to the other occupants of the building, or tends to harm its character; or because the tenant or someone living with him is damaging the accommodation.
Mr. Leslie Jones filed an application to the court of rental appeals requesting such an exemption on the 18th of January, 1949. A copy of the said application was forwarded to the tenant and the solicitor for the tenant filed his reply on the 7th of February. The court of rental appeals considered the application on the 15th of February, 1949, and, after hearing the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties and the representations made by the landlord and by the counsel for the tenant, dismissed the landlord's application.
The said order No. 428 of the wartime prices and trade board is enacted under the authority conferred by the wartime leasehold regulations, P.C. 9029. P.C. 9029 is one of

the orders continued in effect by the provisions of Transitional Measures Act of 1947 as amended.
4.	The wartime prices and trade board has no information upon this subject. It would appear that the litigation is being carried on before the ordinary courts of civil jurisdiction.
5.	No further action or consideration by the wartime prices and trade board has been requested.



SHEET HARBOUR-SHERBROOKE, N.S., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. Low:: 1.	Has the mail contract between Sheet Harbour and Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia, been up for tender recently?
2.	If so, how many tenders were submitted?
3.	What was the name of each tenderer and the amount in each case?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	Who had the previous contract for this route and for what amount?


Mr. Low:: I have had a discussion with the departmental officials about this question, and since the answer cannot be given until after April 1, I would ask that the question stand until that time.
Question stands.



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. Gillis:: 1.	How many people were prosecuted under the wartime prices act, in the constituencies of (a) Cape Breton South; (b) Cape Breton North and Victoria; (c) Inverness and Richmond, during the years 1943 to 1948 inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount collected in fines from such prosecution in each constituency?
3.	Who acted as counsel for the department during these prosecutions and how much money was paid for such counsel?


Mr. Belzile:: In so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned:
1.	(a) 187; (b) 31; (c) 2.
2.	Cape Breton South, $9,305; Cape Breton North and Victoria, $1,460.30; Inverness and Richmond, $20.
3.	J. L. Dubinsky, $2,502.76; A. O'Handley, $1,167.32; F. A. Hamilton, $2,769.78; C. M. Rosenblum, K.C., $527.10; D. D. Finlayson, $649.85; M. J. Hinchey, $1,045.14; C. MacKenzie, K.C., $228.24.



FORT ST. JOHN, B.C., WATER SUPPLY


Mr. McLure:: 1.	What was the extent of the ocean protection work at Rustico harbour to protect the fishermen's homes and business stands?
2.	What was amount paid for such work?
3.	Was the work done by contract or by day work?
4.	Who was the contractor or foreman?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	In 1948-49 a portion of the cribwork was raised one foot and additional stone placed.
2.	$2,256.81.
3.	Day labour.
4.	Andrew Doucette, foreman.


OLEOMARGARINE
Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	Since the lifting of the restrictions, how many pounds of oleomargarine have been manufactured in Canada?
2.	How many pounds were manufactured each month?
3.	How many pounds were sold each month?


Gleason Belzile: In so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned:
1.	8,073,837 pounds.
2.	January, 1,030,196 pounds; February, 3,353,729 pounds; March 1 to 19, 3,689,912 pounds.
3.	January, 969,040 pounds; February, 3,235,996 pounds; March 1 to 19, 3,518,941 pounds.


S.S. &quot;FERROCLAD&quot;    ICEBREAKING FACILITIES AT PORT BURWELL, ONT.
Mr. Church:: 1.	Will an inquiry be made by the wreck commissioner into the disaster to the ship Ferroclad off Port Burwell, Lake Erie, and a court of inquiry set up to investigate and report?
2.	What icebreakers are available at this point and other modern aids to navigation?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	No inquiry will be made, as there was no wreck, disaster or loss of life, despite newspaper publicity.
2.	No icebreakers are available in the locality. Shore lights were in operation at the time of the incident referred to, but floating aids will not be placed in position until ice conditions permit.
29087-122i
Questions	t


GREAT LAKES SHIPPING
Mr. Church:: 1.	Has Canada any system of rewards similar to the ocean and seaboard for the great lakes, so as to compensate and reward the various masters and all the crew of four of the Ferroclad, Captain Wm. Macdonald, and also the rescue crews of the tugs Northland, Stuart B., and Vary, for acts of bravery and heroism unequalled and unsurpassed on the great lakes?
2.	If not, will an inquiry be made into (a) present aids to navigation, and (b) recommendations for future modern aids to marine navigation on the chain of great lakes?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Department of Transport makes awards for lifesaving to masters, officers and crew members of ships of Canadian registry operating on the great lakes and on the high seas. Awards are governed by the circumstances in which lifesaving and rescue work are performed when vessels are in distress. It would appear that the crew of the Ferroclad could not be considered as eligible for awards for lifesaving. Inquiry is being made into the circumstances in which the tugs Northland, Stuart B., and Vary towed the Ferroclad into Port Burwell.



GREAT LAKES SHIPPING


Mr. Church:: Will consideration be given to the appointment of a great lakes maritime commission to report on the necessity of organizing modern lifesaving equipment on the lakes, covering icebreakers and lifesaving stations?


Lionel Chevrier: 

ATLANTIC COAST SHIPPING


Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Are two lifesaving vessels being constructed! for use on the Atlantic coast?
2.	If so (a) where are they being constructed; (b4 by what firms and of what address; (c) what is the estimated cost of each vessel?
3.	When completed, where will they be based and to what waters will they be assigned?


Lionel Chevrier: 1 and 2. Lifeboats are not under construction, but tenders have been called for the construction of two new lifeboats for use on the Atlantic coast. Tenders are not yet closed.

Orders for Returns
3.	The new lifeboats will be based at Bay View, N.S., and Little Wood Island, N.B., for use in the bay of Fundy.



ASSOCIATED MISSIONARY BROADCASTERS

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Was any application made during 1945, 1946 or 1947 for a charter or the incorporation of the Associated Missionary Broadcasters of Canada?
2.	If so, has the incorporation been completed?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes. Application for incorporation of Associated Missionary Broadcasters of Canada under part II of the Companies Act was filed on the 6th day of June, 1947.
2.	Yes. Pursuant to the said petition, letters patent of incorporation were granted and issued under date the 6th day of April, 1948, as appears from the notice of incorporation in the Canada Gazette the 24th April, 1948, at page 1678.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	What was the total cost of erecting the temporary building for the use of the post office in Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, for (a) material; (b) labour; (c) other costs?
2.	Who was the contractor?
3.	Were tenders called for this building?
4.	Was the contract let on a cost-plus basis? If not, on what basis was it let?
5.	What action is the Post Office Department taking to replace this temporary building with a permanent structure in the near future?
6.	Who is the present janitor of this building, and what remuneration does he receive?



SEED AND OTHER RELIEF


Mr. McCuaig:: 1.	What was the total amount of federal seed and other relief, in the province of Saskatchewan, during each of the years 1914 to 1923 inclusive?
2.	How much of this (a) has been repaid; (b) has been cancelled; (c) is outstanding at this date?
3.	How much interest (a) has been repaid; (b) has been cancelled; (c) is outstanding at this date?
4.	When were the last official notices to pay up sent to the recipients of this seed and other relief?
5.	How many of such original recipients are still living on the land in Saskatchewan against which this relief was filed?
6.	In how many municipalities, federal constituencies, or other regions or districts, in Saskatchewan, is this relief outstanding and how many individual cases are there in such municipality, federal constituency, or other region or district in Saskatchewan?
7.	What is the cost to the federal treasury of keeping open this old account (a) total since the beginning; (b) amount, year by year, since the beginning?



RECOMMENDATIONS OF PRICES COMMITTEE

Mr. Thaicher:: What action, if any, has been taken by the government to implement recommendations 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, made by the prices committee last June?



FLOOD CONTROL


Mr. Charlfon:: What was the total amount of money spent by the federal government in each of the provinces in each of the years since 1937, either in the way of grants or participation in public works projects for (a) flood control measures; (b) damages arising from floods?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue when he intends to proceed with the notice of motion standing in his name, on the order paper, having to do with the radio broadcasting committee.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: It will be proceeded with just as soon as some of the more urgent matters have been dealt with.



NOTICE OF MOTION RESPECTING GENEVA AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The last government notice of motion on today's order paper, with respect to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, is inscribed in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was intended to be in the name of the Prime Minister, in accordance with the practice of former years. I would ask that the necessary change be made.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: On previous occasions questions have been directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who at the moment is not in his seat, with respect to the proposed conference of commonwealth prime ministers. I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the conference is to take place, and who will represent Canada. I ask this question because of the news items which have persistently

appeared in the papers. There was a further reference to it in the press this morning.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope to be able to make an announcement in that regard on Monday, and I understand that an announcement will also be made on Monday in the House of Commons at Westminster.


Gordon Graydon: There is to be a conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The question of the desirability of holding a conference is being considered, and I hope that an announcement can be made on Monday.



GRASSHOPPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the threatened grasshopper infestation this summer in Saskatchewan; according to the dominion entomological branch at Saskatoon it will be the worst since 1939. As the matter is urgent and inquiries have been received from rural municipalities, will the Department of Agriculture not depart from its usual stand, in view of the danger which threatens three-quarters of the Saskatchewan crop? The province seems to be having difficulty in meeting the situation, and I should like to ask if assistance can be given.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: As has been intimated by the hon. member for Lake Centre, according to long-standing practice, infestations of grasshoppers are dealt with directly by the municipalities, which are under the control of the province. We have an understanding with all provinces that we will follow the flights of grasshoppers from down in the United States until they cross the Canadian border, and supply all information about their movements. We also supply technical information with regard to any new means that may have been developed elsewhere to deal with grasshoppers. But the actual dealing with the grasshoppers is a provincial matter, and it has always been handled satisfactorily in that way. We see no reason for any change in that regard.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask a supplementary question on the technical side? Has the minister any knowledge of the success of the use of aeroplanes in preventing grasshopper infestation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Garfield Gardiner: The reports up until recently are to the effect that that is not too satisfactory a method of dealing with grasshoppers. Some of the older and some of the new methods of spraying are more satisfactory- but not spraying from aeroplanes.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The minister might have our customs officers stop them when they attempt to cross the border.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yesterday the Secretary of State answered a question which I asked with respect to wages paid at the printing bureau. The minister said:
The wages are then put in line with the wages being paid in those cities.
The reference was to Montreal and Toronto. In view of complaints I have received since that statement was made, as to its accuracy, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will obtain specific information as to the scale of wages paid to printers, day side and night side, job and newspaper, in Toronto and Montreal, and let us have a comparison with the scale paid at the bureau?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Secretary of State):: I think that is a question that might well be put on the order paper. I do not think I could be expected, and I do not think my hon. friend expects me, to give that information immediately. I can get it and give it to the house later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not expect the minister to answer now, but he could take this as notice.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: On
January 28 I asked the following question, as recorded on page 44 of Hansard:
Has the government, or any agency of the government, worked out ways and means by which the veteran buying a house under any of the government plans will not, in case of illness, low wages or work stoppage, lose any reasonable equity that he may have in the house?
The minister said that the matter had been given consideration, but he could not give me an answer at that time. Can he give me an answer now?

Inquiries oj the Ministry


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I will take the question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
"crescent"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Has the
Minister of National Defence any more information to give the house with regard to the H.M.C.S. Crescent? In my opinion the disturbance in that case was different from that which occurred on H.M.C.S. Athabaskan.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I have no further information.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On March 21 the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) asked the following question, without notice, as reported on page 1683 of Hansard:
Have any instructions been issued to the R.C.M.P. guards at the dockyards at Esquimalt to be relieved of their duties as from March 31? If so, what other personnel will replace the R.C.M.P. there?
The answer is no. The matter has been under consideration, but no decision has been reached and no instructions have been issued.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Wood Mountain):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the announcement that certain tax changes would be made to reduce the double taxation that shareholders of corporations have to pay. Will members of co-operatives now paying corporation tax be given the same tax concessions on patronage dividends as those given to shareholders of corporations in respect to corporate dividends?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the question is no, because patronage dividends are not subject to double taxation. As the house will appreciate,

patronage dividends are deductible from corporation income before arriving at whatever income may be liable to tax.



DOMINION COAL BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On March 14, on the orders of the day, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked a question as to the possibility of the dominion coal board holding sittings in the coal areas of Nova Scotia. I am glad to say that this matter has been considered by the board, and it is planned to hold a series of meetings in the maritime provinces, beginning on August 22 and continuing to the end of the month. The exact schedule has not yet been fixed, but all interested parties will be advised by the board as soon as definite dates are confirmed.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY QUESTION AS TO CHOICE OF ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: On Tuesday, March 22, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr Fulton) asked whether an over-all agreement had yet been reached as to the route of the trans-Canada highway. The answer is no.



OFFERINGS BELOW FLOOR PRICE OF 58 CENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Drope (Northumberland, Oni.):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of his recent announcement of a floor price of 58 cents for butter. I have today's issue of the Globe and Mail, and it states-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Robert Earle Drope: My question arises out of the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture, and the fact that in the Globe and Mail it is stated that butter was offered at 57J cents. Will the minister tell us what the policy is, inasmuch as he says that the floor price is 58 cents? Has any butter yet been taken by the dairy products board? If not, when will they start taking it?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know, no butter has yet been bought, which means that it has not yet reached 58 cents on the markets in which it is purchased.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas G. Ross (St. Paul's):: Can the
Secretary of State advise me when I may expect to receive a return which was ordered by the house forty-three days ago?


Colin William George Gibson: shall be glad to look into the matter.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I be allowed to make one remark at this time? As hon. members know, this resolution has to do with legislation which will expire if it is not renewed. From conversations with several hon. members on both sides of the house I judge there is some hope that we may dispose of all these measures by tomorrow night and not have to sit on Saturday, and that when we meet on Monday, having returned to the normal hours of sitting, we will take up the north Atlantic security pact. In order to make this possible it would be most desirable to have the resolution passed and the bill introduced so that it can be considered tomorrow. Hon. members who had intended to speak on the bill will have an opportunity of doing so when it is before the house for second reading. By so proceeding there would be nothing in the rules to prevent the bill from being disposed of tomorrow, but if the bill does not receive first reading today it will not be possible to have second reading tomorrow. I do not wish to curtail debate, but I suggest that the bill be given first reading; then the debate can continue and follow its normal course on the bill itself.
Agricultural Products Act


Mr. Bentley:: On a question of privilege, I moved the adjournment of the debate last Friday night. I am perfectly willing to agree to what the Prime Minister has said, and not carry on the debate at this time, if everybody else will adopt the same attitude.


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


Mr. Drew:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas John Bentley: I had the adjournment of the debate on Friday night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope all the Toronto Tories will be here on Saturday.


Thomas John Bentley: When
this matter was being discussed before, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) spoke and wandered far afield, even getting into the wheat board, the wheat board act, and the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement. I shall not do that. He exposed the attitude of his party at that time. I think the attempt of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) just now to take precedence in the debate indicates-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to make it clear that what I rose to say was that there were remarks to be made as to the principle involved. I had no intention of seeking precedence, and I would not for anything try to deprive the house of the pearls of wisdom which we are now receiving.


Thomas John Bentley: There is an old adage as to whom you should not cast your pearls before.


Gordon Graydon: They are right around you there.


Thomas John Bentley: They are on my right. When the leader of the opposition rose again I fully expected he would indulge in the only practice he has ever indulged in in the house. Every time he rises to speak he takes a piece of constitutional soap and has a public bath in the waters of provincial autonomy.


George Alexander Drew: Cheer for your team.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is getting under your hide.


Thomas John Bentley: No, it is not getting under my hide.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Plain obstruction; that is all.


Thomas John Bentley: When the hon. member for Souris was speaking, I think he made it clear
1930	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act that the Progressive Conservatives are trying, and have been trying, to ride two horses at the same time. I agree that they did not vote against the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement; they certainly did not call for a vote and vote against it. They have done everything since it was passed to make it impossible for the operation of that agreement to reflect increased prosperity for agriculture in this country. They have continually tried to drive the government into the position-and have been all too successful at times-of removing price controls and to some extent cancelling the benefits of the agreement.
With respect to coarse grains, which I want to deal with particularly, I wish to reiterate the position I took last year when the matter was under discussion. At that time I put on the record a series of resolutions passed by the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the biggest farm organization in the country. Year after year they demanded that coarse grains be marketed in the same manner as wheat-that is, through a marketing agency set up by the dominion government. That is still our position; and I believe it could be done under the Agricultural Products Act. It could be done in other ways also; but Bill 135 of last year, which would make the wheat board the actual marketing agency for coarse grains, was a good bill. Criticism is directed against the government, and particularly certain members of it, who were instrumental at that time in preventing this operation from taking place.
I have before me sessional paper 110, a return of the correspondence between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the present Minister of Justice, who was then premier of Manitoba. All through this correspondence the Minister of Justice, then premier, was pointing out that in the first place he did not believe it was necessary to have conjoint or complementary legislation by the provinces to make Bill 135 effective. In letters dated March 23, 1948, and March 16, 1948, he asks the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give a legal ruling as to why this should be necessary. Since the beginning of this session, when the hon. gentleman has been Minister of Justice, I have tried on three separate occasions to get him to give a ruling whether it is necessary to have this conjoint or complementary legislation by the provinces, but so far he has failed to do so.


Surely the man who was premier of a province, and who while premier was hand in glove with the Tory party in that province-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas John Bentley: Oh, I know they fight back and forth here.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: There are accidents in the best of families.


Thomas John Bentley: -and the government of whose province is still hand in glove with the Tory party, should be in a position now as Liberal Minister of Justice to tell this house whether that conjoint or complementary legislation is necessary. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was infinitely more honest in his approach; for he said flatly, as I quoted on another occasion this session, that he was not concerned with the question whether it was necessary to have this legislation in order to make Bill 135 effective, but he wished to be sure the provinces wanted it.
Again I bring back the blame to Premier Garson of Manitoba, because the government of Alberta said they would call a session to discuss the matter of conjoint or complementary legislation if the government of Manitoba would do so, but Manitoba under Premier Garson failed to take any action. As a consequence neither Alberta nor Manitoba has passed that legislation yet, though I understand strong representations are being made to Premier Manning of Alberta urging that this legislation be passed now. Of course I cannot say what he will do, but it is to be hoped that this will be done. I am just informed by an Alberta member that the government of his province has offered to pass the legislation. That will put the matter squarely up to Manitoba, and both Liberals and Tories will have an opportunity to show exactly where they stand.
Just the other day I noticed a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with this matter, at page 1421 of Hansard for March 14. He was referring to the resolution which had been passed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and he said:
In the first place, if this resolution is Intended to suggest that the Canadian wheat board as now constituted does not function in the best interests of the Canadian producers, this is a suggestion which I strenuously deny.

Now I shall quote from a letter dated March 23, 1948, written by Premier Garson of Manitoba, in which he says:
The wheat board as now constituted is not an agency operating primarily for the benefit and in the interests of grain producers.
I suggest the Minister of Justice should And out where he stands in relation to his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and whether he still adheres to the Tory-directed principles of the Manitoba government which would preserve the operation of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the speculative system of marketing. I believe this house and the country have a right to know where hon. gentlemen stand on these matters.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, last year I put on record a series of resolutions outlining the stand of the farm organizations of the west, particularly the one in Saskatchewan which is the largest of all. They have good reason for taking that stand, in view of what has happened through the years under speculative marketing, or what is called free and open marketing. By the way, our Tory friends favoured that at their national convention, in spite of the fact that again they tried to ride two different horses. They wanted on the one hand to put everything on the open market, at the suggestion of a delegate from Winnipeg, Mr. Thorvaldson, but were stopped in their tracks by a Tory delegate from Saskatchewan, Mr. MacPherson, who was at least a little more realistic in his approach. But they got both things before the convention.
While I am speaking on that point I should like to mention this. When I sat here and listened to the complaints of the Tory party with respect to the few control bills which have been before this house during the last few days, I was amazed, because at their national convention they said they were going to see that agriculture got its fair share of the national income. How could any government which would abrogate all controls, so that there would be no such thing as law and order in the commercial world, see that anybody got a fair share of the national income? What stupid promises to make! I wonder if they think the public are going to fall for junk of that kind.
In dealing with the question of fluctuations in the grain market I should like to call attention to the information contained in a chart
Agricultural Products Act appearing in the March 17, 1949, issue of the Manitoba Co-operator. I wish this chart could be printed in Hansard, because it shows the various fluctuations and the stabilization operations that were carried on in two periods of our agricultural life when we actually had governmental control of the marketing of wheat. I am using this as an illustration, not as an attempt to bring wheat into this discussion.


James Arthur Ross: I thought wheat was not under this bill.


Thomas John Bentley: I am bringing it in as an illustration. The Tories may not be very much interested in this, but I like to show the public once in a while what this is all about; as someone near me says, to show up the Tories as the horrible example. In the years 1917-18 to 1919-20 we had two different governmental bodies in operation. At the start we had the board of grain supervisors, and then the first Canada wheat board. During that period we had a fairly high price level, and the fact that this price level was not sufficient to enable the farmer to buy all that he required and to liquidate his debts was not the fault of the operation of the board of grain supervisors or the wheat board. It was the fault of the government of that time, which had absolutely no control over the prices of the things the farmers had to buy. The same thing could be applied now. Since 1943 the Canadian wheat board has been dealing exclusively with wheat, and the farmer's income has reached a high level. The fact that that income has not been large enough to give the farmer sufficient purchasing power to buy the things he needs and still remain solvent, as he has a right to be, is not the fault of the wheat board. It is attributable to the fact that this government has not given the farmer the protection he requires in the various fields in which he purchases. This government is solely responsible for that condition.
I have just been informed, Mr. Speaker, that a chart such as that to which I have referred can be placed on Hansard with the unanimous consent of the house. It would be very difficult to read it, but it is so interesting that I am sure everyone will want to look at it. May I have the permission of the house to have it included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas John Bentley: 1932
Agricultural Products Act Through the Years



So far as agriculture is concerned, Canada is confronted by a choice which will affect not only agriculture but the whole economy of this country. It concerns the method of marketing agricultural products. Our group believes that if we are to have a united and prosperous nation it is necessary for all sections of agriculture to be dealt with on an equal basis. For this reason we believe coarse grain should be included in the operations of the wheat board. By this means all those who are engaged in the feeding of livestock, both in the east and elsewhere, as well as those who feed poultry, will have access to supplies of feed grains at prices which their particular section of the agricultural industry can afford to pay. This cannot be done with any degree of continued stabilization unless it is done through a board that has the authority of law behind it. I think the Tories know that, and I am convinced some Liberals know it. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture knows it, no matter what he may say in his political speeches. The minister is intelligent and has a knowledge of agriculture, particularly in the grain-growing areas, and 1 am sure he is convinced of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal to you once again to enforce the rules of the house. For some time the hon. member has been discussing a measure which does not even come under my department and has nothing to do with this resolution. He has been discussing the question whether oats and barley are to be put under the wheat board. This is an entirely different question, and there are two pieces of legislation under which that matter can properly be discussed. I submit that discussion should be limited to the measure that is before the house.


Thomas John Bentley: I am discussing coarse grains, which are included in tne operation of this particular bill.


James Arthur Ross: On the point of order, I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, since my name has been mentioned in this debate, whether I shall have an opportunity of replying during the debate on this measure to the statements which have been made.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. members to confine their remarks to the measure which is before the house. If one member goes beyond the matter under consideration, another member will ask to have' the same opportunity. I appeal to the members to keep to the motion.


Thomas John Bentley: I want to abide by your decision, and I will, sir. On the point of order
Agricultural Products Act I should like to draw to your attention the wording of the resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
The Agricultural Products Act deals with all agricultural products, including feedstuff, except wheat. When I discuss coarse grains and their marketing, therefore, I do not think I am outside the bounds of this discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order, if the debate is to be continued along the lines now being taken I should like to point out that I raised this question when this resolution was presented to the house some weeks ago. The resolution has been before the house for six weeks. During all that time it has not been discussed. The resolution has to do with the control of the marketing of farm products through agreements made with other countries. Under this act that is the method of control that is followed. It has nothing to do with putting coarse grains under the wheat board or anything of the kind; that is all provided for in other legislation which is before the house.


Thomas John Bentley: I suppose one could discuss this point of order endlessly, but let me call attention to the fact that we have egg contracts; we have beef contracts with other countries, and we have cheese contracts. Not one of these agricultural products could be produced unless the animal first absorbed a quantity of coarse grains.


Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the house to the fact that the bill is not before us. The measure before the house is a resolution which reads as follows:
That It is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
The matter to be discussed is the principle of the resolution. When hon. members have the bill before them, they will note the contents of the bill and it may be proper at that time to discuss the various problems connected with it. At the moment I shall have to insist that members discuss the principle of the motion before the house.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, have you given your ruling, or is the discussion still on the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will understand that it is the duty of the Speaker to keep order and decorum. Order means that I should call the attention of members to the fact when their remarks are not relevant to the motion before the house. It is the duty of the Speaker to do this. I am sure I shall

Agricultural Products Act have the co-operation of all members in abiding by the rules, and I would ask that they make their remarks relevant to the motion.


Thomas John Bentley: I assure you, sir I will do that. On the point of order, I agree that some of these remarks should have been made on the motion for second reading of the bill. When I offered to give up the place I had in the debate today in order to allow the bill to be presented, it did not appear that that suggestion would receive unanimous consent. As a result I had to take this opportunity of making the remarks I am making, because I had adjourned the debate last Friday. I have no desire whatever, sir, to do anything that you believe to be out of order. I should like to have the remarks I have made up to this point considered by the Minister of Agriculture.
In spite of what the minister may think about my remarks being beyond the bounds of this debate, I believe they are pertinent. I believe some of the things I have mentioned should be included in the bill when it comes before the house.
Speaking to the point of order, the minister said that there are other measures that will afford an opportunity of dealing with this matter. I agree that there is one other measure-I do not know what the two measures are-namely, Bill 82, on which I expect to speak. Perhaps coarse grains will be taken care of by that bill. Until that bill is dealt with we are dealing with this resolution to continue the operation of the Agricultural Products Act for another year. To summarize briefly, and not try your patience, sir, I will put it this way: Our group believes coarse grains should be marketed through the wheat board. Failing that, we believe that a natural products marketing act should be set up by this government to deal with agricultural products.
Although there are some things in the resolution that are obnoxious, we are certainly not going to oppose it. But we want to impress upon the minister the fact that it is not our idea of good legislation to go on from year to year extending it for another year, instead of doing what could have been done over a year ago, and could have been done here-introducing a natural products marketing act which would encompass all the products now being dealt with under the Agricultural Products Act. I hope the minister will keep this point in mind when the bill comes before us. Certainly, if it is not there, I and others in this group will have a good deal to say about it. I shall not weary the house any further at this stage.


George Alexander Drew: The principle involved in the motion that is before the house, Mr. Speaker, has to do with a subject which has already been under discussion here and which cannot be divorced from the consideration of this proposal. It is easy for members to talk lightly of the constitution and the relationship of this resolution to a correct interpretation of our constitution. But that is the way in which governments lead to the breakdown of their parliamentary system. If there is not recognition and observance of the limitation of the constitution, sooner or later the constitution becomes ineffective as an instrument to protect the freedom of the people.
The resolution declares that it is expedient that an amendment be introduced to extend the Agricultural Products Act for another year. The very form of the resolution imposes upon the members of the house the obligation to decide whether they believe there is an emergency which justifies the extension of this measure, or whether, on the other hand, there should be a bill introduced which would have regard to the ordinary constitutional rights of this parliament.
In order to understand what it is that the members of this house are being asked to declare to be expedient at this time, let us go back to the preamble of the bill of 1947. It says:
Whereas His Majesty's dominions and foreign countries, during and as the result of the war against Germany and Japan, were and still remain in grave distress for want of adequate food supplies; and whereas for the more efficient prosecution of the war and in order to assist in the relief of suffering and the distribution of food supplies the government of Canada entered into agreements for the sale or export of food supplies to other governments or agencies thereof, which agreements still continue in force; and whereas certain orders and regulations were made by the governor in council under the authority of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the purpose of enabling Canada to carry out the said agreements; and whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on the thirty-first day of March, 1947, and it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that parliament confer authority to enable the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations under the said agreements and to continue to sell and export food supplies to distressed countries for the relief of suffering and the distribution of essential food supplies, in order to maintain economic stability and to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows;
And the provisions of the act follow. The question before the house is not the desirability of having legislation to make it possible to fulfil present contracts for food supplies. The question is whether this matter should still be dealt with on the basis that there is

a national emergency. There are contracts with the United Kingdom for bacon, cheese and eggs. I am sure that every member of this house will support, with a desire to see it carried out, appropriate legislation having to do with those particular contracts, based upon the ordinary constitutional responsibility of this house and parliament.
Once again we have the specious, utterly improper and insincere suggestion that anyone who says that we are avoiding our constitutional responsibilities is seeking to prevent the fulfilment of contracts with the United Kingdom. That is untrue; it has no foundation in fact. Those who seek to avoid their constitutional responsibility by arguments of this kind are themselves seeking effectively to undermine the constitution. This act can have no validity and no authority whatever unless the members of this house are once again prepared to declare that there is a national emergency, relating in this case to food supplies in this country; because any condition that can be put forward as an emergency to justify the adoption of legislation of this kind must be an emergency in regard to food not outside of Canada but within Canada itself. Only an emergency inside Canada can support legislation which declares an emergency under the broad reference to peace, order and good government. You may say that after all it was the impact of war that was the basis of earlier legislation. That is true. The war may have been outside of Canada, but the emergency existed within Canada in relation to that war; and it was there that various measures such as the War Measures Act and others found their legal basis during the war years.
This act of 1947, which the house is now asked to extend, declares that there is actual distress for want of adequate food supplies, relating to Canada itself. We know that that is not so. We know that the real purpose-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is my hon. friend arguing that the emergency in connection with food during the war period was in Canada?


George Alexander Drew: Oh, the emergency-no. The emergency was a general emergency which made it possible for the government at that time to deal with anything, without regard to any particular emergency. Under the War Measures Act the government had power to deal with anything that they thought the government could best deal with. And I am sure there was no necessity at that time that there be a specific emergency in regard to any particular subject.
Agricultural Products Act
Now, if the minister asserts that in Canada at the present time, there is any emergency in respect of food, then the only emergency he can assert-and this is the weakness of the government's position-is a general emergency such as was placed in the War Measures Act itself. If he is prepared to assert that, and if the government bases its position upon that assertion, then once again parliament is asked to declare that there is a general emergency which overrides every division of authority under our constitution between the dominion and the provincial governments.
There is no use trying to evade the fundamental issue involved in this measure. While the resolution has been before the house for many weeks, as the Minister of Agriculture and everyone else knows, and in general steps taken to control these powers have been under way for some weeks, this is the opportunity for parliament to discuss the fundamental principle involved. It was suggested that this would be an opportunity for members of the house to deal with methods of marketing. But let no member of the house pretend that the measure which the government now seeks to introduce asserts methods of marketing. It does not do that at all. It does the exact opposite. It simply says: We give to the government, by order in council, full power to deal with the food products of this country in any way they see fit, and to sell to any country or any agency of any country under any terms that they believe to be satisfactory. There is no definition of method of any kind.
The act which we are called upon now to renew deals with foodstuffs of any class or kind, except wheat-as the minister intimated this morning. Let us see what powers are conferred by the statute, and let us see what it is we are asked to do in declaring a general emergency.
Section 3 of the original act-and this is the act which we are asked to say it is expedient we should renew-says:
Subject to any regulations that may be made by the governor in council the minister may
(a)	sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country or any agency thereof pursuant to any agreement made by the government of Canada with the government of such country or with such agency and for those purposes may purchase agricultural products and make such arrangements for the purchase, sale or export of agricultural products as he considers necessary or desirable;
(b)	on behalf of the government of any country or any agency thereof purchase or negotiate contracts for the purchase of agricultural products;
(c)	by order require any person to give such information respecting his facilities for the storing

Agricultural Products Act
or processing of agricultural products and at such times as the minister may designate in such order;
(d)	enter into contracts for the storing or processing of agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest, and I think the leader of the opposition will agree, that that does confine the method of marketing that might be followed under this act.


George Alexander Drew: It does not confine any method of marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it has to be by agreement with governments.


Mr. Rowe:: You control everything.


George Alexander Drew: I cannot imagine anything that indicates more clearly how little the government appreciates exactly what it is asking this House of Commons to do. The comment just made by the Minister of Agriculture indicates how little he appreciates it, because the section I have just read is a wide open provision for state marketing with every other nation in the world, if the government so desires, and under any terms it sets forth. It does not set out the terms of marketing. It does not define how it will be done. It says that it may be done with any nation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Provided there is an agreement with that nation.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, there has to be a contract similar to the contracts now in effect for bacon, cheese and eggs.


George Alexander Drew: No; that is exactly what it does not say. It does not say that there must be a contract similar to the contract the government has for bacon, cheese and eggs. It is the very opposite of that. It can be a contract of any kind that the government deems advisable at any time. There may be different contracts for every government, and there may be different prices-or with the same government for different types of commodities. There is no definition of the contract, and that is exactly the point I am making now.
This is not a method of marketing; it is a simple declaration that the government can negotiate in any way it sees fit, and at any time, with any nation, or with any agency' of any nation. It means that a government which has different agencies dealing with different commodities can make different terms under different conditions with this government for the purchase of any kind of food, except wheat-because this act does not cover wheat.
A very interesting provision of the act to which not too much attention has been paid is found in paragraph (b) of section 3, which declares that the government of Canada may

act for any foreign government or the agency of any foreign government to purchase or acquire foodstuffs of any kind in Canada, except wheat. That is in paragraph (b). Such contracts may be contracts of any kind approved by the government. It is not enough to say that such contracts have never been made. This is what the act says this government can do. In other words, the government can become a publicly-owned purchasing agent for any other government, and under any terms the government may seek to establish from time to time, without consulting agricultural experts in this country.


William Earl Rowe: Regular hucksters.


George Alexander Drew: The remarks I am making in no way relate to the knowledge or good faith of the Minister of Agriculture, or to his desire to market the foodstuffs of this country. My remarks relate once more to the question whether this House of Commons should proceed to declare a national emergency without any evidence of that emergency having been presented to the house, and in doing so to declare an emergency under which this government would have power to introduce any other act of a similar nature.
If members of the house vote for a measure of this kind and declare a general emergency -and there can be no suggestion of this being a general emergency, because the Minister of Agriculture himself made it clear in the comment he has just made- then I say members of the house would have no right in common sense, whether they did it on any other ground, to refuse a separate bill brought forward by the government dealing with any other subject which would also relate to a national emergency. If on this occasion they think there is a general emergency in relation to food, and say we should continue this measure, then this house should not refuse to make the same declaration at some later date if this government sought to suspend the constitution in regard to any particular subject which is now dealt with exclusively by the provincial governments.
On earlier occasions when this same bill was before the house amendments were introduced by this party calling for the introduction of an agricultural products marketing act which would deal with these matters through democratic provincial marketing boards. Had such an act been introduced, a similar amendment would have been moved on this occasion, but such an amendment cannot be introduced now for the simple reason that there has been before the house for some time a bill entitled the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. It relates to pro-

vincial marketing organizations, and cannot be discussed at this time.
Without in any way suggesting that the agricultural products marketing bill which will be before us is suitable in form, it is at least the recognition of a principle, that it is appropriate to deal with provincial marketing boards, which was put forward in the form of amendments in 1947 and 1948 by the Progressive Conservative members of this house. To the extent that this step is a recognition of their insistent demands for that democratic procedure, the members of the Progressive Conservative party welcome it in principle, although they reserve their right to discuss the details and the appropriateness of certain provisions when the measure is before the house for consideration.
This resolution calls for the renewal of an act which provides, under these wide-open terms, not only for the sale but for the acquisition by the government of foodstuffs of every kind, except wheat, for the purpose of carrying out such contracts.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: With compulsion.


George Alexander Drew: With compulsion on the part of the government, under directions issued by the government. Surely no more arbitrary power could be conferred on any government anywhere in the world than is conferred on this government by this particular act. By compulsion they can take over all foodstuffs under this act, except wheat, for the purpose of fulfilling contracts with countries other than Canada, under any terms that they see fit to make from time to time. No more dictatorial piece of legislation could be put before this house than the one now before us.
It is no answer to say that all that has been done under this act has been to make perfectly proper contracts with the United Kingdom for the sale of bacon, cheese and eggs. Let no one ask the question: Are you saying that we should not make these contracts?-because such a question in itself would suggest an attitude out of keeping with the responsibility of membership in this house. That is not the question. The question is whether an act as wide and as powerful as this should be passed at this time, if it ever should have been passed at all. There are contracts for the sale of commodities. Let this government introduce bills empowering it to deal with particular commodities and make contracts under terms defined by parliament itself. If a bill setting out that power in correct and parliamentary terms were put forward, I doubt if a single member of this house would oppose it.
Once again hon. members are being asked to declare a general emergency which in itself is a violation of every other constitutional
Agricultural Products Act limitation, if it can in fact be supported. For that reason, and without extending the discussion in regard to the merits of the contracts, which are not in issue, or the methods of marketing, which are not in issue, or the desirability of selling foodstuffs under proper contracts to the United Kingdom or to any other country, it is our intention to call for a recorded vote against the declaration that a general emergency exists today of the kind that would have supported these emergency powers in wartime.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to take part in this debate, because I am far from posing as an expert on the subject matter of this resolution. But I think it is desirable that a statement should be made in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has exhausted his right to speak on this particular motion, I rise, as I admitted when I started, as a very poor substitute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was not so humble a year ago.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend's interjection has reference to Bill 82. I am hoping that when the discussion of that bill takes place the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) will repeat the arguments he made today. If he does I may have an opportunity to reply to them, because he was certainly out of order in discussing it today.


Major James William Coldwell: We will suggest that, and perhaps the Speaker will permit it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am going to speak to him privately and suggest that he do so, so that I may have a chance to reply.
This seems to be another measure to which our friends of the Progressive Conservative party are passionately giving their support, but against which they must vote for constitutional reasons. In connection with the extension of controls which I piloted through the house, they said many times-I hope I do justice to their arguments-that they objected to those general powers; that they wanted specific statutes set up dealing with each matter, one dealing with housing and I presume another with agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Lockhart:: Is this in order, Mr. Speaker?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friends do not seem to like to be reminded of their arguments. The point I am coming to is that in this particular case we have followed precisely their advice. The subject matter of the bill which is now before the house was taken out of the general body of controls. In that respect we
1938	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act have been following precisely the advice tendered at such great length by our hon. friends.


William Earl Rowe: Not so precisely.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Precisely, because it has been made the subject matter of a separate bill. So far as that part of our hon. friends' advice is concerned, we have followed it exactly.
The leader of the opposition said that he did not wish to have any of his remarks in this debate interpreted in any way as opposition to the substance, to the merits of the food agreements with Great Britain. I hope I do him no injustice in interpreting his remarks when I say that he said he was in favour of these food contracts, and I presume of their continuance. If he is in favour of them, and of their continuance, I suggest- and I hope he will agree with me-that the only way in which they can be continued is by the passage of the bill before the house.


George Alexander Drew: That is just what I said is not so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is no other way in which they can be continued. If this bill is not passed, these contracts, the substance of which he says he favours, must expire and cease to exist.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to interpolate that that is precisely the opposite to what I did say.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What my hon. friend did say, and what I am saying now, is all within the recent memory of members of the house. 1 am content to leave it to them as to what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to refer to a remark made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on March 14, 1947, when this bill was before the house. He had this to say at page 1388 of Hansard:
Why were these orders in council brought in, in the first instance? They were brought in so as to make it possible for the government, by compulsion, to take farm products.
And so on. I now ask the minister how many of the contracts, and in what proportion, were filled at any time by compulsion?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it would be proper to address that question to the Minister of Agriculture. He tells me, for example, that so far as cheese was concerned it was necessary last year to make requisitions in order to get a supply to fill the contracts.


William Earl Rowe: It still did not fill them.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It occurs to me that questions similar to that asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre might better be asked when the house goes into committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I agree with that, but I do not want to appear to refuse to answer any question.
If we want to continue these agreements we must pass the bill, and I think the disposition of the majority of the members of the house will be to continue the merits and the substance of these agreements, which have proven their worth, by passing the bill. The leader of the opposition says that if we do that, the government will become involved in an iniquitous doctrine formulated by the government; that we are attempting to destroy the Canadian constitution, and all provincial rights under the Canadian constitution, by invoking a general emergency which leaves it to our choice to invade any of the fields ordinarily within provincial jurisdiction under section 92 of the British North America Act.
This question has been raised before. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) raised it the other day-somewhat to my surprise, because I thought he was a better lawyer than to raise it. The reply to the argument is a matter of the most elementary principles of law. Our constitution is the British North America Act, passed by the imperial parliament at Westminster. It divides between the dominion and the provinces the various functions of government. Under that act we have in this parliament the privilege of passing laws in relation to a number of matters which are set out in section 91, and which in a general way have to do with the functions of the central government. Under section 92 the provinces are given the power to deal with what might be described in a general way as mere local functions of government.
The question arises, and it has been the subject matter of a number of constitutional cases, whether a given subject of legislation falls within provincial jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction. I suggest as a most elementary principle that in this parliament of Canada we have and exercise the legislative powers of making or passing laws. Under and by those laws we can clothe the executive with the authority to do certain things, and it is the job of the executive to do those things.
We have a third branch of our government body-the judiciary; the courts. It is the function of the courts to interpret the laws which we make, and the laws which the provinces make-first of all to see whether those laws, in the case of the provinces or

of this parliament, are intra vires, that is, within the jurisdiction of the body which passed them, or whether on the other hand they are ultra vires, beyond their jurisdiction, and therefore void. Another function of the courts is to see that the executive, in purporting to act under authority granted by statute, does not go beyond the powers which parliament or the provincial legislatures have granted.
The function of formulating a theory as to a general emergency, as to a specific emergency, or as to any other basis for constitutional authority, is not a legislative function, and is not an executive function. It is a judicial function. The constitution of our country is a statute passed by the imperial parliament at Westminster. Our court of last resort for Canada is the imperial court of the privy council at Westminster. By reason of the privy council being our court of last resort, the bulk of our constitutional decisions have come down from the privy council. In other words it is this imperial court interpreting an imperial law which tells this country what is within the powers of the provincial legislatures and what is within the powers of the dominion parliament. That being so, this government could formulate theories as to a general emergency, a specific emergency or any other kind of emergency, as a foundation for its jurisdiction, until it was black in the face-


William Earl Rowe: That is what it is doing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and still it would have no effect upon the validity of the laws which were passed by invoking these government theories.
In all the discussion which has taken place in this debate, and in the other debates, the members of the Progressive Conservative party have sought to indicate that it was this government that was making some tremendous invasion of the rights of the provinces-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -or of the Canadian constitution. But let me tell my hon. friend who has just been cheering, the member for Eglinton, that in legal terms that is just kindergarten nonsense.


James Arthur Ross: What about the Manitoba courts? Are they childish too?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Suppose we formulated, as they accuse us of doing, such a theory or doctrine of general emergency; suppose we proceeded upon the basis of that formulation to bring before parliament this bill or that bill or the next bill, to pass it and have it become the law of the land. Then I sug-
Agricultural Products Act gest to the hon. member for Eglinton and to the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the moment such statute came before the courts upon a test as to whether or not it was within the power of parliament to pass it, it would be the courts which would decide whether or not any doctrine formulated by any government was sound.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should be glad if my hon. friend would ask his question later. I am in the course of an argument at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: You will allow me to ask it later?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. That being so, Mr. Speaker, the question of the validity of the present bill, if it becomes a statute, is something which ultimately must be determined by the courts if any person challenges it. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition is right to this extent, perhaps: that in seeking the passage of this bill we impliedly say to the house that the law officers of the crown are satisfied that what we are asking the house to pass is within the power of parliament. But under our constitution, about which my hon. friend speaks so often, neither the government nor its law officers have the last word on that point. The courts have the last word. If, as he alleged, we presumed to make an attack upon the constitution, which attack was unconstitutional, the courts certainly would affirm that to be the case if it were challenged.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister reached the point where I may ask a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will contain himself, he may ask it in a moment.
That being so, I suggest hon. members here are not concerned with the constitution in the way the members of the Progressive Conservative party have been arguing from time to time, because that is a matter which can safely be left to the only branch of government capable of dealing with it-that is, the courts. What we are concerned with here is the substance, the merits, the prudence, the wisdom of the measure we have before us. On that score I call on no less a witness than the leader of the opposition himself, who has just finished saying that so far as he is concerned this is an excellent arrangement, these are contracts which should be continued, and he is all in favour of it. I have not heard any member of his party say he is against the substance of the contracts. They are merely against the procedure and question the constitutionality, which under our constitution is left with the courts, which

Agricultural Products Act are the protectors of the Canadian constitution and the Canadian people in that regard.
Now would the hon. member for Lake Centre like to ask his question?


John George Diefenbaker: My question is simply t^xis. Is the Minister of Justice enunciating the principle that parliament has no responsibility; that all it should do is pass legislation having a desirable end in view, irrespective of whether or not it is constitutional, waiting for the courts ultimately to determine the question of legality?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the doctrine of dictatorship.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When my hon. friend finishes his question and his speech I shall be glad to answer it. No; the Minister of Justice is not enunciating what my hon. friend described as the doctrine of dictatorship. He is enunciating no such thing. He is not even giving a legal opinion, which by the rules of this house he is prohibited from giving as Minister of Justice. He is merely discussing some of the A B C's of constitutional law with which it might be presumed the hon. member for Lake Centre would be familiar. He is saying that when a bill is presented to this house by any government, or any private member for that matter, the sponsor has a measure of responsibility to see to it that the attention of hon. members is not taken up with a matter that is unconstitutional to begin with, or that should not come before parliament. But having examined the law, as should be done in every case, to see that the procedure being followed and the material being submitted to the house is in accordance with the decisions of the courts, and having then submitted the bill to the house, I think he has discharged his responsibility, whether it be in the case of a government or the case of a private member. Then if members, acting in good faith and carrying out their legal ideas, as in the case of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Lake Centre-however adequate or inadequate they may be-want to oppose it upon constitutional grounds that' are unsound in the light of decisions of the courts, that may be a mistaken but conscientious reason for their opposing it. But after that bill has become law there is one place under our constitution, and only one, where it can be decided whether or not parliament has acted within its power and has produced a valid statute, or whether it has gone beyond its power and produced a void statute, and that place is the courts of law.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the constitutional angle of this question. If the farmers concerned, particularly from western Canada, were sitting in on the debates this morning I think they would be dismayed to see that the discussion has centred around the question whether this legislation is technically within the constitution instead of the question whether it is in the interests of the farmers.
As I understand this resolution, it is to provide for the continuation of the Agricultural Products Act, which is the method adopted by the government to carry out its contracts with Britain. There is no doubt that these contracts are important to Canadian agriculture. Our farm products were sold under contract during the war. Farmers were asked by the government to produce vast quantities of bacon, cheese and eggs, in order to feed the people of Great Britain. During the war years the government said to Canadian farmers: Increase your production of these commodities; increase your shipments to the British market, and we will see to it that your position in that market is retained when peace comes. So Canadian agriculture looked to this government to take adequate steps to see that the British market for Canadian farm products would continue, and would provide farmers with a stable income.
The history of the government's agricultural contracts is not good. Through his policies the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has placed obstacles before our farmers so they have not been able to produce the quantities necessary to fulfil the contracts. The minister should have given the farmers proper agreements with adequate prices, and should have assured the farmers that these agreements would be carried on, not merely from one year to another but for a period of years.
The minister has made many statements in this house from time to time. He has made many contradictory statements. If you give the Minister of Agriculture one or two years, he will contradict almost anything he says in any given year. For instance, in 1946, when the minister was telling us that the 1947 contract for bacon would be reduced, he had this to say-and I quote from page 4779 of Hansard:
Under the contract entered into,- meaning 1947.
-we have agreed to a reduction in the quantity that we are required to deliver to at least 350 million pounds. In 1948 we have agreed to attempt to deliver 400 million pounds. In other words we believe that we can increase deliveries in 1948 over the deliveries in 1947 and therefore we have entered into a contract under which we agree to deliver a greater quantity in 1948 than in 1947.
[Mr. Garson.)

On the same page, he said:
We have attempted to avoid giving wrong information to the British as to what food would be supplied or could be supplied from year to year. Then we have written into the contracts the highest quantities that we felt sure we could deliver to the British.
In 1947, Mr. Speaker, instead of delivering 350 million pounds of bacon to Britain, we delivered only 225-9 million pounds. In 1948, when the minister said we would have a contract providing for 400 million pounds, we had a contract providing for only 225 million pounds. Of that quantity we delivered to Britain only 176-4 million pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I recall it, we did not have a contract for 225 million pounds in 1948; we had a contract for 195 million pounds at the request of Britain.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I understand it, at the beginning of last year the contract was for 195 million pounds. I was informed by the Department of Agriculture a few weeks ago that part of the beef contract had been substituted for an increased bacon contract, and therefore our final 1948 contract was 225 million pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point is that the contract for 1948 was reduced at the request of Britain, and we made other arrangements in connection with the marketing of meat products.


Major James William Coldwell: Was it not because we had not delivered in the past?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there was a request to have it reduced to the lowest figure we could possibly hold.


Hazen Robert Argue: For the moment it does not matter too much whether Britain requested that the contract be reduced-


James Garfield Gardiner: For the hon. member's argument I think it does, because he says that in 1947 the minister made certain suggestions as to what would be required. Those suggestions were not changed by anyone in this country; they were changed by the British request that they be reduced.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will answer that, too. I was about to say that even though the contract was reduced, the minister did not set up the conditions which are necessary to encourage farmers to produce even that small quantity.
I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that the people of Great Britain and the British government did not wish to have their Canadian bacon contract reduced. If our government had increased its purchases of British goods, Britain would have taken increased quantities of agricultural products. I have read Sir Stafford Cripps' recent com-
Agricultural Products Act prehensive press statement, and there is no suggestion in it that the British people wanted to take less bacon. The governing factor is the availability of dollars. If this government would undertake policies that would provide Britain with those dollars, then Britain would purchase increased quantities of bacon and our farmers would have an adequate and stable market. That is what this government should be doing.
In 1946 the minister again told us, and I quote from page 4779 of Hansard:
Taking that into consideration we have not been prepared to agree that Canada ought to accept, even if it were suggested-and I am not saying it has been suggested-a constant reduction in the quantities contained in our contracts, beginning say with the first year after the war and continuing downward through the years following the war.
In 1946, therefore, the minister said there would not be a continuing reduction in our bacon contracts. But our bacon contract in 1946 was for 450 million pounds; in 1948, it was for 195 million pounds-we shall use the lower figure-and this year it is for 160 million pounds. I say there is no contradicting the statement that we are losing, and losing very rapidly, our hold on the British market.
On previous occasions the minister has stated that we should not be too much worried about whether or not the British food contracts are for reduced quantities, because, the minister said, farmers are returning to wheat production on most of the ten million acres they took out of wheat during the war. I say that the British contracts for bacon, cheese and eggs should be greatly expanded, because when the farmers start to increase wheat production I fear they will find their wheat markets dwindling too. One reason why the food contracts should be for greater quantities is that Canada's quota in the new international wheat agreement is for 30 million bushels less than in the agreement drawn up last year, and the maximum price is twenty cents a bushel less than the maximum price of last year. This year there are forty-two importing countries involved in the agreement, whereas last year there were only thirty-three. On the basis of the present wheat agreement, it means there are nine countries fewer to take the quantities of wheat Canada must export outside of the agreement.
Our wheat markets are dwindling. Our wheat markets are not secure, and because they are not secure this government should see that Canada produces the larger quantities of bacon, cheese and eggs which the British would be very happy to obtain.
Our agricultural markets are not at all secure. Our agricultural markets depend
1942	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products Act to a large extent upon EEP funds from the United States. The United States has already-declared a great many food products to be surplus commodities. When these food products are declared surplus, then ERP dollars are no longer available for the purchase of these commodities in Canada by the European countries. Among the commodities that have been declared surplus are oats, tobacco, dried eggs, beans, potatoes, flaxseed, linseed oil, and wool. As the number of commodities declared surplus by the United States increases, our agricultural industry will lose more and more of its present markets.
This year the Minister of Agriculture made a statement which I think is a correct summary of the situation. He said that we are getting back to the 1932 basis for food contracts with Great Britain. That is a most disappointing announcement to make to the farmers of Canada. Is that the best this government has been able to do-to take the farmers back to the 1932 contracts? In 1932 conditions were not very good for the farmers. The farmers do not want to be forced to return to conditions as they were in 1932. I must point out that while our bacon contract for 1949 is the same as it was in 1932-that is, 160 million pounds-our cheese contract is for 50 million pounds, whereas in 1932 it was for 60 million pounds. This government, therefore, is not maintaining even the position Canada held in the British market in 1932. When our agricultural markets dwindle, agricultural production does not decrease to the same extent. Farmers must produce year in and year out. That is part of the inherent nature of farming. When the farmers' production is greater than available markets for it, prices fall. When the price level starts to fall, farmers well know that the prices of their products fall further and faster than the prices of the things they have to buy.
I say that the government's over-all policy in relation to maintaining the British market for agricultural products has failed miserably. The government, through its policy, and through the words of the Minister of Agriculture, has already announced that we are going back to the 1932 basis. I deplore that statement. I believe that this government should take the initiative to provide greater markets for British goods in Canada and make certain that Great Britain has sufficient dollars to buy all the bacon, cheese and eggs the farmers want to sell to Great Britain, and thus ensure agricultural prosperity in the years ahead.


John Alpheus Charlton: The resolution before the house, Mr. Speaker, refers to a bill which I contend should be called the agricultural products prices control act.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I just be permitted to say this? It is not the intention to continue with this discussion after three o'clock. There are other bills that must be got through, and there must be some certainty of getting them through. At the beginning of this discussion the Prime Minister suggested that we might allow this resolution to pass and get the bill on the order paper so that it could be dealt with later this day, or perhaps tomorrow. But if we are to go on until one o'clock I am afraid we shall not get the bill before the house today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us take the vote now.


George Alexander Drew: That suggestion is acceptable. As already indicated, it is our purpose to call for a vote, and that can be disposed of now.


Mr. Heon:: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Lapalme). Had 1 voted, I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. Marquis:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted for the resolution.
(Text):


Mr. Isnor:: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Clark:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Desmond). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Canadian Commercial Corporation
The house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Mr. Tusiin:: What products were taken by compulsion under this act last year?


George Alexander Drew: Would it not be better to rise now? Obviously there are questions to be asked.


Alphonse Fournier: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.
At one-twenty o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 122, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act.


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


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, are you declaring this carried?


Mr. Speaker:: I put the question and nobody rose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Loans to the corporation.
George Alexander Drew: I should like to know from the minister responsible what limitation there is upon the amount of business that can be done by this corporation in the course of a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The corporation acts as agent of the minister to undertake all defence purchasing. The only limit on defence purchasing is the amount of the appropriations contained in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. It also acts for foreign government purchasing in this country. In other words, if a foreign government wishes to procure any supply from Canada as a government to government transaction-there have been many of those in the past although they are fewer at the present moment-the Canadian Commercial Corporation acts as agent to carry out that transaction. If the government wishes to acquire for national purposes any supply that can be obtained only through a government to government transaction, as is the case with some countries, particularly those behind the iron

Canadian Commercial Corporation
curtain, the Canadian Commercial Corporation acts as agent for this government in that regard. I may say that the trend of the work today is largely in the direction of a procurement agency for the Department of National Defence.


George Alexander Drew: Is it correct that the amount that is provided in this act is simply a rotating fund that is used for the purpose of financing transactions from time to time, and that the actual transactions carried out in the course of a year by this corporation might be very considerably in excess of that amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes. The total transactions for government to government buying have totaled about $270 million to date, and Department of National Defence purchasing has totaled over $200 million. The Canadian Commercial Corporation uses its funds to finance current purchases only during the time that it takes to acquire the material abroad and re-sell it in Canada. For defence purchasing, no use of the corporation's funds is involved. All bills for defence purchasing are paid directly by the Department of National Defence.


George Alexander Drew: Is the procedure followed one which calls for a decision first by the defence procurement board, and then the fulfilment by the corporation of the recommendations of the defence procurement board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ordinary Department of National Defence procurements are initialed by a requisition signed by the proper officer of the Department of National Defence to purchase a certain commodity. It may be the building of a fortification, or it may be the purchase of guns or ammunition. The requisition signed by the proper officer of the Department of National Defence is accompanied by a certificate of encumbrance; in other words, with the requisition is a certificate to show that the appropriations of the department have been encumbered for an amount sufficient to pay for the purchase when it is made.


Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Oniario):: I asked the minister yesterday for certain figures, which I believe he told the hon. member for Kamloops would be available, in order to bring the operations of the corporation as near to the present date as possible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have one of those throats that make it rather painful to speak. If my hon. friend does not mind, the member for Ottawa West will give the figures.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Perhaps I should first give the figures of total business placed through the corporation. For the fiscal year 1947-48, the amount of business placed through the corporation for the Department of National

Defence is $76,075,342, and for all others $76,447,701. For the eleven months of the current fiscal year ending on February 28, the total amount placed for the Department of National Defence is $109,925,360, and for all others for the current fiscal year to the end of February, $42,741,886. I believe there was also an inquiry about the cost involved. The amount charged to the Department of National Defence for that work for the current fiscal year up to the end of February was $692,718, or a rate of -63 per cent.
There was also an inquiry as to the types of commodities being purchased for export by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I have here a list of them. There were agricultural equipment, aircraft, munitions, automotive equipment, chemicals, clothing, communication and electrical equipment, fertilizer, fish, food, hardware, industrial equipment, instruments and photographic equipment, medical stores, metals, petroleum products, railway equipment and some shipbuilding contracts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Those are all under the heading of purchases.


George James McIlraith: That is the description of the articles purchased by the corporation for export at the request of other countries, purchasers from outside of Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You
have given a figure for the 1947-48 fiscal year of approximately $76 million for purchases for the Department of National Defence, and approximately the same amount for all others.


George James McIlraith: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does "all others" include foreign governments as well as Canadian citizens?


George James McIlraith: Yes, but it is substantially foreign governments plus UNRRA in that fiscal year. If you will look at the annual report for the year you will find an interesting breakdown of that figure. It shows that some $21 million of it was for UNRRA and $55 million of it was for export to foreign governments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That indicates what the report of 1948 says, that there was a substantial change in the activities of the corporation resulting from the tapering off of foreign government operations in Canada, and then it speaks of an increase in the Department of National Defence. The last figures you gave are for nine months?


George James McIlraith: No, eleven months.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then the falling off is greater than I thought. In

other words, you have a falling off of business, other than that for the Department of National Defence, of nearly 50 per cent?


George James McIlraith: No-that is true if you take other purchases to include the $21 million for UNRRA. The work for UNRRA ended in the last fiscal year; so if you take the other governments it is a falling off from $55 million to $42 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That still leaves out one branch of the business which I thought was quite substantial. In other words you are acting for private individuals, with respect to both import and export? Not all your business, import and export, is contained in the figures you have given me, where governments are concerned?


George James McIlraith: Yes, all the business is included in the figures I have given. Perhaps I can clarify the point by reading a list of the agencies purchasing in the current fiscal year; that might give a fairer picture. They include Mozambique; China; the United Kingdom; France; Czechoslovakia; Netherlands; Netherlands East Indies; South Africa; a very small, insignificant item here for the Department of External Affairs; United Nations international children's emergency fund; Germany; the joint import and export agency; the international refugee organization; United Nations relief for Palestine refugees; United States; fisheries prices support board; the metal transaction referred to yesterday; India; Portugal and Pakistan. Then there was the butter transaction. In the list I have just read they are almost all exports except the metals, the butter and the fertilizer transaction.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Hon. gentlemen will kindly address their remarks to the Chair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I beg
your pardon.


Mr. Fulton:: And could we have a little quiet in the chamber, Mr. Chairman, so we could hear what is going on?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I
understand that the Canadian Commercial Corporation seeks to interest itself in and acts in respect of all business where foreign governments are concerned? If not, how do you select those in which you act and those in which you do not act?


George James McIlraith: We provide an agency they can use for their government purchases in Canada, and it is only at their request. Of course there are other safeguards concerning payment.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I cannot understand why that must be our policy. What is the point
Canadian Commercial Corporation in setting up a corporation which could play some real role in Canadian trade, and then not making effective use of it? Are we not handicapping this corporation in advance if we say to it, "You cannot do anything unless some private company comes along and asks you to commence work." That sort of corporation is not going to give the people of Canada the satisfaction they want. I do not know how I can get this point over to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Perhaps he would think back thirty years, when he was a young, healthy, virile man. I wonder how much satisfaction he would have got thirty years ago if he had tried to kiss a beautiful blonde girl through a plate glass window. I do not think he would have had very much satisfaction. Neither will the people of Canada receive satisfaction from the restricted activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation today. We have set up a corporation which cannot function properly, because the minister will not let it do anything, unless some private company comes along and requests that it act. The people of Canada are not getting any more satisfaction from this corporation, than the minister would have got thirty years ago if he tried to do what I suggested. Surely this corporation should be allowed to take the initiative and go out to sell some of our surplus products. If some manufacturer has a surplus he cannot sell, why should not this corporation try to get rid of it overseas? I do not think full use is being made of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I point out to my hon. friend that Canada's exports last year were something over $3 billion, while our imports were about $2,500 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes, but we gave away a lot of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely my hon. friend would not suggest that all this business be done through the corporation. The Canadian Commercial Corporation is an agency set up to act for other governmental agencies either inside or outside Canada if it is requested to do so. If the pattern of a foreign country is state buying, and if the state buying agency asks Canada to offer something, that offer is made through the Canadian Commercial Corporation; but that represents only a fraction of the business of this country. In connection with wheat, for instance, the wheatbuying agencies of the countries abroad pur-4 chase direct from the Canadian wheat board, "which is a government agency for selling wheat in this country. There are specialized government agencies for handling certain other transactions; but the great bulk of the trading even with countries in Europe, and
1946	HOUSE OF
Canadian Commercial Corporation certainly with the United Kingdom, is from private trader to private trader, which in my opinion is the most satisfactory transaction of all.


Mr. Hackelt:: Is the Canadian Commercial Corporation set up merely to serve during a short period of emergency, so to speak?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was set up that way at first, but since it has become the purchasing agency for the Department of National Defence, since it has taken the place of the Department of Munitions and Supply, if this amendment passes it will be a continuing agency.


John Thomas Hackett: Was it not the intention of the minister that it should pass out of existence as soon as conditions became normal?


William Henry Golding: Order. I would suggest that hon. members allow an hon. gentleman who is trying to follow a line of questioning to conclude his questions. I believe the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was trying to follow a line of questions when the hon. member for Moose Jaw rose.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He has
the ball now; let him carry it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have just one more question to ask. Would the minister not consider during this coming year allowing the corporation to try to get rid of such surplus products as apples, honey and things of that kind, on their own initiative?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The entire foreign trade service is engaged in that work. Every man in the employ of the Department of Trade and Commerce is charged with that duty. Surely the hon. gentleman would not suggest that we recall our trade commissioners and send agents of the Canadian Commercial Corporation all round the world, would he?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Not at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me ask the hon. member what surpluses we have to sell just now. I cannot think of anything.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Nova Scotia apples, for one thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been over that matter time and again. We have been told in this debate that the Nova Scotia marketing board has sold a large quantity of apples to Belgium.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: And the berries of the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We sold most of those the other day to Ireland. In time we sell everything we have. It is all very well for my hon. friends over there to do what they have been doing ever since 1944; that is, to go around saying


the world is coming to an end about six months from now. They are at it again vigorously.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I remember your leader standing up in this house and saying we must appropriate $5 billion to relieve unemployment in the first two years after the war. You are doing exactly the same thing today in the matter of foreign trade. The actual fact is that we have sold everything we have produced, as far as I know, with very few exceptions, and we rather expect to be able to continue to do so.


Mr. Gillis:: I think the minister's crack about the end of the world is uncalled for at this time. It has nothing to do with this bill. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was absolutely correct in his forecast of unemployment in the post-war period. We have had emergency unemployment relief for the last couple of years on the Pacific coast.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member may be quite in order in directing these remarks to the minister, but I hope they are not going to have a private conversation across the aisle.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, the minister interjected this matter and I think it is only fair that someone should be allowed to make a few remarks about it. In my opinion, his statement was incorrect. The member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is not in his seat and had nothing to do with antagonizing the minister. Very definitely there is something badly needed in the maritimes in connection with employment. Difficulties are being experienced in the marketing of maritime coal. Tearing up an industry because you cannot market its product is not a solution and is not good economics. That is all I want to say. I suggest that the minister and all concerned keep to the bill so that we shall not become involved in these petty wrang-lings.


George Alexander Drew: It is important to clearly understand the connection between the Department of National Defence and the operation of this corporation. It has been stated that there is an organization within the Department of National Defence known as the defence commitments authority. So that we shall understand this matter, is it quite definite that it is upon the recommendation of the defence commitments authority that this corporation makes purchases on behalf of the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is on instructions from the deputy minister of national defence. This form has been used since about 1940, I

believe, when the Department of Munitions and Supply took over defence purchases. We receive a requisition, and if there is a specification that specification is attached. With that requisition is a certificate of encumbrance which says that a reservation is placed on the estimates to the extent of the moneys required to fill that requisition. The two documents arrive together. I am sure that the proper board in the Department of National Defence has approved the item before the certificate of encumbrance can be obtained.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Chairman, since the direct connection between the defence commitments authority and this corporation has been established by the minister's answer, it does become extremely important for every member of this house to know exactly what the effect of this bill is on the relationship of this corporation to the Department of National Defence. I do not think any better illustration could be put before the house than the report of an interview with the Minister of National Defence carried in the press on November 22 last. I believe this is of sufficient importance that I should read from the report, because it refers to the activities and to some very unusual consequences which flow from the relationship between the defence commitments authority and this Canadian Commercial Corporation. The dispatch from which I am reading is one which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator but, since it was furnished by the British United Press, it appeared in the press generally. I will quote that report verbatim, because it indicates the nature of the proceedings contemplated under this act in relation to the Department of National Defence purchases.
The stockpiling of all the equipment and material *which Canada's fighting forces would need for a year of war is the aim back of the government's preparedness program. Defence Minister Brooke Claxton today revealed.
To this end the following measures were listed by the Defence Minister as already having been taken:
1.	Creation of a defence commitments authority, an entirely new and unprecedented government agency whose function is to enable the military authorities to enter without delay into future contracts for material and equipment which otherwise would have to wait for parliamentary approval next midwinter. Already contracts in excess of $29 million have been placed by this agency.
2.	Purchase of service planes from the United Kingdom and the United States at a cost of $7 million.
3.	Purchase of new North Star planes, still aviation's last word in long-distance, heavy-duty aircraft, at a cost of more than $18 million in recent months.
4.	Awarding of a contract for refitting and modernizing 209 R.C.A.F. service plan planes at an estimated cost of $10,377,000.
5.	Expenditure of more than $6 million on jet engine research and experimental construction.
Canadian Commercial Corporation 6. Large-scale orders for new motorized equipment for the army and for the overhauling and modernization of existing equipment.
An imminent phase of the preparedness program will be directed towards the needs of the navy. Extensive contracts for ships, involving new types of vessels such as anti-submarine craft which have had no place in Canada's naval establishment in the past, are said to be in preparation.
Defence Minister Claxton disclosed the foregoing developments in the course of a brief but impressive survey to the British United Press of the swift momentum which the Canadian rearmament program is gaining.
In clear-cut answers to specific questions, Claxton lifted realistically targeted, carefully co-ordinated concentration upon the nation's security interests.
The picture shows strikingly that, with Canada's defence interests being recognized broadly as being in co-operation with the United States and the western European democracies, considerations of neither traditional parliamentary practice nor past military policy-
I would repeat that-
-considerations of neither traditional parliamentary practice nor past military policy are allowed to block the way of speed and effectiveness of present action.
The Defence Minister revealed as a example, that "an entirely new body different from anything ever existing in the past" has been created in the defence ministry. It is known as the "defence commitments authority," and its purpose is to enable the military authorities to contract in advance expenditures which parliament subsequently will be called upon to approve.
The revolutionary nature of this agency can only be appreciated by understanding the importance which tradition and parliamentary practice alike attach to the principle that all public expenditures must be approved by parliament before they are made. At the last session of the House of Commons defence department estimates totalling $250 million-ten times the pre-war figure and approximately $20 per capita spread over the nation-were authorized. They were expected to give the defence authorities all the scope they would need.
This report continues with further explanations of this statement, but I would repeat the statement that is contained in this report based upon an interview with the Minister of National Defence, that the purpose of setting up the new organization within the Department of National Defence which, in turn, has its decisions carried into effect by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, is to enable the military authorities to contract in advance expenditures which parliament subsequently will be called upon to approve.
I ask through you, Mr. Chairman, whether that is a correct statement of the functions of the corporation and of this authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I do not know anything about the situation to which my hon. friend has been referring. I do know that any requisition that comes to the Canadian Commercial Corporation is accompanied by a certificate of encumbrance. The certificate of encumbrance reads that vote number so-and-so of the Department of National Defence is encumbered to the extent of so many dollars in payment for the goods

Canadian Commercial Corporation
covered by the requisition. Unless that certificate of encumbrance is forthcoming, no purchase is made by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I do not know to what this dispatch refers, but it has nothing to do with the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


John Thomas Hackett: For a moment I want to look at the statute, as passed, and at the report of this corporation for 1946. This is the report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation from May 1, 1946, to March 31, 1947.
It is stated on page one that the corporation therefore has three separate but related functions. It acts as a procurement agency in Canada for foreign governments and UNRRA. That is the first one. The second one-the numbers are not in the text; I am adding them-is this. It is available to assist Canadian importers. The third function- and I am adding the word "third"-is that in effect it acts as agent for the Minister of Trade and Commerce in all procurement for the Department of National Defence. From this report it would therefore seem that the activities undertaken by the Canadian Commercial Corporation were restricted as to purpose and the corporation was called into existence merely as an aid during a period of so-called turbulence which followed the period of hostilities. That is so true that section 17 (1) of the act is in these terms:
This act shall expire sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine.
That was the purpose of the bill. Now an effort is being made to keep it alive. The bill now before the committee anticipates activities carried on by government which are normally carried on by private enterprise. I do not think there is a great deal which is astonishing in this; but, Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to point out that this is another striking instance of the lip service that hon. gentlemen opposite render to the theory of private enterprise. They are socializing the government of Canada, and at the end of each session we find the government undertaking, supplanting, succeeding and pushing private enterprise out of existence.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It has not pushed much so far.


John Thomas Hackett: It has pushed so successfully that had the party of my hon. friend been in office it could not have hoped to have gone much further in socializing the enterprise of the people than has the party opposite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think I should let that statement go unchallenged, Mr. Chairman. I
[Mr. Howe. 1
can assure my hon. friend that since it was brought into existence-in 1945, I think it was-


John Thomas Hackett: 1946.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the act was passed in 1945, if I am not mistaken. But in any case-


John Thomas Hackett: As I have it here, it was assented to on August 31, 1946.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so. I can assure my hon. friend that from 1946 to this date this corporation has not put through one transaction that private enterprise could handle-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is the trouble with it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -except at the request of private enterprise.


John Thomas Hackett: Why does it not die down and cease as is promised in the statute?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an intervening chapter that my hon. friend has not referred to. The act was amended last year.


John Thomas Hackett: I am aware of that fact; and it will be amended next year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1946 when the act was passed, purchasing for the defence services was a function of the Department of Munitions and Supply. As the defence requirements continued to decline, the department became an expensive machine for defence purchasing; it was necessary that it be represented across Canada. While defence purchasing was declining, the work of the Canadian Commercial Corporation was also declining, since government to government purchasing in Canada was growing less. The machinery of one was more or less the duplicate of the machinery of the other. It seemed a move in the direction of economy to wind up the purchasing activities of the Department of Munitions and Supply and to transfer them to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. In 1947 the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act was amended to make provision accordingly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wanted to ask the minister a question in regard to purchases for the defence departments. Are they tendered for? Are tenders asked for in all cases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in all cases where it is feasible to do SO.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are some cases where you could not ask for tenders.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But where you can ask for
tenders, you do so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We always do.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Where are they advertised?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the locality, if it is a local purchase; or in the trade journals, if it is a national purchase.


Mr. Skey:: The hon. member for Peterborough West has just asked one question that I wanted to put to the minister. Going back to the questions asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, can the minister's parliamentary assistant tell us what they purchased for the United Kingdom government last year? What was the big item in those purchases?


George James McIlraith: Aircraft was the largest item but for the United Kingdom it is relatively small.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What were the items?


George James McIlraith: Aircraft, fertilizer, communications and electrical equipment and medical stores. They are all relatively small.
Mr. Skey. What were those figures?


George James McIlraith: I have not the detail. It is relatively small. The largest is $26,000. That would be aircraft spares of some sort.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Would that be de Havilland?


George James McIlraith: It is a $26,000 item. I have not the detail of it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have one further question. When one of the branches of the Department of National Defence puts through a requisition to this corporation, do they give you specifications on that requisition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is the function of the Department of National Defence to draw their own specifications. In other words, the Canadian Commercial Corporation has nothing to do with the specifications or the design of a defence purchase. That is the responsibility of the defence department. The design and the specifications are sent to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. It then becomes the duty of the corporation to buy exactly what is specified. After the purchase is made it is the duty of the Department of National Defence to certify the receipt of it and to attend to the inspection.


Mr.   Hackell@: Will the minister say whether fertilizer was purchased or sold?


George James McIlraith: I know it was exported to the United Kingdom. That is the fertilizer that was referred to in the previous question by the hon. member for Trinity?


Mr.   Hackell@: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Yes. It was exported to the United Kingdom. That is a small item- $11,250.
Canadian Commercial Corporation


Mr. Timmins:: Will the minister tell us what was purchased from the United States? I notice that was one of the countries in the list of countries mentioned a few minutes ago.


George James McIlraith: I can give a list of the articles purchased for export to the United States. They are medical supplies, fish, clothing, automotive equipment, instruments and photographic equipment, hardware, fertilizers, food, communications and electrical equipment, agricultural equipment, industrial equipment and some petroleum products.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: All those articles would seem to be such as would be in everyday commercial trade and commerce. Is there any special reason why this corporation should be in those types of business which would be normal processes of trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are all purchases by the United States for export to foreign countries. They are purchases by some agency of the United States, either defence services or some other relief agency. During the last seven or eight years first the Department of Munitions and Supply and later the Canadian Commercial Corporation have maintained an office in Washington to handle purchases in Canada of that type for United States government agencies.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Would the minister tell us the procedure followed when 'the corporation is approached by a foreign government and asked to buy something in Canada? What I have in mind is this: Does the minister have to meet specifications for each of those countries, or has he the power to select the companies in Canada which will produce these articles for the foreign country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The duty of the corporation is to buy what the foreign government wants. We buy it as well as we can. If it is something for which tenders can be called, then they are called. If not, the purchases are made from the source best able to fill the order.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: From anyone who comes along or anyone you may choose to call?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well now, remember this, that we have been buying about $14 billion worth of goods, and we know something about buying.


John Thomas Hackett: In the report brought down on March 31, 1948, I notice on the second page the following paragraph:
From April 1, 1947 to March 31, 1948, more than 45,000 contracts were placed by the corporation for the purchase of stores for the Department of National Defence. These stores had a total estimated

Canadian Commercial Corporation
value of $82,223,078 which, together with the business placed on behalf of others as above mentioned, brought the total value of new business placed by the corporation during the year up to $170,972,066.
Less than half of the business transacted by the Canadian Commercial Corporation was on behalf of the government. Why should the corporation inject itself into ordinary export and import business when Canada is well equipped to perform that business, and when the government has agencies in all countries to stimulate foreign business with Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend has misunderstood the point. The Canadian Commercial Corporation does not inject itself into anything.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is what is the matter with it.


John Thomas Hackett: It has done this huge volume of business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, at the request of foreign governments and at the request of industry in Canada which was not able to do the business itself.


Mr. Hazen:: What amount if any was spent by the corporation for ships or vessels, or both, for the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not a breakdown of the national defence estimates. The hon. member can get the information from the estimates of that department.


George Alexander Drew: I do wish to point out, through you, Mr. Chairman, a feature of this section which seems to go far beyond what is suggested. Section 1 of the bill states:
Subsection 2 of section 8 of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act ... is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (2) The governor in council may from time to time authorize the Minister of Finance to advance out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund amounts to the corporation by way of loan on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine but the aggregate of the loans made under this subsection outstanding at any time shall not exceed ten million dollars."
If it was intended only that the moneys advanced should be out of moneys appropriated for national defence, or for any other purpose, then it would say so. But this says that the Minister of Finance may advance out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
I submit to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that that means that any amount in the consolidated revenue fund not required for other purposes, and unappropriated for other purposes, could be allocated for this purpose; and that the amount is not limited to $10 million, but that the limitation states [Mr. Hackett.l
only that it must not be more than $10 million at any one time. Any advance shall be made, not as against an appropriated amount but as against an unappropriated amount.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I explained this in some detail at the last sitting. The corporation has a capitalization of $10 million. That is its working capital. It draws that from the Department of Finance as required; and if it is not required the amount is returned to the department. In January of this year we were using the whole $10 million, and by the end of February we had paid back $6,500,000 of it to the Department of Finance. It was found from our experience last year, however, that there should be resources in addition to the $10 million of capital in order to prevent an unworkable situation. We had purchasing to do last winter which used the entire $10 million; and if we had not been somewhat fortunate in a quick turnover we would not have had funds available to the corporation sufficient to carry out its responsibilities, and there was no authority for it to secure additional funds.
In addition to the $10 million capital, this simply gives the right to make short-term loans or temporary loans from the Minister of Finance-that is, if the Minister of Finance wishes to make such loans. It simply gives the power to borrow.


John Thomas Hackett: Did the minister say there were two sources of revenue, namely the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, only the Minister of
Finance. The capital of $10 million was voted by parliament. But we do not keep that on deposit unless we are using it. We draw it from time to time as we need it. We do not carry three or four millions of dollars in a bank account; that money is returned to the Minister of Finance.
This provision gives us authority to borrow, if for a temporary period we require an additional amount. We are given the authority here to arrange a temporary loan from the Minister of Finance in addition to our $10 million capital.


John Thomas Hackett: This means, then, that there is no statutory limit on the amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh yes, there is the $10 million voted. That $10 million is ours to use. Then, as I say, in addition to that we would have the right to borrow a further $10 million. We are asking for authority to borrow a further $10 million, so that we can never have at any one time more than $10 million which is ours by vote of parliament and a further loan of $10 million from the Minister of Finance.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us get back to the situation referred to by the leader of the opposition in connection with the statement made last November by the minister of defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has nothing to do with the Canadian Commercial Corporation although it is a nice subject to talk about. It has nothing to do with this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not quite so sure about that.


William Henry Golding: I do not think the hon. member is in order. He should make his remarks relevant to the amendment before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I wanted to ask a question about the modus operandi of securing moneys or making contracts by this corporation. As an example, suppose the minister of defence wishes certain purchases made and comes to the corporation. What authorization or what authority is required from him other than his say-so in the making of purchases? A while ago the minister mentioned that in the last two or three months the corporation found itself in a position where $10 million was insufficient for its purposes and because of that fact an amendment is now being asked for in order to permit of a continuing loan of $10 million. My question is this: what authorization do you require? Surely you would require more than the mere say-so of the minister of defence that certain purchases should be made? This is the very point made by the Auditor General in his report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The hon. member misses the point entirely. I explained a while ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been here all the time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I explained that before accepting an order we require, first, a requisition signed by the deputy minister of the department or a proper officer, depending upon the amount. Requisitions for over $50,000 are signed by the deputy minister and requisitions for under $50,000 are signed by a more junior officer. That must be accompanied by an encumbrance signed by the treasury officer of the Department of National Defence. That encumbrance states that vote so and so of the Department of National Defence has been encumbered by an amount sufficient to pay for the requisition. That is cleared by an officer of the treasury as well as by an officer of the Department of Finance.
I might explain that the capital and borrowing power that we are asking for have nothing to do with defence purchases. We pay no
Canadian Commercial Corporation money in connection with defence purchases. We have our certificate of encumbrance, but the treasury pays the bill directly on certificate of the department of defence that the materials or supplies have been delivered.


John Thomas Hackett: It must be that the Canadian Commercial Corporation becomes liable to pay for the purchases which it makes on behalf of the Department of National Defence because that was one of the cogent reasons advanced for setting up the corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, we have securities; we have the certificate from the treasury department which says that funds are available to pay for the purchase that we make.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not want to be misunderstood. The major reason advanced for setting up the Canadian Commercial Corporation was that it would permit purchases to be made before they had been authorized by parliament. That was the reason advanced by the Minister of National Defence and will be found in his statement which was placed on the record earlier this afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure the hon. member that it will not work.


John Thomas Hackett: Let us assume that the appropriation for the department of defence is $100 million. Let us assume also that further purchases of materials are necessary in the opinion of the managers of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Could the corporation then avail itself of this power to borrow $10 million to make those purchases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not for defence purchases.


John Thomas Hackett: Why?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because the rule is that defence purchases are not made without a certificate of encumbrance.


George Alexander Drew: That does not appear anywhere in the act. After all, we can only go by what the act says. The amendment before us provides:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize the Minister of Finance to advance out of any unappropriated moneys-
There is a clear distinction there between unappropriated moneys and appropriated moneys.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Appropriated moneys are fixed capital and unappropriated moneys are temporary loans.


George Alexander Drew: Appropriated moneys are moneys that have been provided by parliament for a particular purpose. For the sake of considering this particular point, let us assume that the appropriations asked for by
1952	HOUSE OF
Canadian Commercial Corporation the Department of National Defence are approximately $375 million. That would be money appropriated for the purposes of national defence and could properly be referred to as moneys appropriated for that department. But assume also for the sake of discussing this in round terms that there is a surplus of $200 million that is unappropriated. Under this I see no reason why any part of that could not be advanced over and above any amount that has already been appropriated. I would like the minister's comments on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I seem to have difficulty in explaining that as far as defence purchases are concerned the capital of the corporation is not used. In other words, we do not buy and pay for purchases made for the Department of National Defence. We simply place the order on the basis of a certificate of encumbrance from the treasury and, when the order is filled, payment is made direct from the treasury. That is one function that does not require any capital whatever.
The other function is that of procurement for foreign governments purchasing in Canada or for Canadian agencies purchasing abroad. In the case of foreign governments purchasing in Canada it may be necessary, for example, to finance the building of a ship which would be paid for on delivery. Then in the case of potash from Czechoslovakia, which was a large transaction, it was necessary for the corporation to pay for the potash before it was shipped and then the money was recovered only when the potash was distributed to the private purchasers in Canada. A similar transaction was the sisal purchases from one of the African colonies.
Those are the types of transactions which require financing for which parliament has voted $10 million to the corporation as working capital. We are asking the privilege to borrow $10 million from unappropriated moneys to supplement the capital of the corporation when a transaction is too large to finance with the capital that we have at the present time.


George Alexander Drew: This point is one which involves the interpretation of the act. It is a case of what can be done under the act. Can the minister find anything in this act from beginning to end, no matter what the practice may be, that would prevent the Canadian Commercial Corporation purchasing for the Department of National Defence over and above the amount which has actually been appropriated by parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will realize that the machinery is such that every purchase of oyer $5,000 requires an order in council


on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The order in council has to indicate the appropriation from which payment is to be made, and each order in council is checked by an officer of the treasury board. We have to refer to the certificate of encumbrance. The machinery of government is such that, if the Canadian Commercial Corporation undertook to operate on its own account without proper treasury documents, I do not think it would get very far.


John Thomas Hackett: I want to ask another question. The last paragraph of the report-


William Henry Golding: Order. We are dealing with section 1, loans to the corporation.


John Thomas Hackett: My question is pertinent to that.


William Henry Golding: I ask members to confine their remarks to that section.


John Thomas Hackett: I was about to say that the last paragraph on the second page of the report that was tabled the other day is in these terms:
On March 31, 1948, 335 persons were employed in the corporation as compared with 333 at March 31, 1947.
I find that the 335 received salaries amounting to $685,830, whereas the 333 in the previous year received $269,880. I suppose there is some explanation for the upping of the salaries by some $420,000.


George James McIlraith: The answer to that is quite simple. In the previous fiscal year the corporation had just taken over defence purchasing one month before the end of the fiscal year. In the second fiscal year, referred to by the hon. member for Stanstead, it handled defence purchasing for the whole fiscal year. The figures given of total numbers of employees are at the end of the fiscal year. They do not reflect the term of employment at all. That is the explanation. The explanation lies in the fact that they did not have that number of employees throughout the year, or anything approximating that number.


George Alexander Drew: Just so that it will be a matter of record, may we have the minister's assurance that the intention of the government is not to exceed the amount appropriated by the Department of National Defence for defence purposes through any device under this act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The last two words are pertinent. I can give my hon. friend the assurance that this act will not be used for that purpose. I cannot bind the government not to exceed the estimates. I suppose if there were a war, and parliament were not in

session, the government would exceed their ;stimates, and exceed them very promptly.


John Thomas Hackett: Under legislation, not under ;his act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, but I can assure my hon. friend that the borrowing powers under this act will not be used as a device for exceeding ;he appropriations of the Department of National Defence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose you have taken note of the necessity for a correction in the spelling in line 22. There is a surplus vowel in the word "agreed."


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is corrected in my copy.


George James McIlraith: It is corrected in the copies distributed here.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 123, to amend the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Supplemental payments may be included in renewal of mail contracts.
Mr. McLure:: On behalf of mail carriers generally, I wish to make a few remarks with reference to this bill. There is one thing I want to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. That is the discrimination as to contracts in probably every constituency, but which is very glaring in the constituency of Queens. For instance, in looking at some of these contracts I find that for a distance of 27 miles in one case the rate of pay is $1,215. For a distance of 28J miles under similar conditions the rate is $1,500.


John Thomas Hackett: It is uphill.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The downhill ones are the same. For 28J miles the rate is as high as $2,450.


Ernest Bertrand: How much is the second one?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: These routes are similar. Some may have a few more boxes than others, but that does not make a great deal of difference when you figure the time it takes to cover the mileage. Let us take another group where the discrimination is still greater. On an 18-mile route one man gets $1,000 for
Mail Contracts
serving fifty-six boxes. Another carrier, for a route of 18J miles, covering similar roads, receives $1,200. Then there is a 15-mile route where a man who serves only a few boxes gets $1,000.


Ernest Bertrand: Can the hon. member give us the rural route numbers?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: 
Ernest Bertrand: I must tell the hon. gentleman that it is absolutely impossible to give him any information if he only mentions that a certain route covering twenty-eight miles is paid $1,500. I would need to have the name of the route.


William Henry Golding: Order. I should call the attention of hon. members to the fact that this amendment has nothing to do with the letting of contracts or anything of that kind. All it seeks to do is embody the bonuses that have been paid in any renewal of contracts, so the courier will not have to go back to the amount he received before getting a bonus. I hope hon. members will confine their remarks to this, because that is all we have before the committee.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I understand the idea is to continue these discriminations. I am endeavouring to show that these discriminations existed when these bonuses were

Mail Contracts
granted, so why should we not consider that matter today?


William Henry Golding: That is not before the committee. We simply have an amendment to embody these bonuses in any contracts that may be renewed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Should we not be able in some way to take up this matter of discrimination?


Ernest Bertrand: If when my estimates are before the committee the hon. gentleman gives me the name of the route I will be able to tell him the reason for any supplement that may have been given. Today the hon. gentleman is not saying what supplements have been added to these contracts, and it is absolutely impossible to identify any of the routes from the figures he has given.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not want to be out of
order, but I have before me a list of all the mail services in my constituency, showing the mileage and so on. I obtained this list from the Post Office Department. I can rewrite it and give the Postmaster General a copy, which would enable him to identify the routes; then probably at a later date he would be able to answer fully in regard to these discriminations. If there will be an opportunity to bring up this question when the estimates are under consideration, I shall be glad to take advantage of that opportunity. I had hoped, however, that before this bill to legalize these discriminations passed this house we might have the department review them, to see that the couriers were paid on a proper, equal basis.
I would like to draw attention to one other matter. It seems to me that in reference to some of these contracts now being let the department is going out of its way to specify what is required in calling for tenders. Just recently one advertisement specified that no one should tender unless he was in a position to provide a half-ton truck for summer delivery and a snowmobile for the winter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is that out of order, Mr. Chairman?


William Henry Golding: That would not be in order. I think the hon. member will be able to deal with all those matters on the estimates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I did not have a chance to deal with them before I was called to order, and I want to know whether this will be in order when we come to the estimates.


William Henry Golding: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I might mention one other matter, if you will permit me. A short time
[Mr. McLure.J
ago a contract was advertised concerning : route which had been looked after for sever years by the same individual. He had no been given the bonus he required, but th< department cancelled the advertisement anc asked a returned soldier to take over thf contract. I am in favour of a veteran havinj the contract, but this man was in receipt of i small pension which was to apply as par payment of the amount of the contract, whict was for some $2,400. However, I can alsr take up this matter when the estimates an under consideration, and I shall expect the minister to be prepared to answer these questions.


Mr. Shaw:: 
William Henry Golding: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the question of tenders is not a matter thal would come under this amendment. This amendment is for the purpose of attempting to embody the bonus in any contract uj until March 31.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In a broad, general way, Mr Chairman, that is correct. On the othei hand, the wisdom or otherwise of authorizing the government to continue the payment oi bonuses must be considered in the light oi the method employed by the government ir granting contracts to mail carriers. If there is a flaw in the method used by the department in the letting of tenders then it would be within my right, I should assume, tc question the payment of bonuses.
I can visualize a situation of this kind occurring, for example. The departmeni

might receive tenders for a certain mail route and might accept the lowest tender even though it might be ridiculously low in the light of conditions which the carrier is bound to face in transporting the mail to the people along a certain route. The person who tendered might realize he offered a ridiculously low tender, but after the tender had been accepted he might come to the government and ask the government to correct the situation by paying him a bonus.


Ernest Bertrand: Could such a payment be made?


Frederick Davis Shaw: As I pointed out, I do feel we should be given further information as to the method the department employs in accepting or rejecting tenders.


Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, we have a system of tenders-


Frederick Davis Shaw: What is the system?


Ernest Bertrand: The system of tendering is very well known. Whenever there is some work to be done or some service to be furnished, we announce that we are asking people who are interested to send in tenders. Our first protection is that, generally, it can be taken for granted that people know they should not tender a ridiculously low price, as they might lose money. A person cannot tender a ridiculously low price in order to secure the contract and then request a bonus, because the law forbids the payment of bonuses to anyone who has not had a contract for at least one full year.
Now the hon. gentleman wants to know what yardstick we use. The department receives tenders from every part of Canada, so we examine tenders from other people in the vicinity who are facing about the same conditions. We decide whether the tender is too high or too low. Unless it is ridiculously low, we do not refuse it. During the years I have been-


William Henry Golding: I hope the minister will not spend too much time dealing with tenders. I think the hon. member's question has been answered.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I must confess that I could not hear the Chairman's remarks. I repeat what I said earlier, that bonuses are payable to men who receive contracts after tenders have been called. I do not entirely agree with the minister that the fact that a man might have to carry the mail for a period of one year before he could apply for a bonus would prevent him from tendering a ridiculously low figure. He might realize that he could supplement his income from the Post Office Department by carrying cream, groceries and
Mail Contracts
other commodities, as many of these mail carriers do. I do not object to that. He might believe that at the end of a year he could apply for and receive supplementary payments, since supplementary payments are made on contracts in force for one year. I cannot see why the consideration of contracts is not relevant to the discussion of this bill.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. This bill provides for the continuance of bonus payments that have been made. It has nothing to do with tenders. It provides that the bonus payments that have been made will be embodied in the remuneration received by the contractor. If a contract were renewed, it would be renewed on that basis up to the 31st of March.


Mr. Bradshaw:: May I ask the minister the total amount of money paid out under the authorization of this act?


Ernest Bertrand: As of September 30, 1948, there were 11,933 contracts in force. Supplemental payments were made on 54 per cent of those contracts, that is on 6,485 contracts.


John Thomas Hackett: What did that amount to in dollars?


Ernest Bertrand: The total payments per annum under the original contracts amounted to-that is the 6,485 contracts- $4,993,000. As of September 30, 1948, the total supplementary payments on those 6,485 contracts amounted to $1,537,000. This meant the total payments amounted to $6,530,000, representing an increase in cost by reason of the supplementary payments of 30-78 per cent. I believe that amount explains the increase in costs.
During the same period of time we had to renew contracts by tender in the case of contractors who had died or resigned. Those contracts renewed by tender amounted to 1,143. The total payments under the old contracts that were renewed by tender amounted to $765,000. The total payments under the new contracts after the tenders had been received amounted to $1,052,000. The increased payments on the 1,143 contracts amounted to $287,254. The percentage increase for these contracts amounted to 37-5 per cent. You can see there was an increase of about 7 per cent on the contracts renewed by tender over the contracts under which supplementary payments were made.


John Thomas Hackett: The increase under the supplementary payments plan is about $550 per contract, is it not?


Ernest Bertrand: It is 30-7 per cent on all those contracts. Each of those contracts is at a different price, and the general increase is 30-78 per cent.
1956

Mail Contracts


John Thomas Hackett: The average supplement is approximately $550 per contract?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, I suppose so.


Mr. Brooks:: I wonder if the minister could give [DOT] us the total number of contracts by provinces and the number of contractors who have received bonuses in each province.


Ernest Bertrand: I have not that information here. But I could, with pleasure, make it an order for return. I have given to all hon. members a list of the contracts in every district, and I was glad to do so because I wanted to give all possible chance to hon. members-even those in the opposition-to criticize us.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was given last year?


Ernest Bertrand: I will make that an order for return and give hon. gentlemen this information. I will table it in the house some day later.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to raise any objection to the ruling you made at the time the hon. member for Queens was speaking, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to point out this circumstance. Section 1 of the bill reads:
The supplemental payments authorized under the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act, chapter eight of the statutes of 1947, in respect of a mail contract expiring on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, may for the purposes of renewal of the contract under section seventy-seven of the Post Office Act be incorporated with payments required to be made under the contract.
In effect, what your ruling does, Mr. Chairman, is to place us in the position of approving bonuses that have been given and others that have been denied of which we have no knowledge and on which we are not allowed to question the minister.
The hon. member for Queens, I think, raised a proper question, subject to your ruling, Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: Oh, no; I could not follow my hon. friend in that statement. All this section does is to embody the bonus in the payments under the contracts. The matter that the hon. member is now referring to would not be relevant to this clause at all.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to waste the time of the committee by an appeal. The matter is not important enough to ask you, sir, to bring it to the attention of the Speaker with a view to appealing against your ruling. But before you make a final decision I should like to point out that you are placing us in the position of approving, carte blanche, what the minister and his

department have done irrespective of the merits or demerits of some of the bonuses that have been granted.


William Henry Golding: Oh, no. I hope the hon. member is not trying to argue that I am putting them in that position. As a matter of fact, this is the amendment before the committee; and all that is required of the chairman is that he put the amendment before the committee. I am not putting my hon. friend in any position.


John Thomas Hackett: At this juncture might I just say that contracts can be legally let only by tender. As a result of this amendment these contracts will be let, some of which were never submitted to tender. Taking the average, if we accept the statement of the minister, as I do, at least thirty per cent represent a supplement or addition which the minister, within the exercise of his own authority, has made to the original contract without any opportunity for competitive bidding. To that extent it escapes from the general rule and philosophy of the act.


Ernest Bertrand: I must tell the hon. gentleman that one section of the Post Office Act allows us to renew any contract in existence for not more than four years, without having to ask for tenders. That is a wise provision, because when a poor fellow has had a contract for four years and obtained-


John Thomas Hackett: The equipment.


Ernest Bertrand: -everything that is necessary, if he gives satisfaction to the Post Office Department there is no reason for asking for tenders and perhaps ruining him to a certain extent. Last year I was authorized to add something, for reasons that everyone knew, namely, that the cost of living was increasing so much. Some of those contractors who had contracts that had been let, let us say, two years before, could never have foreseen the high cost of living. In order to help them, with the consent of the house we passed a law which allowed us to give a supplement. I am giving the total figures with regard to these supplements. The percentage is 30-78. I do not think it is outrageously high and it is certainly not too low. I would gladly answer every question that could be asked about one particular contract or about ten particular contracts; but we have twelve thousand contracts and I cannot remember the names and particulars in connection with every one of them. But I feel that certain questions that are asked are asked in good faith and are justified. I could go out of my way and have printed a list of all these contracts with the supplement that was given in each one. I could do that and tab'e it in the house.


John Thomas Hackett: But only one-half of the total number of contractors were in receipt of the, shall I say, largesse of the department.


Ernest Bertrand: Not largesse.


George Alexander Drew: Beneficence.


John George Diefenbaker: I have looked over the contracts on which bonuses have been granted. I have obtained from the minister a complete list of contracts in all parts of Canada, and he was most co-operative in furnishing it. He says that it is the increase in the cost of living that caused the increase in some of these contracts. I find it difficult to understand why in fifty cases and more the successful tenderer was able to double his tender amount by the bonuses granted by the minister. The minister says that is not largesse. Possibly "benevolence" would be a better word. But that situation certainly illustrates the argument that was made by the hon. member for Queens. We in this committee have a right to ask that in the granting of these bonuses that we support- where any injustice has been done or any unfairness has developed, or where the increase in the cost of living made necessary the change-there shall be equality. What we contended last year and the year before, and what we contend now, is made evident in the words of the hon. member for Queens. We demand that there shall be equality in the awarding of these bonuses; that no one shall be preferred; that, conditions being reasonably equal and topographical conditions alike, the increase should be alike.


Ernest Bertrand: It would be difficult to find that situation in Canada. It is difficult to find two places alike.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. But take the same localities. In some localities as between carriers with similar routes some receive bonuses while others do not. Surely we have a right to ask that, now that we are making these bonuses permanent, we should have the assurance from the minister that in their application equality among all carriers should be the primary consideration.
I know in my own province of two or three cases brought to the attention of the minister where contracts had been tendered for six or seven years ago, and no bonuses were granted, despite the fact that the applicants were able to show that they were in fact going behind financially.


Ernest Bertrand: There was no law
then allowing us to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, there was within the last year. I know of two applications within that period.
29087-124i
Mail Contracts


Ernest Bertrand: I do not know about two applications out of twelve thousand.


John George Diefenbaker: I know of two cases in Saskatchewan where the applicants should have been entitled to bonuses if there was equality in administration. What we have to guard against is a condition under which certain people secure contracts by undertendering. Then, having under-tendered and secured the contracts against the others who tendered at reasonable rates, the successful tenderers are afterwards compensated and allowed to hold their contracts, notwithstanding that those over whom they were preferred would have been able to carry on at lower prices.


Ernest Bertrand: That could happen only a year after a contract had been in force, because we could not grant the supplement the first year it was in force. The hon. member has said that certain contracts have been doubled. I understand that that has happened in certain cases. But if we were to go all through these files it would entail a tremendous amount of work. Wherever this has happened we have first asked for tenders. Sometimes the tenders have been so high that we have had to refuse them. We have succeeded in making arrangements with the previous contractor whereby we would renew the contract if he would accept a bonus of a certain amount, but in no instance more than 30 per cent.
When I say that, I am speaking generally. There might have been a few cases where contracts were doubled. There were some parts of Canada where labour was exceedingly scarce. In the mining districts, for example, at certain times we could not get people to accept these contracts. There are certain places where we were obliged to abandon the routes for some time because after asking for tenders more than once we failed to get them.


Albert James Bradshaw: The minister has said that $4 million has been paid out.


John Thomas Hackett: I believe it is $6 million.


Albert James Bradshaw: Let me point out that in my own constituency there are two contracts where a bonus of $400 has been given on a $600 contract. Then, on the other hand, there are others who have never applied for bonus. I do not think that is fair, or that bonuses should be paid out in that way, particularly when other men do not get it because they do not happen to know they can get it. There are a few who are afraid to ask for a bonus lest they lose their contracts.


Ernest Bertrand: Oh, no.

Mail Contracts


Albert James Bradshaw: Yet in other cases they are receiving $400 on $600 contracts.


Ernest Bertrand: No contractor ever lost his contract because he asked for a supplement. He might have been refused, or we might have offered him less than he asked; but no one has lost his contract because he has asked for a supplement.


Mr. Miller:: That is one of the bones of contention, namely that no indication was given to these contractors that they could make application and have their claims for bonus considered. That complaint has been made every year this has been considered. I still think it is poor business for the department to close this off as of March 31, 1949, after which no applications for bonus can be considered.
In my view the department would be well advised to send notices to all couriers who have contracts and who might be entitled to make application for bonuses, and the deadline should be extended beyond March 31, 1949. This would give every man a fair chance, instead of his having to learn about his entitlement through the grapevine method. They would be notified by the department, and each man would have an opportunity to have his contract reviewed.
A moment ago the minister said that no one had ever lost his contract by applying for the bonus. That may be so. But at least on several occasions when applications have been made to the minister's department for bonuses, notices have been sent out telling the couriers in question that if they did not like it they could surrender their contracts, and that the department would advertise for tenders. I maintain that is practically tantamount to telling them that they can either take what they get or throw up their jobs.


Ernest Bertrand: No.


Calvert Charlton Miller: As I said, the fair procedure would be to canvass all the contractors.


Ernest Bertrand: I should like to know of one single case where such notice has been sent out.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I will give you two, and bring the letters to you.


Ernest Bertrand: I want to see them.


Calvert Charlton Miller: They are from Portage la Prairie.


Ernest Bertrand: I would like to see them.


Calvert Charlton Miller: And I will bring them, because I have them. Will the minister consider extending the deadline and sending out

notices to these couriers so that all contracts may be reviewed by his department?


Ernest Bertrand: This is the first time such a proposal has been made. I believe we have been criticized for giving too much money to the people.


John Thomas Hackett: Not too much-just to too few.


Ernest Bertrand: Well, I am talking with some of the lawyers who know very well the law of tender. I believe it is the same in all the provinces. After all, these are still tenders, although because of special circumstances they have been modified in the last two years.
The tendency today is to go back to normal conditions. The hon. member must know what would happen if on March 31 we were to say, "We cannot renew these contracts with the bonuses you had last year"-and which in fairness they should have this year. Otherwise we would have to ask for tenders in eight or nine thousand cases.
I cannot send notices to six or seven thousand contractors who are satisfied, asking them if they want to make application for the supplement. Surely that would not be businesslike procedure.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Within the coming year a number of contracts will terminate, in the sense that the period of the contract will have expired. I said when I spoke earlier that it is unfair to a mail carrier who has carried the mail for many years to permit him to lose his contract by virtue of someone having underbid him by an amount as small as $5. I was told of one individual who had carried the mail for twenty-nine years, even in those early days when he had to use a boat to cross the river. Yet he was underbid by $5 and lost the contract. I am not saying that was the only reason; but I would stress the fact that if there were other reasons-and I think there were-one such reason certainly was not inefficiency. If we were doing our duty we would call for information with respect to every contract terminating in the coming year, where bonuses are paid. I do not want it to be thought for one moment that because we are approving the principle of this bill we are approving every bonus that has been authorized by the government. When the estimates are before us I am sure that we will have an opportunity of going into the tenders that have been let. We do not desire to delay the consideration of this measure, but let me emphasize that by supporting it we are not giving blanket approval to all the supplements that have been paid or that are going to be paid in connection with contracts renewed during the forthcoming year. We realize that there are many contracts which

require additional assistance and we do not want to stand in the way of those contractors receiving a supplementary bonus.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Postmaster General has told us that only 54 per cent of the 12,000 contracts now include bonuses. Are we sure that the other 46 per cent knew that a bonus was available? Was a letter sent out to them stating that they could get a bonus? I know that at the first there was not. Was an overall bonus paid in the way of an increase in percentage? That would have been a much fairer basis upon which to pay a bonus. I have one case where a contract was made for $321 and a bonus of $728 was paid, over twice the amount of the contract.


Ernest Bertrand: Is the route still the same length? Sometimes there are extensions and so forth. I cannot answer these questions without having the file number or the route number and the post office.


John Alpheus Charlton: In this particular case the rate per mile was brought up to 49-06.


Ernest Bertrand: What province was that?


John Alpheus Charlton: Route number one, St. Robert, Quebec. Here is another one at Langley Prairie.


William Henry Golding: If hon. members are going to take up individual contracts we shall never finish.


John Alpheus Charlton: This bill provides for supplementary payments.


Ernest Bertrand: I will undertake to provide a list of all contracts with the supplementary payments so that it will be available when my estimates are up for consideration. I will give reasons why these increases have been made. My hon. friend was going to speak about Langley Prairie. In that case I know that at present there are over three times as many boxes as there were previously.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was a letter sent out to the other 46 per cent?


Ernest Bertrand: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: They had no idea?


Ernest Bertrand: Oh, yes, they had; because we have been doing this for three years. Three increases were given at different times during the war. I cannot remember a letter being received during the last two years in which a contractor said that he did not know he could apply for a supplement.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister include in the list he is going to give us all supplements paid up to the thirty-first of this month?


Ernest Bertrand: Oh, yes.
Mail Contracts


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer with respect to renewals. I quite agree that when it is a question of only a few dollars difference in the tenders the efficiency of the service should be considered. That is necessary if you are going to have a sense of permanency in this rural courier service. I rose particularly to bring to the attention of the minister a matter that some rural mail couriers have pointed out to me. I understand that it is the practice of the Post Office Department to issue 25-year service buttons for continuous and good service, but I am told that these are not given to the rural mail couriers. In view of the excellent service that is rendered over a long period of years, sometimes under difficult conditions, I would ask the minister to consider giving these buttons to these couriers.


Ernest Bertrand: I think that is a good suggestion and I shall direct the attention of my officials to it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is stated that this amendment is to give a measure of security to those mail contractors who have rendered efficient service. Does that mean that we are going to do away entirely with the tender system? When a man's contract expires will he be notified that it will be renewed at the same price or will tenders be called for? I notice one contract for $800 with a bonus of $990, making a total of $1,790. The greatest discrimination is shown. I cannot see how there is going to be any security for the man who has a contract at the present time.


Ernest Bertrand: When a contract is about to expire the department writes to the man and asks if he wishes to renew his contract. If he does not, then we ask for tenders.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I do not want to delay the bill, but I would ask the minister if he will include, in the list he proposes to submit for the information of the house, those applications that have been made, indicating whether they were accepted or refused.


Ernest Bertrand: I would have no hesitation in giving that.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There are a number of men who claim that they were unable to get consideration when they made application, and the question of bonus is involved.


Ernest Bertrand: I would have no hesitation in giving that information to hon. members. We have been very careful and discrimination has never been shown as between different counties or different members who are asking for such things. I do
I860	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act not want to set myself up as being too honest, but I know that if any discrimination has been shown I shall have to pay heavily for it when my estimates are up.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I still ask the minister to indicate what applications have been refused.


Ernest Bertrand: I would have no objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Golding in the chair.
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Agricultural Products Act to extend the operation of the act for a period of one year.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I intend to refer to the speech made this morning by the Minister of Justice in which he enunciated in regard to the emergency theory what I believe to be the most unusual proposition of law that has been advanced in this house throughout the years since confederation. Before doing that I want to say a word as to the necessity for marketing legislation. The attitude taken by this party has been consistent throughout the years. In 1934 the government of Mr. Bennett placed upon the statute books a Natural Products Marketing Act as demanded by the farmers of Canada. That legislation was laudable in its aim, and commendable in its purpose; but as soon as the present government came into power it was submitted to the courts, and declared to be unconstitutional.
The attitude taken by this party in regard to the question of providing a marketing act is set forth in the declaration of Progressive Conservative policy made on the occasion of our last convention. It is that we will enact an agricultural products marketing act enabling producers to market their products in a democratic and orderly manner in the best interests of both the producer and the consumer. The legislation now before the committee has no direct relation to the question of orderly marketing.
In opening his remarks, the leader of the opposition pointed out that the legality of the bill was dependent on the existence of an emergency in Canada and that, consequently, it was necessary for every member in the house to come to a personal conclusion that a national emergency existed before he would


be discharging his responsibility in voting in favour of the bill. As for the bill, it is not a marketing measure. It is simply a bill designed to continue in the minister the power to take over any agricultural product in Canada, other than wheat. It not only applies to contracts already made, but in its result places parliament in the position where it would in effect be a rubber stamp to approve in advance all future contracts entered into by the Minister of Agriculture irrespective of price or other consideration.
The Minister of Justice enunciated a new proposition of law which has no basis in the authorities either of the privy council or of the supreme court, and represents the farthest advance ever made by any minister of this government in endeavouring to establish the right of the parliament of Canada to invade and entrench upon provincial rights. He dealt at some length with the question, and gave the house a lecture on what he called fundamental principles. He stated that there were three functions of government, legislative, executive and judicial. He enunciated the dangerous, if not iniquitous, doctrine that all that parliament has to do at any time in order to invade the constitutional powers of the provinces is to have behind it a majority that will declare that there is in fact an emergency, and having so declared, whether by whim or by caprice, the right of the federal authority to invade property and civil rights under the provinces is established.
He contended that, because legislation might be beneficial, that was a justification for the federal parliament to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces. He argued that it must be assumed that the law officers of the crown must presumably have agreed that this legislation is within the power of parliament. They have been wrong on other occasions. They were wrong in the opinion that they gave as to the order in council covering the taking over of barley; for under the Hallet and Carey case it was declared unconstitutional.
I repeat the Minister of Justice enunciated a new doctrine which is dangerous in the extreme to the maintenance of the Canadian constitution. In the past the government has gone only so far as to declare that necessity in the form of an emergency knows no constitutional limitations. His argument indicated that at any time the federal parliament would be justified in passing unconstitutional legislation relying on the fact that, if it is unconstitutional, it will ultimately find its way into the courts. He declared in effect that, if the legislation be beneficial, then parliament is justified in passing that legislation irrespective of its constitutionality.

I know that since the end of the war this administration has taken short cuts through parliamentary government. I know the experience of the years since the war indicates that it is difficult to restrict or abrogate the powers granted during wartime to those bureaucrats to whose advantage it is to retain them. But when the responsible Minister of Justice argues that it is merely a formal matter for members of this house to make a declaration of emergency and thereby invade the rights of the provinces, he makes a declaration that in effect would make our constitution a shadow and reduce provincial jurisdiction to a point where it would be dependent not upon the British North America Act but upon the whim of the government in power. Indeed, the effect of his argument is that if the time should ever come when a government in this country desired to make changes in our entire economic set-up and being unable to do so because property and civil rights are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, the majority supporting the government could declare an emergency to be existent and with that declaration out the window would go the constitution.
As Minister of Justice he makes a statement the effect of which is that a simple declaration of emergency will circumvent the constitution. As Attorney General it is his duty to assure that the constitution in fact is not circumvented. His duty is either to recommend to the governor in council that unconstitutional provincial legislation be disallowed, or may submit the challenged legislation to the courts to determine its constitutionality.
Now let us review something of what the authorities have decided. The minister says, in effect, that it does not matter whether or not there is an emergency; if parliament declares it, the determination of legality can be left to the courts. But every authority since 1921, in the privy council, the Supreme Court of Canada and recently in the Manitoba court of appeal, has been to the effect that if parliament makes a declaration of an emergency the courts of law should not lightly interfere with it. In the Nolan, Hallet and Carey case Mr. Justice Dysart, referring to the act in question, says:
The interests of the dominion are to be protected, and it rests with the parliament of the dominion to protect them. What those interests are the parliament of the dominion must be left with considerable freedom to judge, per Lord Wright in Co-operative Committee on Japanese Canadians v Attorney General for Canada, 1947, A.C. 87, at page 101 . . . Lord Wright continues (page 101) . . . "if it be clear that an emergency has not arisen, or no longer exists, there can be no justification for the exercise or continued exercise of the exceptional powers. The rule
Agricultural Products Act
of law as to the distribution of powers between the parliament of the dominion and the parliaments of the provinces comes into power."
Then the judge adds:
Parliament has declared that the emergency is still continuing. That declaration is peculiarly within the rights of parliament to make. And although the judiciary has the right, in a proper case, to review parliament's decision, and has a duty, upon sufficient evidence, to reverse that decision, still the courts ought not to venture upon a review or reversal unless the need of doing so is clear. The courts have always exercised that right "with reluctance"; per Lord Haldane in In re the Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, reported in 1922, 1 A.C. 191 at page 200.
The Minister of Justice says, in effect that parliament declaring the existence of an emergency is an informal act. If parliament declares an emergency and thereby invades the jurisdiction of the provinces no harm will be done because the courts will assure that the constitution is maintained, although every legal authority since 1921 is to the effect that if parliament does declare an emergency the courts will not lightly interfere with that conclusion.
What does that add up to? It adds up to this, that if the proposition of the Minister of Justice be accepted the rights of the provinces under section 92 are in the custody of a majority of parliament who at any time, by the simple expedient of declaring an emergency, may in effect destroy the British North America Act because, as Lord Wright said in the case referred to and as Mr. Justice Dysart decided in the Manitoba case, the courts will not lightly interfere with a declaration made by the elected representatives of the people.
That is not merely a technical matter. When parliament declares the existence of an emergency, each member must declare for himself that there is an emergency because the declaration allows the federal parliament to interfere with the constitution, almost without challenge by the courts, and destroy the rights of the provinces in respect of property and civil rights.
As I listened to the Minister of Justice elucidate his views I came to the conclusion that his speech was a landmark on the road taken by this government in invading the constitution. I am sure when the Minister of Justice reads what he said he will take the earliest opportunity to come before the house and explain that he really did not mean what he said. He contended further that this legislation would be good legislation, and that the question whether or not it was within the constitutional power of parliament should be left to the courts. A like argument came before the privy council in 1936, in the case of the Attorney General
1962	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act for British Columbia v the Attorney General for Canada, 1937 Appeal Cases at page 377 in the Natural Products Marketing Act submission. The present Prime Minister of Canada was of counsel for the government of Canada, and argued that the legislation would be advantageous. The answer to that argument is given at page 389 of the judgment.
Their lordships appreciate the importance of the desired aim. Unless and until a change is made in the respective legislative functions of dominion and province it may well be that satisfactory results for both can only be obtained by co-operation. But the legislation will have to be carefully framed, and will not be achieved by either party leaving its own sphere and encroaching upon that of the other.
As I listened to the minister enunciate a proposition which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would destroy the legislative power of the provinces, I could only wonder upon what authority he was basing his argument or whether, in fact, in his desire to explain away what the government has done so frequently of late under like legislation, he was forced into the position of having to give a new interpretation to the law and a new legal view of the constitution. Carried to its conclusion his speech represented the gateway to constitutional confusion in this country, and opened the door to invasion by parliament of the rights of the provinces to legislate on matters of property and civil rights.
During the noon hour I looked up some of the decisions on the subject. There are only one or two to which I am going to refer. In the Fort Frances pulp and power case, to which reference has been made on several occasions, the privy council decided that the dominion parliament has an implied power for the safety of the dominion as a whole to deal with a sufficiently great emergency, such as that arising from war, although in so doing it trenches upon property and civil rights in the provinces, from which subjects it is excluded in normal circumstances.
Various other cases of a similar nature reached the privy council. Briefly, there was the Board of Commerce case in 1922; the Natural Products Marketing Act case in 1936, to which I have made reference; and the case of the Attorney General for Canada versus the Attorney General for Ontario 1937 A.C. 355. In these cases to which I have referred the court decided that it was only in highly exceptional circumstances that the rights of the provinces could be restricted by the parliament of Canada, and did not exist in these cases. In the Fort Frances case it was decided that such circumstances did, in fact, exist.
This is no idle argument, sir, theoretical in its effect. The statement made by the Minister of Justice will be long remembered after


the bill now introduced has been forgotten and has passed out of existence. This declaration by the minister, if carried into effect, goes farther along the line of centralized government than any statement ever made by any Minister of Justice since confederation. It is one that we, on this side of the house, cannot permit to pass unchallenged for it means that our federal state could, in effect, be altered into a unitary state, in so far as property and civil rights are concerned, by the simple expedient of a majority in parliament declaring the existence of an emergency.
Never before, either during the days of war or at any time since, did the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe or the present Prime Minister, when Minister of Justice, ever make a declaration such as was made today. It strikes at the very roots of our federal constitution. If unchallenged and carried into effect, it would have the result of placing the parliament of Canada in a position of invading provincial jurisdiction by the simple means of declaring an emergency. The minister said that anyone affected would have the right to go to the courts to determine the legality but the courts have already declared that they will not lightly interfere with declarations made by parliament that an emergency exists. There is grave danger to our constitutional system and the challenge to our federal system, when almost four years after war, the government of this country finds itself in a position where, in order to continue legislation passed during the war or immediate post-war period, it relies on the emergency doctrine with a view to allowing the dominion to entrench upon provincial jurisdiction.
I shall not read what the Fortnightly Law Journal said in this regard, but in substance it indicates that the course taken by this government since the war ended has been one of endeavouring, by means of the emergency doctrine, to filch from the provinces their exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights. As to marketing legislation, we took our stand on that in 1947 and 1948. In 1934 we took our stand when a law was passed providing for the Natural Products Marketing Act. Such legislation is needed now.
On frequent occasions the minister has indicated his acceptance of the need. A course that might well be followed by this government would be to secure from the provinces, either by co-operative legislation in the provinces or by the consent of the provinces, such as was obtained in order to implement the Unemployment Insurance Act, to assure the enactment of legislation to provide for a natural products marketing act or analogous legislation. A national act would benefit not only the Canadian farmer but all Canadians.

The minister finds himself in a position where the farmer's markets abroad for agricultural products are being lost and therefore the need for marketing legislation is more necessary today than at any time since 1929.
Many of the portents today point as clearly to the loss of farm markets as they did in 1929. They strike fear into the hearts of the Canadian farmers. We should secure the best opinion from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and other allied organizations, on this marketing question and have a meeting of representatives of the provinces. By this means we could, once and for all, arrive at an agreement which the provinces would be willing to accept whereby they would give up certain jurisdiction with regard to agricultural matters so that a national marketing act could be put into effect. This party wants such an act. The member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken) has fought for it through the years. He has fought for the right of the farmers to have a fair share of the national income. He has fought for the necessity of a marketing scheme that would protect the rights of the producer as well as the rights of the consumer.
What is needed is a marketing act. This bill before the house is called a marketing bill but, in fact, it is not. It is simply a compulsory means whereby the minister will have the right to control all agricultural production in this country, excepting wheat, and enter into such agreements as he desires, with parliament approving in advance what he does and allowing him the right compulsorily to take over, at any price determined by himself, any farmer's products in this country. We say that type of legislation is contrary to our constitutional rights. It is carried on from year to year. It is all very well for the Minister of Justice to say that we can appeal to the courts. A successful appeal to the courts would take anywhere from one and a half years to two years before the matter would ultimately be determined, by which time the question of constitutionality, even if successfully upheld, would be ineffectual in its results.


Mr. Bracken:: Before the resolution passes I should like to ask a number of questions of the Minister of Agriculture. Press statements and some statements from the minister himself have indicated the answers to the questions I propose to ask. I think, however, that we should have them officially on the record when we come to deal with a matter of this kind.
The bill the minister proposes to introduce after this resolution passes gives him power to carry out certain food contracts with Britain and with the governments of other countries, if he wishes. The questions I 29087-125
Agricultural Products Act want to ask are simple and relate to those contracts. How many food contracts are in effect with the United Kingdom? I think the minister indicated that there were three. What ones are they? I think he also indicated that now there are just three-bacon, cheese and eggs. What are the prices agreed upon with respect to each of the contracts now in force? What are the quantities involved in each of the contracts now in force? Then I have one other question. What are the terms of the contracts? A year ago I think the minister gave us a copy of the contract that was in use at that time. I am wondering if the minister could not give us a copy of the contract now being used. I do not expect to be here tonight. Perhaps to the extent that the minister can answer those questions now, he would be willing to do so; and I would appreciate it if that could be done.


James Garfield Gardiner: As has been suggested by the hon. member for Neepawa, there are in existence between Canada and the British government three contracts that might be termed contracts under this legislation. There is one other contract that has been generally discussed in the house, namely, the wheat contract. In other words, there are four contracts in existence between the Canadian government and the British government, three of which come under this legislation. The first of those three is for bacon. It is for $160 million. The price is $36 per hundred pounds, A-grade Wiltshire sides, f.o.b. Canadian seaport. The time of the contract is from January 1, 1949, to December 31, 1949; that is, for the calendar year 1949.
The cheese contract is for 50 million pounds. It is for 30 cents a pound, f.o.b. factory. It is from April 1, 1949, until December 31, 1949.
Then there is an egg contract for 46 million dozens of shell equivalent eggs. That is, these eggs are storage eggs, dried eggs and frozen eggs; and all told, they would make 46 million dozens of shell equivalent. The price is 52J cents per dozen, storage, shell, grade A, large, Montreal; dried whole, $1.36 per pound; frozen, 32-5 cents per pound. The time of the contract is from February 1, 1949, until December 31, 1949.
From what the hon. member had to say just before sitting down, I presume he would be interested in any change in the terms of the contracts as compared with the contracts of a year ago-outside, of course, the change in price. I have indicated the prices, and there is not any great change in the prices. The egg price is down slightly from the price of a year ago. It will be noted that there is a change in the dates in the second
1964	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act two contracts, namely, the cheese contract and the egg contract. The previous cheese contracts have been for what is known as the dairy year, beginning April 1 in one year and continuing until March 31 in the next year. This year it is from April 1, 1949, to December 31, 1949. The reason for that difference has to do with the financing. That is, the financing for which the British government is arranging at present is for the calendar year rather than for any other period. The contract therefore is confined to the period ending December 31.
The reason for the change in the date of the egg contract is similar. It also ends on December 31, 1949. The reason for that has to do with the financing.
There is another change made in the bacon contract. It has been true that in previous contracts for bacon we have not given to the British government any undertaking with regard to the controls that we maintain on the boundary line. In other words, we have provided the British with bacon under the contracts by controlling the boundary line to the extent that we saw fit. Under those contracts it is true that we had controls on the boundary line from 1939 down to the present. Those controls were to the effect that all of our surplus bacon went to Great Britain. None of it was allowed to go out of the country in any other direction. This year the British were desirous of having in the contract some stipulation having to do with the amount which would be delivered. We agreed to a statement being put in the contract to the effect that until we reach the 160 million-pound mark, we will not take the restrictions off unless we have experiences similar to those we had last year. The experience last year was that from February to March we had more bacon than we could deliver under the British contract. Because the British did not have the finances with which to handle any more than was stipulated from week to week in the contract, they were unwilling to take delivery. That had something to do with the fact that later on we did not have as much as we might otherwise have had. And so this year we insisted that the contract should so read that, if the British took any such action in connection with bacon that might be on hand at any time, we would have a perfect right under the contract to open the American boundary line, or the boundary line into any other country, and to permit of the surplus going there. I may add that up to the present time there has not been any reason to take advantage of that provision. There is that change, so far as the bacon contract is concerned.


Then, the cheese contract is practically the same in that regard as the bacon contract. At all times since we had the first contract with Britain we have sent all the cheese we had produced in the summer months. As a matter of fact, I believe that in four or five of those years we have requisitioned all the cheese produced in a certain period of the year and sent it to Great Britain. On previous occasions we undertook to requisition cheese, if necessary.
This year we have not undertaken to do so. As a matter of fact, I have said in the house that it is not our intention to requisition cheese this year. Those are the chief changes in the contracts. Otherwise they are approximately the same as last year.
The only other observations I would make while I am on my feet would be in reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John Bracken: Before the minister comes to that, perhaps he would answer one or two other questions. Does he contemplate any other food contracts this year? May we have copies of the contracts now in force?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there would be any difficulty about supplying copies of the contracts now in force. The three contracts to which I have referred were signed and completed, and I believe I can secure copies of them just as they are. I have uncompleted copies on my desk at the moment. However, I believe I can secure some which could be tabled tonight or tomorrow.


John Bracken: Does the minister contemplate any new agreements?


James Garfield Gardiner: We placed a special section in the act two years ago whereby we made provision for an agreement in connection with apples. We have a standing offer to the British in which we have indicated that we do desire to enter into a contract to sell apples. I would not like to say that if an opportunity presented itself to make a contract for apples this year we would not make such a contract. Then, again, we have withdrawn some of the contracts at the suggestion of the British, because they did not have the finances with which to pay for those particular products. I am thinking of beans, for example. At the present time we are not selling any beans under contract to Britain. However, I imagine if we had an opportunity of doing so, under contract or otherwise, we would desire to sell beans to Britain. I would doubt very much if it would be necessary or possible to have a

contract to sell the limited amount of beans we have in Canada, as compared with the total of British requirements. I should not like to be committed definitely not to make a contract in connection with products of that kind. However, it is not our intention to set out upon making contracts under this act. It is our intention simply to carry on with the contracts we have made under the orders in council during wartime, and which have been continued under legislation up to the present. In other words, we have no present intention of going out and making contracts.


John Bracken: Would the minister indicate what quantities of bacon, cheese and eggs are now leaving this country for sale in the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no bacon going from this country to the United States, no Wiltshire sides going from here to the United States and, so far as I know, no pork products at all. No permits are being issued for pork products to go to the United States. Then, no permits are being issued for cheese shipments to that country. Our bacon and cheese, in so far as we have any surplus of those commodities, is all going to Britain.
When we made the agreement with Britain last fall, and when the discussions were held, Britain was not desirous of buying eggs from us. Unfortunately dried and frozen eggs had been declared surplus in the United States. So, had we not had a contract with Britain, we would not have been able to have sold any dried or frozen eggs, so far as we are aware, or at least a very limited amount of them. We presented our case to the British, and they finally agreed to take 46 million dozen eggs, mostly frozen and dried, but some in storage, which was about the same quantity as under last year's contract having regard to similar grades.
But there are no fresh eggs in this year's contract. All our fresh eggs being sold outside Canada-that is, practically all; there may be some going into ships' supplies and some going to the West Indies, but in limited quantities-are being sold in the United States. Perhaps I might explain a point which has been raised as to why permits were required to sell fresh eggs in the United States. I believe some members from British Columbia were inclined to criticize this procedure.
The system of permits is set up to safeguard ourselves against the possibility of having eggs in general declared surplus. Permits are issued to see to it that in the distribution and sale of our fresh eggs in the
Agricultural Products Act United States, where they have a surplus and where their eggs are being sold in different forms to the British and European markets under ERP, we do not come in conflict with the Americans. Therefore, we asked those that desired to ship eggs into the United States to obtain permits so that there might be some regulation as to the points in that country to which eggs are sold, and so that there will not be any great surplus created at some places, as a result of which we would get into difficulties in our general sale and distribution of eggs in that country.


Mr. Michaud:: Mr. Chairman, on March 10 I raised a marketing problem peculiar to my province. The minister was not in his seat at the time, but I am wondering whether my observations have been drawn to his attention. At that time I spoke concerning the marketing of our potatoes, and if what I said has not been brought to his attention may I point out that I made some inquiries and indicated that I would like him to give an answer at some early date. There is one question I want to ask in connection with the federal marketing act. Last year during the course of the debate, either on this bill or on some other bill relating to agriculture, I asked the minister whether it was the intention of the government to introduce a federal marketing act covering natural products. My recollection is that the minister's answer was that it was the intention of the government to introduce such legislation at that session. As we all know, that was not done.
I gathered from press reports which appeared on December 8 that the government did not intend to introduce such legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is on the order paper.


Benoît Michaud: I know that Bill No. 82 is on the order paper, but I doubt whether it meets the views of the federation of agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was drafted in consultation with the federation of agriculture.


Benoît Michaud: The press report of December 8 reported that the minister advised the provincial governments during the dominion-provincial conference on agriculture that he was not prepared to say whether the dominion would enact marketing legislation at the forthcoming session of parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: Last December I could not have said that bill was going to be introduced because I am not the government. The government has agreed to introducing the bill now on the order paper for the approval of this house.
1966	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act


Benoît Michaud: I read Bill No. 82, which is quite short, and also the draft bill presented a couple of years ago by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which was quite a long bill. I hope this short bill will meet the situation. In my remarks on March 10 I referred to a statement that had been made by the minister early in August to the effect that he was in favour of a marketing board to market our potatoes in the maritimes. I read that in the local paper. I have not the paper here, but I have a good memory. The statement was made at the time of the Liberal convention and in the program advocated by the minister there was something about potato marketing, which I was pleased to see.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope the hon. member can find that and show it to me because I have no recollection of ever having said any such thing and I am quite sure that I put it in no program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was talking about spark plugs at the time of the convention.


Benoît Michaud: I saw it in the papers at the time and I certainly did not expect the minister to contradict me.


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not necessarily
mean that you will not get a board.


Benoît Michaud: I am content to leave it at that. I would ask the minister and his officials to look at what I said on March 10 with regard to the marketing of our potatoes.
I discussed Bill No. 82 with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton the other day and we agreed that it would not meet our situation.
I feel that we need something more specific because this is a particular marketing problem. I hope the minister will look into it again and let us know if the government are going to do anything about this serious problem. I shall have occasion to bring it up again. I do not want to go into details now because it is questionable whether it would be in order. I am bringing these facts to the attention of the minister because he is in his seat now and when I spoke two weeks ago he was not.


John Thomas Hackett: The doctrine of national emergency enunciated by the Minister of Justice this morning when speaking for the government would seem to imperil all provincial and civil rights guaranteed by the constitution. Moreover, its doctrine of amendment places all minority rights within the power of a parliamentary majority, not only to suspend but to abrogate. That would seem to follow necessarily from the attitude taken by the government in the Nolan case. Counsel


for the government set forth the government's views in these terms:
If the act is within the powers of parliament because there is a national emergency, no matter what that emergency may be, the court might not inquire if the order in council were valid.
The consequence of the government's policy seems inescapable: not only are civil and provincial rights at the mercy of a mere parliamentary majority at any time that the government declares that there exists an emergency, but also that under the doctrine of amendment minority rights are also at the mercy of a mere parliamentary majority. I think it is well that these facts be stated, and possibly restated, in order that all hon. members may appreciate to the full their responsibility of giving support to this resolution.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 126, to amend the Agricultural Products Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
John Alpheus Charlton: I contend that this bill should have been called the agricultural products price control bill instead of the agricultural products bill, because it has had a considerable bearing on the price control policy that the government has followed both in the war years and since. I should like to deal for a moment with a statement made by the Minister of Finance today.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to move second reading of the bill, if the hon. member does not mind. We are on the second reading. We are out of committee.


Thomas John Bentley: Can the bill be distributed?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is only one section.


Thomas John Bentley: You had better read it at least.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading of the bill.
I want to be able to make a speech on this bill some time. Most of the speeches made on it so far have been made by the opposition. The bill itself is a very short one, having only one section. That section is to the effect that the legislation which was passed and assented to on May 14, 1947, be

continued for another year until the 31st of March, 1950. There was some discussion of the bill this afternoon, as there has been on previous days, to which I think I should make some reference.
The suggestion has been made that there is no real emergency, and that no emergency has been established in the discussions having to do with the bill. The preamble to the act passed in 1947 reads as follows:
Whereas His Majesty's dominions and foreign countries, during and as the result of the war against Germany and Japan, were and still remain in grave distress for want of adequate food supplies; and whereas for the more efficient prosecution of the war and in order to assist in the relief of suffering and the distribution of food supplies the government of Canada entered into agreements for the sale or export of food supplies to other governments or agencies thereof, which agreements still continue in force; and whereas certain orders and regulations were made by the governor in council under the authority of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the purpose of enabling Canada to carry out the said agreements; and whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on the thirty-first day of March, 1947, and it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that parliament confer authority to enable the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations under the said agreements and to continue to sell and export food supplies to distressed countries for the relief of suffering and the distribution of essential food supplies, in order to maintain economic stability and to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace; Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows;
The suggestion was made this afternoon that this refers to a situation which does not continue down to the present time, that there really is no emergency at present, and that therefore this legislation does not apply. During the discussions that have been going on in connection with the legislation, it has been repeated over and over again that a court in Manitoba decided recently that there was np emergency. I only wish to say as to the wording of the finding, as it has been placed on Hansard, that there must have been in the minds of those who were making the finding, some mistake about the situation which existed, because in 1946, the first year after the war, it had been declared by many that there was an emergency.
One of the declarations made was made by the government of the United States, and it was to the effect that for the purpose of making malt we should not be using barley, which is the grain that has been referred to most in what has been said in this house. The United States government limited the amount of barley which could be utilized for the purpose of making malt, and we in this country did likewise. We limited the amount of barley which could be utilized in Canada for
Agricultural Products Act the purpose of making malt, and therefore placed some limitation upon the amount of barley which could be shipped into the United States where they also had regulations. There was a limitation on the amount of barley which should be shipped into that country and utilized for a purpose which was ruled against by the government of the country itself.
I think one only needs to state that fact in order to emphasize that an emergency existed.


Mr. MacNicol:: In what year, 1946?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1946, and it continued on into 1947. Regulations were passed with regard to these matters both in the United States and in Canada during that period of time. One might say, as has been said in making the findings in connection with the court case, that farmers are not in a condition of hardship, that they are not suffering as the result of an emergency. But when one looks back to 1946 one recalls that that was one of the poorest crop years that the farmers of eastern Canada had. They did not produce enough feed grain in the eastern provinces to feed half the livestock that were on the farms. Therefore it became necessary to prevent the shipment of feed grain out of this country into the United States. That was the second reason, in addition to the reason which had to do with the control of grain utilized for malting purposes. Feed grain had to be shipped east. The elevators were not allowed to store that grain at Fort William for the purpose of shipping it into the United States. The grain was taken possession of by the distribution organization set up by the government for the purpose of taking care of the shortages that existed not only, as suggested by my friend from Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), in the area in Quebec that he represents, nor only in the province of Ontario. These shortages existed all the way from British Columbia right through to Halifax. If the grain had not been retained on this side of the line and distributed under government control during that season, at least twenty-five per cent of the livestock of this country never would have been properly fed and finished in Canada, and the farmers would not have shown prosperity. I cannot conceive of any greater emergency in any country than that which would have been created in the first year after the war, after controls in the United States had been taken off the prices by permitting of all the feed grain in this country to go out of Canada in order to get the advantage of the higher prices which prevailed in the

Agricultural Products Act United States at that time. There was an emergency, and that emergency was associated not only with the marketing of feed grains but also with the production of all the different kinds of food that were produced upon the farms of Canada and that were required throughout the world at that period.
Some of my hon. friends have been saying there is no emergency now. I recall to hon. members the fact that every farmer in this country made a sacrifice during that period in respect of his coarse grain and his other farm products which were fed with that coarse grain, in view of the prices which could have been obtained in the United States. Surely no one is going to contend that after the government took care that the food we could produce in this country to be utilized elsewhere in the world actually was produced, in spite of the fact that our farmers did not get a return as high as they might have obtained had there been no controls at all, no emergency exists now when under the controls we have at present our farmers are able to get more for their products than they would be able to get if allowed to enter the United States freely today. This is a continuing emergency, created by the fact that we had controls under which we asked the people to accept less for their products than they might have obtained elsewhere. The emergency still exists, requiring us to see to it that those who did sell their products at lower prices then are permitted to get a better return for their products now than they would get if we allowed this legislation to expire without the consideration it is being given at the present time. So I repeat that I think it is absolutely wrong to say, first, that there was not an emergency in 1946 in connection with the production and marketing of farm products and, second, that there was not an emergency in 1947 in connection with the finishing and marketing of farm products. It is just as much a mistake to say there is not an emergency at the present time, when it is absolutely essential that we do something to assist those who saw us through the emergency of 1946 and 1947.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the judgment of the court was wrong, was it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I am neither a judge nor a constitutional lawyer, but the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said the judgment was going to be appealed, so apparently some other people think the judgment was wrong. But one statement was made the other day by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) to which I should like to call attention. He rather lamented the fact that there was not a Canadian who would raise the issue in con-


nection with barley stored in the elevators at Fort William, that it had to be raised by someone living in Chicago. Well, I would recall to hon. members the fact that at that time the Americans were limiting the amount of their own barley that could be utilized for the purpose of making beer; and since we in this country were also limiting the amount of barley that could be used for that purpose I am rather proud of the fact that there was not a Canadian who would take a case of that kind to the courts and attempt to prove that it was not essential to see that the feedstuffs we had in this country were properly distributed among our farming population.
The position, then, is not that we are suggesting there is no emergency, as was said this afternoon, resulting from the situation which everyone admits existed back in 1946 and 1947. The emergency existed then; it exists still. Is anyone going to say no emergency exists in connection with food throughout the world when the British people find it necessary to accept a lower ration of bacon than they had even in the midst of the war? Is anyone going to say no emergency exists when the British have less meat per person now than they had even in the midst of the war? Is anyone going to say there is no emergency in this country when we find it necessary to say to the British, "For the time being, because you have not the money with which to pay for our products and you desire that we should sell as much as we can elsewhere, we shall deliver to you smaller amounts of the products you are desirous of obtaining". Is anyone going to say there is no emergency when from year to year we are called upon to say, "We are cutting down the amount of food we expect you to buy from us because you have not the funds we require in this country with which to pay for it. We are quite satisfied to go along and find our way into other markets, to try to sell our products elsewhere, in order that you may carry on the struggle to re-establish your trade in what is known as the sterling area and build up your business again so that in the long run you will be able to do business with us on a better basis"? Of course there is an emergency; and in order to bear out my statement of a few moments ago that it is necessary to have agreements such as those on cheese, bacon and eggs, I should like to quote some prices in Canada and the United States for farm products. As of March 14 these are the official figures: Cheese, western white, Montreal, March 5, 1949, 32 cents; white Cheddar Wisconsin cheese, March 5, 1949, 29 cents. In other words the farmers of Canada are getting 3 cents a pound more for

their cheese than farmers are getting in Wisconsin, which is the best cheese-producing state in the union.


John Thomas Hackett: They do not make as good cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we think it is not as
good, but a short time ago it was selling at a much higher price than ours.


Mr.   Hackell@: It has no status in the foreign
market.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has a fairly good status in the foreign market. I understand seven million pounds were sold recently to the British market because of the fact that we have not sufficient to supply that market.


George James Tustin: At 32J cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then let us take hogs: B-l, dressed, Toronto, March 5, 1949: $30.60 per hundredweight; Winnipeg, March 5, 1949: $27.85 per hundredweight; Chicago, dressed weight, February 26,	1949:	$27.01 per
hundredweight. So we had prices in Chicago lower than in Winnipeg, and considerably lower than in Toronto. Then, take eggs, shell, grade A, Montreal, March 11, 1949: 47 to 49 cents a dozen, and in New York they are 48 to 52 cents a dozen; in Chicago, 45 cents a dozen. Egg prices are lower in Chicago than they are in Montreal and slightly higher in New York than they are in Montreal. Under the United Kingdom agreement eggs, frozen, are 32-5 cents per pound. On March 12, 1949, No. 1 feed barley, Fort William, was $1.07 per bushel. At Chicago feed barley was selling from 93 cents to $1.18. In other words, there is a variation which runs from somewhere below our price to somewhere above our price. Oats are a little higher in price in the United States. No 2 oats at Fort William were 74 cents for a thirty-four pound bushel. At Chicago the price of a thirty-two pound bushel was 77-5 cents.
When one takes another look at these prices, one realizes that the prices of the commodities that are being fed with oats and barley are a little higher in Canada than they are in the United States, whereas oats and barley themselves are a little higher in the United States than in Canada. What I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, with regard to these products for which we have agreements, is that those agreements make it possible for us to sell this produce at better prices on the British market than we could obtain at the present time in the United States market, the difference is greater than the price indicates if you deduct from those United States prices the freight and duty on those products entering the United States,
Agricultural Products Act you find the margin is very much wider than would appear from a quotation of the prices.
Having said that, I call your attention again to the fact that an emergency does exist in connection with the marketing of our farm products. This emergency grows out of the emergency that existed in the war and through 1946 and 1947. The fact is, at that time, we had adopted lower prices in this country than those in the United States and denied our farmers the right to sell their produce in the United States at prices which were higher than those we charged our own customers. The United States prices were higher than the prices we charged the British. This makes it essential that we should continue that emergency during a transitional period and ask our own people as well as the British people to pay prices a little higher than those obtaining in the United States. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, there is a continuation of an emergency which was created during the war when we followed a practice of supplying food at prices stabilized downwards to those of our allies who required food. We are carrying on the same principle but stabilizing upwards through this transitional period, and without this legislation that could not be done.
Someone has said that in order to do it, even under this legislation, you have to interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces. Of course we have to do that, Mr. Speaker. According to the constitution of this country the federal government has no authority whatever to go into the provinces and forcibly take delivery of food in ordinary times. This can only be done during emergency periods. We have no authority to go into the province of Ontario and take dairy products from that province in which they consume more dairy products than they produce. We have no authority to go into the maritime provinces where they consume more dairy products and more eggs than they produce; we have no authority to go into British Columbia and do the same thing. Most of the products about which we are talking, British Columbia con-suihes in greater quantities than they are produced in that province. Under conditions of that kind, it is only the provincial authority that has a right to go into the farms of those provinces or into the places of business in those provinces and say we are compulsorily taking delivery of the products that are being marketed in this particular province. It is true we might do something about the surplus of hogs, the surplus of cattle, the surplus of eggs and dairy products going out of the prairie provinces. There is not sufficient population in the prairie provinces to consume those products and, therefore, we have
1970	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act to export them from those provinces to the places where there is a shortage of supply.
I come back to this point. Before we can do the things that are necessary in order to fulfil the contracts we have made for the delivery of these products outside of Canada, we must have the right to interfere with the ordinary constitutional rights of the provinces across Canada. Under the War Measures Act we had that right. Under the transitional powers measure passed at the end of the war we had that right. Under the orders in council that are covered by this legislation we have that right, so long as this house gives us the authority to utilize the powers that are contained in those orders in council throughout the period of continuing emergency. What this bill is seeking is the authority to use that right for another year.
I submit again to this house that without that authority it is impossible for the government of Canada to enter into an agreement with anyone outside the Dominion of Canada and enforce upon the people of this country the delivery of the product to a board or to anyone else in order to see to it that that product is supplied at the place where the market exists. Again, that constitutes an emergency. Under the conditions under which we are working today, it is an emergency which requires the application of this legislation for a period of time beyond this date. I do not know that I need to say much more about the necessity for the legislation.
I have been listening to the opinions expressed, particularly by the members of the official opposition, to the effect that we are going to have some peculiar powers under this legislation. Some of the members who take that position follow it up with the suggestion that we ought to have a national marketing act in Canada. We did have a marketing act under the government of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The suggestion is then made that when this present government came into office that legislation was sent to the courts and it was declared ultra vires. Again, that is correct. There is one thing, however, they have never said, but nevertheless it is true. Every authority which we have in this legislation was in the marketing legislation of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. We are not asking for any authority under this act that was not in that act.
The member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) says we ought to consult the provinces to ascertain what they wanted to do about it. There is no necessity for doing that, Mr. Speaker, since I have with me all the acts passed by the provinces. Right on the top of them, this blue one-it is the right colour coming from Ontario-is an act passed under the government of the present leader of the


opposition. Every single power we ask for in this legislation is contained in each of those bills passed by the different provinces. In addition to that, the farm federation has drafted a bill containing every authority and every power that is in this bill which is before this house now. It contains every power referred to by my friend from New Brunswick. He was raising a question as to whether the shorter bill gave all the authority the federal government required in order to give to those provincial boards the authorities which have been given to similar boards by the different provincial governments across this country. I repeat that if we are giving great authorities to the minister, or if we are giving great authorities to the government, we are not breaking new ground. Wherever you have had a piece of legislation of this kind, it has been necessary to have those authorities. Someone said this afternoon: What did you ever take by compulsion under this piece of legislation? I said: Cheese. I presume that if we had sat a little bit longer someone would have said: Is that the only product? And probably I would have had to say: So far as I can remember, yes. Then someone probably would have said: You are not going to requisition cheese this year, so why do you want this bill? That would have been quite a logical series of questions.
But nevertheless there are reasons why these powers are in every one of these provincial acts. There are reasons why these powers were in the act that was brought before this house by the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. There are reasons why we have had these authorities in connection with every one of the orders in council that were passed during wartime and that have been passed since. There are reasons also why it has never been necessary to use them, except in connection with a limited number of products; and when we used them in connection with cheese, it was at the request of everybody in the business. Those in the business suggested that it was much easier for us to requisition the cheese and take it than it was for them to try to deliver it all to us. So in the middle of the war we took all the cheese that was made between May 1 and October 1, year after year, because that is the best cheese and was the kind of cheese that the British wanted delivered under their contract. So we just took it. The only reason why compulsion was exercised in connection with only one product was that fact.
But when we come to bacon, to pork products and to beef products, we are dealing with somewhere between forty and fifty packing houses scattered across this country from Vancouver to Moncton. I think prob-

ably we utilized the services of the one on the island as well, but in any case we utilized the services of those from Vancouver to Moncton. The great majority of those packing plants belonged to three different companies: Burns, Canada Packers and Swift. But quite a number of them belonged to others. There are in Canada packing plants that never have delivered any bacon or ham to Great Britain either before, during, or since the war. There were times during the war when you could get more for your pork products delivered in Canada than you could sell them for delivered to Great Britain under the contract; and of course there was a temptation to those who never had delivered under the contract to charge the limit which they could charge, and which they might have charged had there been no controls which said that there is a certain ceiling and you must abide by it. There were others who would have much preferred to go out during that period of time and build up a home market in this country at a time when other packing houses were supplying all the needed product to a market across the seas.
But under this act we had authority to go into each of those plants and take out whatever percentage of the commodity we desired to take out, and to say to any company or to any packing plant: You must deliver such and such amounts of bacon and ham, or of Wiltshire sides, to the board, to be shipped over to Great Britain. The very fact that we had that authority made it unnecessary for us ever to use it, Mr. Speaker; I do not think we ever used that authority. But I am quite satisfied that, if we had never had that authority, there would have been quite a number who would not have acted in just exactly the manner in which they did act. That was not only our opinion. It was the opinion of ninety per cent of those who were in the business. So we had the authority; the authority was there. Everyone knew it was there. That authority is still in this measure. But everyone knows that, so long as the emergencies which still exist in the world today continue, every one of those plants is going to deliver without anybody forcibly going in and taking the commodity, when that commodity is necessary in order to carry out the undertakings which we have given.
Someone may ask me: Are you going to do it? I am not going to say that we are not going to do it, because that in itself would take away the effect from the measures themselves. I am going to say that we do not expect that we shall have to use the powers that are given to us in these measures. But in order to see to it that the products are
Agricultural Products Act delivered where they ought to be delivered and when they ought to be delivered, we believe that it is necessary to have that authority under these measures.
I am also going to say this. In spite of some of the things that were said in the house I think that the leader of the opposition this afternoon was really discussing the issue which is before us. He wanted to know whether there was an emergency sufficient to warrant the passing of this legislation at the present time. I think that is a question which any member of this house has a right to ask.
I hope I have said sufficient tonight to indicate that we believe there is still existing an emergency growing out of the war, and that if we are. to be able to deal with it we must have the authority which this kind of a measure gives to us for dealing with it.
Then when you ask the further question: Are you going to take away from the provinces for a while longer some of the authority which our constitution gives to them, in order to apply that authority in a manner which will make it possible to carry out the undertakings that we have given to others and have given to our own farmers, then I answer that question by saying yes, Mr. Speaker. Under this legislation we are asking that we be given the right for another year to take some of the authority which, under our constitution, as applying to peacetime, when there is no emergency, rests entirely with the provinces, and that we should have the right to utilize that authority in order to see to it that the intent of our people is carried out. In that intent I couple the necessity of supplying food to others-the growing necessity which will be there to supply it even beyond the year 1949-50. Along with that consideration I couple the fact that it is due to the farmers of this country that we have legislation such as this on our statute books throughout the transitional period in order that the house may see to it that the whole population of Canada pays back some of what my hon. friends over on the other side of the houfce have been talking about ever since this debate began.
Ever since this house held its first sitting in this session, member after member has been getting up and saying: Why should the farmer carry the whole load? What I am saying to this house tonight is that the government does not believe that the farmer should carry the whole load. We have arrived at the time when, unless we are going to make an effort to have Canada carry part of the load, we must throw our farmers on other markets and put them in the position of having to take a lower price than they can get under these contracts, and a lower price than
1972	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act they ought to be able to get in Canada, because of what they have done over the past seven or eight years. When we put that emergency alongside of the other emergency, then I say that there is every reason in the world for passing this piece of legislation which has in it only one section of importance, which says that this kind of legislation should be continued for another year. During that year we hope we may be able to do at least some of the things Canada ought to do in order to express appreciation of all that the farmers did throughout the war, and since.


John Alpheus Charlton: 
than we could expect in the Canadian or United States markets. I was going to ask if that sounds reasonable, in view of what the minister has said. England has not the dollars to pay us now for what we are sending her. Can we expect her to pay more than she would have to pay for the same food in other countries?
The minister also said that he had no authority in the bill to go into Ontario or the provinces-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say we did not have the authority under this bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understood the minister to say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I said we had no authority under the constitution in ordinary times.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then you are going against the constitution in this bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the reason for the bill; it is an emergency.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has the
authority to go into any province and take any product he sees; there is no doubt about that. Then he has said that Ontario has passed an act similar to the one before us tonight. That may be so; but that is within the jurisdiction of Ontario. The provincial legislature of that province may pass any act it wishes; but it is not within the jurisdiction of the dominion government to pass such an act.
The minister also intimated that the floor price here would be kept above the price the United States is getting for her products. That also does not hold water. At the present time there are thousands of boxes of butter being offered to the agricultural prices support board; but up to this time, as was admitted this afternoon by the minister, they had not bought any of it. So what does this floor price of 58 cents mean? If other floor prices are going to have the same meaning, then I am afraid floor prices in general cannot mean much to us.


James Garfield Gardiner: The floor is 59 cents in the United States, with 12 cents duty on it.


John Alpheus Charlton: All right; you have had hundreds of boxes of butter offered to you at 58 cents, and you have not bought any of it. What are you going to do about it?
Today the farmers of Canada are worried about the future. The price structure in Canada is at its highest level in a hundred years. This government assured the farmers and consumers that price controls during the war would prevent a repetition of the inflation which followed the first world war, and thereby avoid a repetition of the deflation which followed 1929.

It is becoming clearly evident that the system followed by the government only postponed the evil day. In other words this government misled the consumers by setting artificially low prices for food, subsidized the producer to try to maintain production, and then charged this, plus the administration cost, back to the taxpayers of Canada.
Many consumers blame the farmers for the increase in food costs. Mr. Speaker, the farmers are not to blame for it. It has been the policy of this government which has led the consumers to believe that low food costs are their right. During the thirties the farmers produced food at much less than cost. And before these prices had a chance to rise, in proportion to other prices, this government froze prices of farm products. And only after a considerable amount of prodding by farmers' organizations across Canada it instituted a system of subsidies to both producers and consumers in order to maintain production in the country. These subsidies had the effect of partially maintaining low food prices. But who paid the subsidies? The taxpayer, of course-and an enormous administration cost as well. But the government has not seen fit to include direct taxation costs in the cost of living index. For some strange reason many people blame food costs alone for the rise in the cost of living. This also is not true because, as I said before, all prices have risen to the highest level in a hundred years-and more especially taxes.
To substantiate that statement I wish to quote from a speech made by Mr. H. H. Han-nam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, at its annual meeting at Saskatoon on January 25. Referring to consumer prices he said:
Is it any wonder that farm people find it difficult to understand why in the last few years, there should be considerable criticism from consumers directed at food prices and indirectly at them? Farm people look at it this way:
1.	In the ordinary functioning of our economy, agriculture, as explained above is not in a position to take more than its share, and the greater part of the time is in a position where it must accept much less.
2.	The incomes of the people of Canada are higher than they have ever been before. Those incomes make costs high and in turn make prices high. When the price structure is high all along the line, it is unfair to single out food products and farmers as special objects of attack.
3.	Food prices are not high in comparison with urban wage rates (the latter is one of the fairest measuring rods of urban purchasing power that we know of). For example: one hour's wages would purchase 91 pounds of bread in 1913; 8-4 pounds in 1926; and 13 pounds in August, 1948.
One hour's wages would purchase one dozen eggs in 1913, one and a quarter dozen in 1926, and one and a half dozen in 1948.
One hour's wages would purchase three quarts of milk in 1913, five quarts of milk in 1926 and six and a half quarts of milk in 1948.
Agricultural Products Act
4.	Farmers subsidized consumers during the thirties by supplying them with farm products at below cost of production prices. Then the government subsidized consumers during the war years to maintain a low price ceiling. Now when consumers are asked to pay a fair exchange value for food products (except bread which is still subsidized for them) they complain.
That ended with the budget, of course. Canadian consumers were in a privileged position for years; and it is said that recipients of privileges soon learn to consider them rights.
5.	No industry has accepted as much restriction on markets (and accordingly on prices) in recent years as agriculture has done. Those restrictions were maintained for the benefit of consumers. And no section of our population have made as great a contribution toward holding the price level in check in these post-war years, to the benefit of the consuming public, as farmers have done by their support of moderate price level policies. Unfortunately they have been accorded little if any credit or thanks for having done so. Undoubtedly the real facts behind farm and food prices are not understood or appreciated by the Canadian people generally.
Many consumers believed that they were getting something for nothing, but whether you pay the retailer direct without any added administrative costs, or whether the government pays a subsidy, adds an administrative cost and charges it back as taxes, it all comes out of the taxpayers in one way or another. It is interesting to note what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the socialist C.C.F. party, is reported to have said in a radio speech, and I quote from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 11, 1949, reading as follows;
Coldwell Attacks Inflation Policy Ottawa, February 10 (CP)-M. J. Coldwell, national C.C.F. leader, tonight attacked the record of the Liberal government in price control, agriculture and social security and said his party is the "only alternative" to the present administration.
"The C.C.F. has a positive program for combating inflation and high prices," he said in an address over the C.B.C.'s "Nation's business" series of free time political broadcasts.
I took the trouble to look up the dictionary to see what "positive action" meant, and I found that it means definite, unquestionably or absolute. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the socialists are sure that their program will keep down prices or, to use their own words, "combat inflation and high prices". But all C.C.F. members do not seem to agree with their leader on this point, and I should like to quote what the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) said on June 28, 1948, as reported on page 6011 of Hansard. I quote just a part of his speech as follows:
To those who say the C.C.F. want over-all control of everything, let me say that was never the suggestion of this group, for we realize that price controls are only a palliative to bolster up an economic system which does not function. If we are to continue to have a capitalistic system of distribution in this country it will become increasingly necessary

reading of this bill last year, as recorded on page 2514 of Hansard.
It is quite generally known that this government did not fill the contract for bacon or cheese in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 and it is highly improbable that the 1949 contract will be filled either. Why? Because the farmers are not satisfied with the outlook for the future. They have asked repeatedly for an agricultural products marketing act which would allow producer organizations to make their own long-term contracts or whatever they agreed upon. The Conservative party passed such an act in 1934.


Mr. Lesage:: What about provincial autonomy?


John Alpheus Charlton: It was thrown out by the '
Liberal government in 1937. An agricultural marketing act has been a part of this party's program ever since that time. Only now, after repeated demands, has the minister seen fit to bring forward such legislation. Could it be that, while prices were good and products in short supply, little salesmanship was required, but now that the going is getting a little difficult the minister, who has posed as a supersalesman, very conveniently waits until now to hand the responsibility over to the producer boards? I contend that, the Agricultural Products Act having served its usefulness as a price control measure, the minister now throws the marketing problem in the lap of the producers in a manner very unbecoming to one who has so persistently repeated praises of his own accomplishments in the field of marketing.
Under this bill the minister has complete power over all agricultural products except wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


John Alpheus Charlton: As long as you do not close
the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not close the debate. Does my hon. friend agree that the net income of farmers last year was $500 million higher than in any other year in the history of our country?


John Alpheus Charlton: That is gross income, not net. Mr. Gardiner: That is net income.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, not net.


James Garfield Gardiner: Net income is up $500 million.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is beside the point, anyway. When a producer produces half as much and gets twice as much for it he is naturally getting more money gross, but if it costs twice as much to produce it he is not getting as much net.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not talking about gross; the gross is higher than that.


John Alpheus Charlton: 
Mr. Grant:: A good Tory paper.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, it is a good paper. The article is headed "Gardiner denies loss in British bacon deal," and goes on to say:
Canada did not lose out when the Economic Cooperation Administration cancelled a $12 million authorization for Britain to buy Canadian bacon. Agriculture Minister James G. Gardiner said last night. He spoke to the Ontario Cheese Producers' Association at the Royal York hotel.
When the cancellation was announced Monday, an ECA official in Washington said he understood it was caused by Canada's failure to provide $12 million worth of bacon Intended to be delivered during the fourth quarter of 1948.
Then a little further on:
"It is suggested we lost $12 million by cancellation of the bacon shipment," he said. Canada actually had made dollars through it, he claimed. With the pork products not wanted in Britain, they were used at home, enabling Canadian cattle to be sent to the United States. "If we ate more pork," he said, "we made dollars on the sale of beef."
Then a little further on:
There was only one product other than wheat that Britain wanted to buy in Canada this year, Mr. Gardiner said. That product was cheese. The contract for 1949 calls for 50 million pounds and, he said, he did not want "to read next year that we fell down." He would like to challenge the cheese producers to come back next year and say they had 75 million pounds to sell. If Canada could supply 100 million pounds yearly at a reasonable price, Britain would sign a contract for it, he said.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty plain who is playing politics. Now the minister challenges the cheese producers to produce 75 million pounds, and at the same time he ties their hands behind their backs with this bill. What would the minister call a reasonable price? Obviously he thinks the present price is good,


or he should not have signed the contract. Also by inference he says to the cheese producers, "You produce 100 million pounds and I can get you less money for it". What kind of double talk is this? It sounds like a little more of the applesauce the minister was so full of when he came back from England and which he spread so freely in the house nearly a month ago, when he said in effect that many apple trees had been planted in England previous to the war, and practically all of them came into production in 1948.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; they came into production in the middle of the war.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, you intimated that they had come into production around that time, and that was why Britain did not want any of our apples in 1948. That was the minister's statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not quite that.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, if the minister does not believe me let him look at page 780 of Hansard and see for himself. I wonder if he actually thinks the fruit growers of this country will believe that sort of trash.


James Garfield Gardiner: They all know it.


Mr. Ferguson:: We have told them the truth.


John Alpheus Charlton: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in 1948 the United Kingdom bought 466,179 hundredweight more fresh apples than they bought in 1947, and incidentally paid more for them than they paid Canada in 1947. The table appears at page 1068 of Hansard so anyone who wishes may check it. I need not read it again; it is there for anyone to see. As a matter of fact there is only one product out of a list of ten which Britain is buying in other countries for less than Canada is charging. I refer to the official publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Foreign Trade for February 26, 1949, in which the pound has been figured out at the official rate of $4.03. These are comparative prices of United Kingdom imports of foodstuffs from Canada and from all other countries, per hundredweight. I do not want to read the whole table, but I would like permission to place it on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Has the
hon. member permission to place the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like some idea of what it is.


John Alpheus Charlton: I just said it was a table from the official publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce, called Foreign Trade.

The Acling Speaker (Mr. Golding): Has the
hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: We have no Rosedale on this side of the house.


John Alpheus Charlton: The table is as follows:
Comparative Prices of United Kingdom Imports of Foodstuffs from Canada and all Other Countries (Per hundredweight)
Year
Commodity	1938	1947	1948
Wheat			
From Canada 	$ 1.56	$ 3.96	$ 4.09From other countries..	1.51	6.33	6.25Wheat flour	From Canada 	2.30	5.73	5.68From other countries..	1.89	7.35	8.75Bacon	From Canada 	17.43	31.90	40.52From other countries..	18.30	32.44	45.83Cheese	From Canada 	13.83	30.36	35.09From other countries..	13.17	33.51	35.10Eggs, shell	From Canada 	20.43	41.54	47.46From other countries..	12.43	38.65	48.16Condensed Milk	From Canada 	8.14	14.79	15.05From other countries..	7.56	15.60	14.79Casings	From Canada 	46.80	108.81	129.41From other countries..	49.31	143.63	184.20Apples	From Canada 	3.24	9.77	From other countries..	3.57	8.72	10.40Tomatoes	From Canada 	4.28	9.76	From other countries..	4.42	17.42	16.12Salmon	From Canada 	17.40	31.64	41.23From other countries..	15.54	44.46	47.70


John Alpheus Charlton: As I said, there is only one product for which Britain paid Canada more than she paid other countries; that was condensed milk.


James Garfield Gardiner: She pays Australia 24 cents for cheese.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, it is not on that list, which comes from an official government publication.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the list received from the British authorities.


John Alpheus Charlton: You had better put that on Hansard, or have the Minister of Trade and Commerce put it in his publication. The minister and the government have the power in their own hands to fill these contracts. What are they waiting for? The government of the United Kingdom is socialist, and whether we like it or not we have to deal with them on that basis. It will have to be a strictly business basis, as the Minister of Agriculture must realize by now.
Agricultural Products Act
The communists will endeavour by fair means or foul to break the economy of the democratic nations. Countries behind the iron curtain are now offering food on the various world markets. Let us not forget that this food is produced by slave labour and could be offered at prices which would seriously demoralize the producers of this and all the other democratic nations of the world. Here I would quote from another article appearing in the Globe and Mail of February 16, headed "Thousands die as slaves, says AFL" which goes on to say-I am just going to quote part of this article which is headed "Russian Labour Camps Hell; UN Told." It reads as follows:
One of the most graphic descriptions was contained in a statement by Julius Margolin, Polish author, who now lives in Israel.
Margolin estimated that a minimum of 10,000,000 persons were in Russian concentration camps inside the Soviet Union. He said deaths in these camps ran into hundreds of thousands every year.
"We may assume that in these camps of the USSR, from the time they were established, no fewer died than were killed by Hitler in his extermination camps," Margolin said.
He said life in the Russian camps was an indescribable hell reminiscent of Maxim Gorki's book, The Lower Depth, which pictures 100 prisoners living in one room.
"Persons who knew Polish prisons and the German Dachau of the year 1937 remembered them in the Soviet camps as a comparative' paradise," he said.
We must have a good part of the British market or another market comparable to it. It is the responsibility of this government to clear away the obstacles, not hurdle or sidestep them. This government should face the issue squarely and find some suitable solution. If this is not done, then Great Britain, being a trading nation, will naturally buy where she can sell. If we are not prepared to buy then we certainly cannot expect to sell. This government is responsible for the mess in which our farmers find themselves today. It is this government's responsibility-


Thomas Vincent Grant: This is ridiculous.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not so ridiculous to the people who are dependent on farms to make a living. I say to this government, do not try to blame somebody else for your errors. Do something, and do it before it is too late.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for the last three weeks to this argument about the constitution and just what should be done with our bureaucrats and these other terrible people we have in Canada running our civil service. As related to this particular bill which is before the house today, this constitutional question is even more amusing than when raised on some of the other measures. This is especially so in view of the fact that in 1934 the Conservative party introduced a national agricultural
1978	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act marketing act under the then Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Robert Weir. At that time we heard all these arguments that are being presented now coming from the Liberals then on the other side of the house. There were allegations concerning bureaucrats, dictators and the fact that they were ruining Canada.
After the election, when apparently the people of Canada were persuaded that they were bureaucrats and the Liberal government came back to this house, that government immediately sent the national agricultural marketing act to the supreme court, which declared it unconstitutional. We now hear the same arguments, only reversed. The official opposition now says that the shoe is on the other foot and everything the government is doing today is unconstitutional. For approximately thirty years the farmers of Canada have been asking for marketing legislation which would give stabilized marketing in this country. The constitutional issue has been consistently used as a means of preventing them from getting that legislation.
During the war, for the purpose of getting greater production, we had stabilized marketing in this country. Then the farmers realized more than ever just what stabilized markets meant. Through their organizations, they are not going to stand for this constitutional question being used as a means of preventing them from obtaining stabilized markets such as they obtained during the war; make no mistake about that. The farmers' organizations are well led today. Remember, too, that there is an alternative to the two old parties and, because of that alternative, we find both the old parties a little more zealous in their attitude towards marketing legislation. I believe we will eventually get some marketing legislation by means of which it will be possible to do some of the things we in the C.C.F. have been wanting to do for agriculture for a great many years.
Speaking on this bill a short time ago, the minister stated that one of the reasons for bringing in this legislation was to compensate the farmers for the prices they had received during the war for some of their agricultural products. I wonder if he thinks that these three contracts for 160 million pounds of bacon-I doubt whether he will be able to deliver it-50 million pounds of cheese and 46 million dozen eggs, are going to compensate the farmers for the lower prices they received during the several years of war and immediately thereafter. I do not think they will. To my way of thinking, this bill we have before us today is simply the obituary of organized marketing as we knew


it during the war. It is just a makeshift bill to carry these three contracts on for one year.
If the Minister of Agriculture had actually been interested in maintaining stabilized markets for the farmers of this country after the war, immediately after the war was over he would have introduced a marketing act under which he could have stabilized the markets of this country and supplied the British market. Instead of that, from year to year, we have had this act brought before the house to be continued for one year. All this time the minister has criticized the British government-


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the member permit a question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Does the member not agree that there are four or five products handled under what we generally call the floor prices legislation, the agricultural prices support act?


Percy Ellis Wright: There is only one other product that is being handled on the export market, and that is wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no; we have been handling beans under this legislation and we have been handling potatoes and apples. At the moment we are also handling the fifty-eight cent floor price on butter.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I agree about the floor prices, but I am talking about the export market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Beans were exported.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am talking about maintaining markets for our export products. I am certain of this, that if the Minister of Agriculture had introduced the proper legislation into this house at the end of the war and had maintained a reasonable relationship between the price of grain, dairy products and meat products, our production of these products would be greater than it is today. We would have had a market for those agricultural products in Great Britain because the people of Great Britain are still eating. Britain is obtaining these products from other sources because we failed to produce them in this country and we failed to produce them because the legislation we had reduced production.
At one time the Minister of Agriculture was the premier of my province and the minister of agriculture in that province.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, never minister of agriculture.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister was the premier, then, if not the provincial minister of agriculture. While he was premier he stated that one of the things western Canada needed was

diversified farming; we should not depend solely on grain growing. Yet, the legislation that has been introduced in this house has killed the little bit of diversification there was in western Canada.
Let me give you four reasons for that. A system of subsidy payments on oats, barley and wheat being used for the feeding of livestock in this country was introduced. No provision was made for those subsidies to be paid when the livestock were being fed this grain on the farm. As a result of that, many farmers in western Canada stopped raising livestock. A system of freight subsidies was introduced, whereby the freight was paid on coarse grains from the head of the lakes to eastern Canada. No provision was made for the payment of a freight subsidy on livestock shipped from western Canada. There was dissatisfaction with both of these measures in western Canada. Many of our farmers stopped raising livestock because of this discrimination against them.
A little over a year ago the ceiling price on coarse grains was removed and they were returned to the speculative market. Immediately, the hog and barley ratio changed and the few people who were intending to get back into hogs at that time immediately got out of them again, with the result that it is doubtful whether we shall be able to meet our bacon contracts this year. Then on top of that we had the income tax, which was the final blow which prevented the farmer from going back into livestock production. Let me quote from the Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada as to just what happened to our production of bacon here in Canada. On page 6 I find the following:
A decrease of 49 per cent In inspected slaughterings of hogs took place in Canada since the record year of 1944. There was a decrease of 68-4 per cent in western Canada and 13-3 per cent in eastern Canada. The origin of inspected slaughterings in Canada in 1944 was 65 per cent western Canada, 35 per cent eastern Canada, while in 1948 only 39 per cent originated in western Canada with 61 per cent of the total slaughterings originating in eastern Canada.
The inspected slaughterings of hogs in Canada for 1949 are estimated at 4-25 million, which is 7 per cent below that of 1948. Total slaughterings for the first five weeks of 1949 are 43-7 below the same period for 1948. Slaughterings in western Canada for this period are less than half the number slaughtered in the first five weeks of 1948.
Mixed agriculture in western Canada is going out. Even in the areas in which it should be continued, we find the people going into grain farming. In northern Saskatchewan, parts of Manitoba and parts of Alberta, which are naturally stock-producing areas, because of the policies of this government we find that a great number of those areas are into grain growing in competition with the drier areas in those provinces, and it is not good
Agricultural Products Act policy. It is not good policy for the provinces concerned and it is not good policy for the Dominion of Canada.
There is no place where pork and pork products can be produced more cheaply than on the farm where the grain is grown. Yet by the policies of this government we are paying subsidies on the freight on grain to move it to eastern Canada in order to feed hogs down here. It does not make economic sense to me nor does it make economic sense to a great many farmers in western Canada.
As I said before, in my opinion this legislation is the final act in the sabotage of the orderly marketing scheme developed during the war. The reduced amount that is being carried forward to take care of the situation is an indication that next year we shall have no such act at all. For the minister to get up here and tell us that this is compensating the farmers for the losses which they may have taken, and did take, during certain periods at the beginning of the war and again later since the war when the government removed the ceilings on the things that the farmers had to buy and allowed prices to go up while maintaining ceilings on the things that they had to sell, is something I cannot understand.
The minister talked a great deal about this increased net income which we as farmers have this year. But I would point out that a great deal of that increase is due to payments which are being made on crops grown in other years. That is where a great percentage of this increase has come from. As a matter of fact, our net farm income has increased little since 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only about one-third of it came from that source.


Percy Ellis Wright: This year it is increased because of the payments being made from other years. But in 1944 our net farm income in this country was $1,213 million; in 1945 it was $971 million; in 1946, $1,130 million; in 1947, $1,235 million; and this year it is $1,743 million.


James Garfield Gardiner: Up $500 million.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, up approximately $500 million. But as I have stated, a large share of it is represented by payments that were due from crops grown in other years or crops marketed this year that were grown in other years. Along with that increase, there has been a tremendous increase in farm expenses. In 1939, when the war started, our farm expenses were $501 million. This year they are $1,092 million, twice what they were when the war started.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that is already taken care of in the difference between the net and the gross.
1980	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I am coming to that. But this is what I want to point out. This year our farm expenses are $1,092 million, which is more than our gross farm income was for thirteen out of the last twenty-five years. As farmers, we know that when these expenses go up, they do not go down as quickly as do the prices of the things we have to sell. That is one reason why the farmers of this country feel nervous at this time. Their expenses have gone up. When the war was over in 1945 the ceilings were taken off, and the cost of everything we have to buy has gone up to such a point that today we are in the position that, if prices drop, we shall be in an extremely serious situation indeed.
Of course we have floor-price legislation, the minister said. But that floor-price legislation has no formula in it as to what those floor prices will be. When a serious position obtains with regard to any particular agricultural product, nobody knows what the floor will be that the minister may see fit to put under that product.


An hon. Member:: Or not at all.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think in some cases they will put some floor there; whether that floor is at a level that will give us our expenses or whether it is down in the cellar, no one can tell. Certainly there is no formula in our present floor-price legislation to suggest where it will be. We have a floor price under coarse grains. It is 61J cents a bushel on oats and 90 cents a bushel on barley. Those floors are out of line with what we are selling wheat for today. What will be the result of that? The result undoubtedly will be that in western Canada in this crop year we shall have a much too large acreage placed in wheat because of the difference there is between the present floors on coarse grains and the price of wheat. This year we have no floor under either rape or flax. The result will be that there will be little of those crops sown. It is only natural that the farmers will not sow those crops when they know there is a surplus of them already in hand, and that there is no floor under them.
One of the ministers stated today that we did not have many surpluses in Canada. In reply I would say that we have a surplus of quite a few products in Canada. We have a surplus of flax, rapeseed, salmon, apples, honey and other kinds of fish besides salmon. There are quite a few things that we are coming into a surplus position on in Canada today. As a means of finding markets for them, I say that this legislation is entirely inadequate. We in this group will support this bill because it at least does something. But as far as we are concerned, it is not a


satisfactory piece of legislation with which to meet the needs of the farmers in this country at this time.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about this type of legislation. For a moment I should like to say to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) that I am not debating whether or not relief should be granted to the class he represents so acceptably in the House of Commons. The point to which I wish to direct attention, and it is one which is becoming a little threadbare, I admit, is disrespect for the constitution.


Mr. Williams:: Not threadbare; it is naked.


John Thomas Hackett: Hon. gentlemen are entitled to their points of view. But sometimes I think if they knew a little more about the subject matter of the debate they would not be quite so glib in their comments. I listen with great respect to gentlemen who speak of matters concerning which they have knowledge. I listen with patience to other gentlemen who claim unpossessed knowledge even though I cannot take their comments seriously.
I was about to inform the hon. member for Melfort that I am not going to debate the desirability of fixed prices on farm produce. I merely say that in the submission of some of us on this side of the house the method of doing it chosen by the government is entirely wrong. And while I talk about method, I am going to ask the hon. member for Melfort not to be impatient, because if this type of legislation be tolerated, then it will work a hardship on the whole people.
As a people we believe in honest dealings. We believe in the sanctity of contracts. We all believe that. Now, the constitution is a document in which has been set forth the understanding of our forefathers; and had not that understanding assumed its present form there could have been no Canada, no confederation.
Those gentlemen in the years preceding 1867 were not mere dreamers; they were not visionaries; they were not given to speculation. They were men of affairs, men of experience, trained in the hard facts of life. They entered into an agreement that they would come together in a union upon the condition that certain powers should be wielded by the provinces, certain powers by the dominion, and that certain rights should vest in the individual.
I believe we all admit that. Now, what has happened? We are asked to depart from that understanding, disrespect the agreement. The right hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to whom I always listen with intense interest

when he talks about agriculture, and with even greater interest when he talks of politics -and not entirely without interest when he talks about the constitution; because whatever may be our appreciation of the conclusion at which he arrives, his presentation is always clear and forceful-the right hon. gentleman, I say, admits that this constitution exists. He admits that certain rights vest in the individual. He admits that certain rights vest in the provinces; and he admits of course that certain other rights vest in the dominion. And he says that this understanding arrived at ninety years ago, or nearly that, may not be violated. It must stand as written. Times do not change contracts. The intention of the parties as expressed at the time they made their agreement is that which must permeate the document and enlighten its interpretation. He admits all that.
But he says the agreement, the constitution of 1867, is not binding now, because there is an emergency-a national emergency. And that brings us to the point: What is a national emergency? The right hon. gentleman has mentioned, with all the skill which is his, that it is well that we should give back to the farmers some of that which would have been theirs, had they not been forced during the war to part with their property for less than its true worth. He puts that forward as one reason for a national emergency.
Let me say right here that that is probably a rather telling argument when one is talking to farmers. But farmers are not unfair; above all, farmers are not gullible. And I question whether farmers are going to consider that that is a reason to break a contract, a reason to violate the constitution.
If we attempt to make whole everyone who has suffered during the war, what are we going to do with those men who lost their health while working in munition plants ten, fifteen or twenty hours a day? What are we going to do with people who have been taxed out of their savings? What are we going to do with the man who has lost a limb? What are we going to do with the man who has lost his sight? What are we going to do with the widow or mother who has lost a husband or son overseas?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are losses which occur to a nation as a result of war for which no remedial legislation can compensate or offset. I also submit that nothing in that category constitutes a national emergency. There is nothing which justifies the suspension of that contract which brought the Canadian provinces into confederation, that abiding thing which caused them to come into union, and without which-and without a
Agricultural Products Act firm belief in its permanence-they never would have consented to constitute Canada.
I bow to the advocacy of the right hon. gentleman. Indeed sometimes I think the bar lost an ornament when he disdained its call to take up the high vocation of cultivating the land. But he had spare moments and many talents; and he has turned those spare moments to good purpose.
In his advocacy he says, "What about the British? They are hungry."
I will yield to no one in my admiration for the gallantry of the people of those heroic isles; I will yield to no one in my respect for their spirit, for their tenacity, for their capacity to bear uncomplainingly the heavy burdens which weigh them down. But whatever may be the lot of any people beyond our confines of Canada does not and cannot constitute a national emergency in Canada. If it did, what would be the result? There would not have been a day since confederation, there has not been a month or a year since 1867 that there have not been starving masses somewhere: in seething India, in teeming China, on the steppes of Russia and wherever the plea "give us this day our daily bread" has not been heard.
It comes to this. A national emergency is a catastrophe of such proportions that the integrity and life of our beloved country is at stake. It must be something that threatens the existence of the nation. It means something the happening of which would almost obliterate us as a people, would work irretrievable wrong and cast a blight on our children. I submit to you that no such dire spectre has appeared on the horizon of Canada since the moment hostilities ceased.
It may be that there is a political crisis, but there is a vast difference between a political crisis and a national emergency. If every time a party which represents a majority in this chamber finds itself embarrassed by promises it has made or by a mistake it has committed, it is going to decree a national emergency in which the rights of the individual may be invaded and the rights of the provinces suspended, then we are approaching an era in which the individual will no longer have any security.
The other day it was held in the Nolan case that the action should be dismissed because the expropriation of private property by the state without provision for proper compensation is so alien to Canadians that it almost raises the presumption that neither parliament nor the governor in council intended that it should be attempted by the order in council. There may be wrongs to be corrected in Saskatchewan and possibly in
1982	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act other provinces; there may be hungry people in Britain and elsewhere; but there are ways by which we can go to their aid if it be the wish of the people and the desire of parliament.
But I do wish to assert with all the vigour that I possess that to declare such an occurrence, an almost daily occurrence, a reason for suspending the constitution is to abolish the constitution. When will the time come when there is not some sector or section of our Canada that is not suffering; when are the coal miners of Nova Scotia going to be free from care; when are the gold miners in northern Ontario to have full employment; when are the butter-makers in the eastern townships going to get back the herds which they lost owing to depressed and controlled butter prices; when and how are they going to be compensated? If such episodes constitute national emergencies, if the government says a lack of dollars and cents constitutes a national emergency, it has misconceived the genesis, the idea and the scope of what really is a national emergency.


Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I always stand in admiration and amazement when I hear some of the speeches of my learned and hon. friends. They love to talk about constitutional questions. It appears to me to be a favourite form of amusement. I sometimes think that perhaps they err on the side of quibbling. I cannot see that the last speech that we heard, a delightful speech in many ways, had much to do with the marketing of agricultural products.


John Thomas Hackett: That is the tragedy of it, you do not see.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall not spend forty minutes rattling the dry bones of tradition. After all, this legislation has to be passed by tomorrow night. I rose to say that personally I am in favour of the extension of the powers given to the minister for one more year. I might qualify that statement by saying that I do not particularly like the method of the legislation.
For instance, I think the minister has too much power. I think the job could be carried out better by a board. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has too much to do. However, I shall support the legislation because I think some agency is necessary to carry on the marketing of agricultural products on an international scale.
I think we in this group would rather have the opportunity of supporting a real natural products act on a national basis, an act which would work toward security and stability of farm life. That is the idea of most of the farmers in western Canada with whom I am


acquainted. I know that the people in the rural part of my constituency and in the other constituencies around feel that way about it, whether it has to do with the marketing of apples, of livestock, of coarse grains, of cheese or whatever other commodity it may be.
I suggest that the act should provide for grower representation, certainly for provincial representation on the boards which may be set up. Those are the people who understand local problems. I have been struck with admiration at the work carried out by the agriculture committees in Britain. Those committees were made up of local men. In this connection I should like to quote Professor Harold Sanders, dean of agriculture, Reading university, England, who I think puts the matter more clearly than I could. He refers to the county committees that were set up in September, 1939. In 1947 an act was passed making them permanent. He went on to say:
The committees consisted almost entirely of farmers, and the National Farmers' Union worked out the details, and co-operated with the government. Farming in Britain was not directed from Whitehall but from the county towns.
There has been some talk about Britain's agriculture being on the down grade and some time ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was saying that agriculture in Britain was none too successful. May I say that that is not my impression. My observations led me to draw the opposite conclusion, that the farmers are content and farm labourers likewise. I quote again from the same article as follows:
In 1939 Britain's agriculture produced 30 per cent of the needs; during the war it rose to 40 pet cent; and by 1952 it was expected to be 50 per cent self-supporting.
That, may I say, should be a warning to us in our agricultural marketing, because it is proof that the British are trying to become, and are becoming, more and more selfsustaining. While that is a good thing for them, it will not be very good for our farmers who wish to dispose of their agricultural products in that country. I quote again:
Prices were fixed from eighteen months to two years ahead-
I draw that to the attention of the minister. -so the farmers would know what to expect for their products, and this meant financial security.
I have already said it is not only the farmers who benefit by sound agricultural marketing, but also those people who live in cities like my own city of Saskatoon where the industries depend upon the successful marketing of agricultural products. In that connection I am thinking of institutions such as flour and feed mills, mills for the extraction of oil from flax and rapeseed, packing

houses, and so forth. As I say, the prosperity of the cities, and the employment of workers therein, depend upon successful marketing. In my particular city there are a number of plants to which that is vital.
We have been told at various stages of this debate that the outlook for foreign trade is none too bright. Perhaps the minister can put me right as to the figures; he usually puts us right when we on this side of the house go wrong. According to my calculations, European sales of Canadian goods are off in 1948 over 1947 by approximately $175 million. If it were not for United States dollars which are paid to us for our products that we ship to Great Britain and to Europe, the situation would be even worse. Secondly, if it were not for the Canadian loan, which I understand has been unfrozen at the rate of $10 million a month, we would have a major slump right now, and would be unable to sell our agricultural products at all. As the United States becomes able through surpluses to supply goods which she is now paying us to supply, our exports under ERP will be blocked, and the United States will become, not the country which pays the bills, but rather our rival in the markets of Europe in the sale of agricultural products. We have already the example of flax, which has been declared surplus. The United States will not supply the funds to pay us for that commodity.
I was pleased the other day to hear the minister speak very cordially of the British, and those men with whom he had to negotiate as to our farm products. I rather discredited the press reports when I saw some months ago that the minister was apparently rather annoyed at Great Britain, and with some of the negotiators. I noticed that other members of the house must have had the same idea, because the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said at an earlier stage of the debate that he thought the minister had put up the best fight that anyone could with the British authorities. Those are the words of the member for New Westminster. I think that the phraseology was somewhat unfortunate, in that it reminded me of certain blasting into the British markets that was supposed to have been done rather unsuccessfully some years ago. I noticed in that same speech that the hon. member for New Westminster was concerned about Great Britain supplying certain materials to countries behind the iron curtain. I wonder if the hon. member still believes that the profit motive implies either ethics or patriotism. It was not only eggs that British Columbia sent to Japan by the shipload not very many years ago.
I do not think we can blame our European customers too much. Is it reasonable for us
* Agricultural Products Act to expect that the British will continue to buy four times as much from us as we buy from them? They just have not the dollars. Can we expect them to spend dollars on anything that, under those circumstances and considering the state of exchange, they can grow for themselves? They only have the dollars supplied through ERP, the Canadian loan, and those which they earn themselves through their foreign trade. They are setting out to supply their own needs, and I do not think that the producers of this country realize to what extent they are doing so. They have plans in that regard. I have here a pamphlet which shows what one part of the British isles is doing. The British have a four-year plan. I should like to read in part from the Ulster Commentary as follows:
The British four-year plan has a special importance for Ulster farmers because the expansion in the output of British agriculture plays a vital part in the plan. It is proposed to raise output above the highest point reached in the war years. The allocation of the increased output between different parts of the United Kingdom has already been worked out.
The article then proceeds to quote the Ulster minister of agriculture as follows:
In Ulster we are asked to build up production so that in a few years there will be the following increases in our agricultural output compared with 1946-47.
Then he proceeds to quote progressively increasing figures, 8,000 tons more beef,
36,000	tons more pork, 35 million dozen more eggs, and so on. Then he goes on to sayr
Today we are more than ever dependent on America as the principal source of imported food. But to buy food and feeding stuffs in America requires dollars, and it is there that our problem lies. That is why it is necessary for the Ulster farmers to produce more milk, eggs, meat and bacon, and also to grow on their own farms a great part of the food required by their livestock and poultry.
If Great Britain has plans like that, and if she carries them out successfully-and from my observations over the last three or four years I have no doubt that she will be successful-then I think that the Minister of Agriculture and the farmers of Canada should not be thinking of the past but should ask themselves the question, what of the future?
Basically this matter of trade with Great Britain means that we must be prepared to accept more of her goods. I am not sure that the government is taking all the steps necessary to ensure the import of such goods. Have we, for example, revised our tariff regulations to facilitate such imports, imports which would in turn pay for our agricultural exports? I suggest that is one method which might be explored. Some minister is going to tell me that the British cannot supply sufficient goods, and that their prices are too high. I am well aware that the British

Agricultural Products Act only have a certain amount of goods to export. I am aware that in some cases they have to pay prices for raw materials in soft currency countries which preclude them from competing in our hard currency market.
In passing may I say that one very small thing, but something that is important to me, and to the people in my part of the country, is that so far as import into western Canada is concerned we could save ourselves a considerable amount of money by importing some goods on the Hudson Bay railway and via the Hudson bay route. I think if shippers look into that situation they will find that they will be able to make a considerable saving over bringing their goods the long way through the eastern ports.
The basis of all exchange is an actual exchange of physical goods. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was asked the other day, he told us that barter as such has not been considered by this government. Personally I do not believe we in this country have yet reached the stage where actual barter in that way, goods for goods, is necessary; but I think there are methods which amount to barter under which, by bookkeeping arrangements, virtually if not in fact we could have a barter system. I do not want to go into the matter, because I intend to speak for only a minute or two, but there are such things as blocked credits and so on.
A* the situation is now, Britain is being driven willy-nilly into the arms of Poland and Denmark while we sit tight on this highly artificial system of dollar exchange and attempt to make it work. I think that is a bit of commentary on this government's lack of ability to solve what I think is the most pressing problem facing this country today. As I said to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) a short time ago, we fiddle while Rome burns, or rather we rattle the dry bones of tradition while our agriculturists are in worry and the rest of the world is in want.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, long ago it was said that there is nothing new under the sun, but that can be said no longer, after the speech made in this house today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Today we heard from the minister something absolutely novel and unprecedented by way of an exposition of the constitution of this country and the duty of parliament with respect to the sanctity of that constitution.
The minister prefaced his remarks by explaining that in entering this debate on an agricultural question he wished to assure the house that he was not an expert an agricultural questions; and then he proceeded to

discuss the constitution. Apparently that was by way of contrast. After what fell from the lips of the hon. gentleman this morning I am quite sure that the next time the doughty Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in casting about on the treasury benches for help, will know better than to follow the course he pursued today, and will choose to interpret the constitution for himself.
Every lawyer has two assets in his armoury when he goes about a case: his facts and his law. Earlier this week we had the opportunity of judging how hopelesly wrong the Minister of Justice can be on his facts, and today we have seen how even more hopelessly wrong he can be in his interpretation of the law and the duties of members of parliament with respect to the constitution.
The doctrine expounded today by the Minister of Justice resolves itself into this, that he stands by the interpretation of the constitution he has given hitherto, in asserting that there exists today a general national emergency and that consequently extraordinary powers, emergency powers, flow to parliament at the expense of the provinces. And he has added the equally startling proposition that in essence members of parliament have no concern with questions relating to the constitution, as applied to legislation coming before parliament for consideration. He has said this:	"The function of formulating a
theory as to a general emergency, as to a specific emergency, or as to any other basis for constitutional authority, is not a legislative function, and is not an executive function. It is a judicial function." Then to drive home his point with even greater certainty he goes on to say: "I suggest hon. members here are not concerned with the constitution in the way the members of the Progressive Conservative party have been arguing from time to time, because that is a matter which can safely be left to the only branch of government capable of dealing with it-that is, the courts. What we are concerned with here is the substance, the merits, the prudence, the wisdom of the measure we have before us."
There is an element of truth-a half truth, of course-in what the minister said in the passage I have just quoted. Of course the substance, the merits, the prudence and the wisdom of measures coming before this house are matters of the liveliest concern to the house and all members in it; but that is no ground for an assertion by the Minister of Justice that constitutional questions and the constitutionality of legislation or other measures that parliament is called upon to adopt are no concern of members of this house. I take issue with the proposition laid down by the minister, as squarely as it is

possible to take issue with any false proposition. It is a purely Liberal concept as it has unfolded here in recent years, and as it has found a climax in the expressions that have come from the Minister of Justice in recent days.
This is not the first time the government has shown it considers that the existence of this general national emergency it professes to find when it suits the government, and which it professes to see far removed from Canada, on other occasions, when that suits its purpose, gives rise to these sweeping powers. And they say to those of us who are elected to this house by the people of Canada, "These questions are not for you. You must confine your concern to the wisdom"-by which of course they mean the expediency- "of the legislation before us. Do not concern yourself with whether we are tearing the constitution to shreds". That is the proposition the government is putting before this house. In essence that is the proposition which was placed before us today by the present spokesman of the government on matters pertaining to law and the constitution.
The historic role of parliament, Mr. Speaker, has been that of the custodian of the rights of the people and the champion of freedom. In this country that means freedom with due respect for the constitution, because but for that constitution, as you well know, there would not have been a Canada. That constitution made confederation possible. Respect for that constitution today makes possible the continuation of confederation. Those who insist day in and day out, as the government have been doing of late, on hacking away at the very foundations of the constitution, are doing damage to the whole conception of confederation, damage to the unity of this country that I say is simply irreparable. A very grave responsibility rests upon the Minister of Justice and the government for which he has spoken.
The doctrine advanced by the minister has not been adhered to in this house in times past, nor has it been adhered to by his party in times past, when it suited them to argue otherwise. There have been many debates in this house on the constitutionality of measures submitted for adoption. Many of them were precipitated by the former leader of the Liberal party, the present hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he was leader of the opposition.
Now, sir, as to the first branch of the proposition laid down by the Minister of Justice: the position he has taken hitherto he has reaffirmed today, that there does exist a general national emergency. He says that national emergency is of such proportions
Agricultural Products Act that it complies with the standards laid down by the privy council which must be found before there is a transfer to the federal authority of those special and extraordinary powers which are not normally confided in the federal authority under the constitution, and since a national emergency exists it permits the federal authority to invade the normal legislative and governmental area of jurisdiction of the provinces. That, sir, is the inevitable consequence, the logical consequence of the proposition which the Minister of Justice has repeated today and which he has enunciated very clearly on several occasions.
Mr. Speaker, to say then that the constitutionality of the measures before this house is no concern of the members of this house is, I suggest, a monstrous injustice to the intelligence of the members. The Minister of Justice must admit, no matter how much he and I may differ on what is the essence of the constitution, that if a national emergency does exist legislation of this parliament which would in normal times be ultra vires of this parliament because it trenched upon the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces must depend for its existence upon a declaration by parliament of the existence of that emergency. He knows-as a matter of fact he has apparently taken some comfort from the fact-that the courts have said and the privy council has said on at least two leading occasions, that if parliament does declare it is of the opinion that a national emergency exists, the courts will not closely scrutinize that declaration. In other words, the courts are going to require evidence that parliament has seriously erred in that regard before they will treat such legislation as ultra vires because the necessary national emergency is not found to exist.
That being the case, sir, does it lie in the mouth of the Minister of Justice to tell the members of parliament that, when parliament derives this extraordinary authority only where it finds and declares that a national emergency exists, members of parliament must dismiss from their minds and from their consideration any question concerning the constitutionality of the measures laid before them? To do so, Mr. Speaker, invites parliament completely to stultify itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The argument which my hon. friend is now advancing, during the course of which he has attributed certain statements and certain arguments to me, wholly distorts what I stated. I shall not press the matter at the moment, but as soon as he resumes his seat I will avail myself of an opportunity in this debate to reiterate what I did say.

Agricultural Products Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I may save the hon. gentleman the trouble. I may say to him that his conception of what are points of privilege is just as accurate as his conception of what is the essence of the constitution. I will save the minister the trouble and tell him what he said:
-I suggest hon. members here are not concerned with the constitution in the way the members of the Progressive Conservative party have been arguing frrm time to time, because that is a matter which can safely be left to the only branch of government capable of dealing with it; that is, the courts. What we are concerned with here is the substance, the merits, the prudence, the wisdom of the measure we have before us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Continue, finish the statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well, I shall quote another statement the hon. gentleman made this morning.
In view of that fact the whole function of formulating a theory as to a general emergency, or as to a specific emergency, or as to any other basis for constitutional authority, is not a legislative function, and is not an executive function.
Mr. Speaker, could anything be clearer than that? It is not a legislative function. Those are not my words, thank goodness. I do not have to answer for words like those. Those are the words of the Minister of Justice uttered in this house today.
May I say a word, sir, about the courts. In the face of the statement made by the Minister of Justice and in the face of the conduct of this government-not just now but in relation to its search for excuses for retaining these extraordinary and arbitrary powers on many occasions and in many aspects, as we have seen in our debates upon a variety of measures-we ought to be very thankful that there are courts and that it is the function of the courts to say that measures passed by parliament which are ultra'vires are, in fact, ultra vires.
We ought to be very thankful that the courts have that function and that power. But, sir, is that to absolve parliament of its responsibility with respect to the constitution? Is that to absolve parliament from its responsibility for reviewing every measure brought before it? I say it does not absolve parliament of any responsibility with respect to the constitutionality of measures parliament is called upon to enact. Would this not be a fine example of a parliament, sir, if it simply adhered to the formula laid down by the Minister of Justice and said: "The question of constitutionality is no concern of ours; we will leave that to the courts. We will go blithely forward and legislate without regard to constitutionality because we will leave that to the courts; that is not our concern."

Can you imagine what chaos would result from following a course like that? It is unthinkable. It would have been unthinkable, at least, until the Minister of Justice put forward the proposition today. With all the respect we have for the courts, sir, is it fair to cast this burden upon them? We know very well, as the house was reminded by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his very powerful speech this afternoon, that it takes time to get these questions before the courts. Of the thousands and perhaps millions of citizens affected by measures passed by parliament in excess of its authority, how many are there who are in a position to carry their challenge to such legislation into the courts and to make their challenge effective by carrying appeals to the court of last resort? I say that sort of proposition represents the rankest kind of discrimination against the people of small means who are affected by ultra vires legislation just as much as the people of ample means who may be able to carry such a question to the courts and who may be able to carry their challenge through to the court of last resort.
All such litigation takes time. And what is the result when the courts do make a declaration that legislation enacted by parliament is ultra vires? Immediately, you have a vacuum. Parliament may not be in session. It takes time to deal with these situations which arise suddenly and which, in many cases, give rise to chaos. That is the headlong course upon which the Minister of Justice invites this parliament to embark. I hope this parliament, I am sure this parliament, with its experience, will not accept that invitation to commit suicide.
There are so many aspects of this question, sir, as you well know. Inevitably, ultra vires legislation by parliament involves trenching upon the constitutional rights of the provinces; rights which the provinces are bound to assert on their behalf if there is to be any respect held for the constitution of this country. So long as this government is going to lay down a doctrine of this kind; so long as this government is going to go on insisting on the existence of a national emergency that gives the federal authority the complete constitutional power to trespass upon the normal legislative jurisdiction of the provinces with reference to property and civil rights; so long as they consider it expedient with regard to any item of legislation to do so; then inevitably turmoil and conflict will distinguish the relationships between the dominion and the provinces.
On an earlier occasion, with regard to a kindred subject, I said that this government

has assassinated the constitution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has apparently succeeded to the role of leader of the burial party that the government has appointed for the interment of the constitution of this country. His advent into this chamber has marked again the determined drive of this government for the centralization of power.
It is not always that the government has been as frank as the Minister of Justice has been. I think perhaps we ought to say a word of commendation of the Minister of Justice in this respect at any rate. While the government hitherto has been doing its utmost to wreck the constitution, to ride roughshod over the rights of the provinces, the government at the same time has been denying that it has been doing so. But of course that attempt has been exposed completely by the Minister of Justice, with the commendable degree of candor which has marked his deliverances in this house on the subject of the constitution-because he has left no doubt about it at all. He has left no doubt at all that it is centralization of power here at Ottawa that is the goal and aim of this government; and it is a goal and aim toward which this government is driving just as determinedly today as it has at any time in the past.
While deploring the doctrine, while saying that we in the Progressive Conservative party will fight as long as there is breath in our bodies against this assassination of the constitution, at the same time we have a word of commendation for the Minister of Justice for his frankness and his candor in contributing to this exposure of the naked centralizing aims of the government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To the innocent bystanders of this dispute, Mr. Speaker, in many respects I offer my apologies for being obliged to traverse ground that has already been more than adequately covered. But since I entered this house I have been rapidly discovering that my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative party opposite have a perfect genius for distorting and misrepresenting statements made by members of the house. At the moment I claim to be the immediate victim.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were your friends in Manitoba.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Misquoted again!


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When anyone twits another for using a prepared speech, I think he is on rather bad ground; because there is an interval in this house, before the official Hansard comes down in printed form, in which it is possible to get up and make the sort of speech 29087-126
24, 1949	1987
Agricultural Products Act that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has just finished making. The only cure for that situation is to have typewritten out a prepared speech from which contradictions can be read. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house whether the sense of the remarks I made this morning was not as follows: I said that under our constitution the question whether or not any particular law of parliament or of a provincial legislature is intra vires and valid or ultra vires and void is a question which, in the last analysis, can be decided only by the courts of this country. I also made the point that, such being the case, there was not any purpose in any government formulating any particular theory of emergent powers or any other kind of theory upon which to base a law which could not later be supported in the courts.
Then, far from indicating that this parliament should have no concern as to the constitutionality of measures which come before it, I not only stated that fact but I spelled it out; and I spelled it out in these terms. I said that when a bill was presented to the house by the government or by any private member, the sponsor-whether a government or a private member-owes a measure of responsibility to see to it that the attention of hon. members is not being drawn to something which is unconstitutional or to something that should not come before parliament. I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the chamber at the time that I made the statement; if he was, then his quotation tonight of my remarks is quite inexcusable in leaving this out. I said that the sponsor should in each case-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I was in the house, that I heard his speech throughout, and that I have given accurate quotations from his own remarks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All right. I should like my hon. friend, when I have finished reviewing the context of these remarks that he has taken bleeding from their context-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Bloody, you mean; bloody remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They were bloody after my hon. friend got through with them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Your remarks were.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be gentlemen, now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The context of my remarks was this. I said that the sponsor of a bill coming before this house, whether a government or a private meiflber, had a respon-
1988	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Act sibility to see that the procedure which was being followed and the material which was being submitted was in accordance with the decisions of the courts of law, which means, to see that the bill being submitted is constitutional before it comes in here, in so far as the law officers of the government or the private member sponsoring it can discover; and having thus submitted the bill to the house, I said that he could be taken to have discharged his responsibility for sponsoring that bill. Then I went on to say that if the members of the house-that is, the ones to whom the bill is presented for consideration -acting in good faith and on the basis of their legal ideas-and I cited as an example the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in, as I believe, their incorrect legal ideas-want to oppose it upon constitutional grounds or support it upon constitutional grounds, that is their proper function as members of the house. In other words,
I said that the man or the government who introduces the bill should, before the bill is introduced, see that it is in accordance with the decisions of the courts, and that the members of the house who receive it and consider it should address themselves also to that point. But after such consideration and after such sponsoring, once the bill has become law, then it is only the courts and no other body but the courts that can have the last word as to whether that law is constitutional or not.
Now, the real point to this matter is this: It is perfectly apparent that my hon. friends for political reasons, which no doubt seem to them to be quite well warranted, would like to tag this government with invasion of provincial rights, in order to support their political campaigns in certain' provinces of this country. That being so, it suits their purpose also to attribute to this government under our constitution powers which only courts of law in this country possess. Because it is the courts of law in Canada which determine whether any law that we pass here in the last analysis is within our powers, or beyond our powers. And under our constitution, as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) well know, no government upon matters of large issues like this, where the question of an impecunious litigant does not come into the picture at all-no government, no legislature can usurp powers; for the good reason that, if it attempts to do so, its action which results will be declared unconstitutional by the courts.
And my hon. friend from Eglinton, in one of the few accurate statements in his last effort tonight, is correct when he says that it
TMr. Gars on.]

is for the courts to protect the rights of Canadian citizens. I agree entirely with him in that. But what I object to is that he will not recognize any of the implications of that statement.
If it be correct that we do have courts to declare whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, then the immediate implication of that remark is that it is impossible for a provincial legislature, or for this parliament, or for a provincial executive, or for the governor in council acting pursuant to an act of this parliament, in any way to exceed its power. Because either the law of the legislature or the act of the executive will be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional; and it is only by the courts that it can be so declared.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the hon. gentleman argue that the jurisdiction of the courts limits or restricts the duties of an official opposition?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not at all. And, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member raised that point-very glad indeed. Of course it is the function, as I made very clear in my remarks today-and I leave it to any member at this time to say whether I did or did not do so- I made it very clear that the man or the government who brought a bill into parliament was under the obligation to examine the law, as the law officers of this government have done before any of these bills we have introduced were brought in.
It was his duty to examine the law. I also said-indeed I spelled it out so there would be no possibility of my hon. friend from Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) misunderstanding it -that it was the duty of the members of this House of Commons to vote according to their views upon any of the constitutional issues that were involved. I agree entirely with the implications of the interjections made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), that certainly it is the duty of the official opposition, or of any other opposition, to raise questions as to the constitutionality of these laws.
But all that I say is that, agreeing with all these points-and in many respects paying my meed of respect to the argument put forward by the official opposition, I do not believe that they should associate with these arguments the suggestion that the government can in any official or binding way formulate any emergent theory which will hold water. Because the truth is that no matter what theory the government has with regard to the emergency theory, or any other basis

for constitutionality, it is not the government under our constitution, it is the courts that have the ultimate disposition of the question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has completely missed the point. It is not the government that has the responsibility; it is not the courts that determine the rights of the government; it is parliament. And what the Minister of Justice is doing now is to indicate a point of view of this government, and to display an attitude of the government which is that it is the government which deals with the matter, without letting parliament accept its responsibility.
All the way through the speech of the Minister of Justice the reference was to what the government can do. What was being put forward in this house by men with quite as much experience in constitutional matters, and a great deal more than the Minister of Justice has, was the proposition-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: I am on my feet-was the proposition that parliament is making a finding of fact whenever it brings about a vote in regard to the existence of an emergency. And the Minister of Justice is aware that the leading cases on this subject, particularly the case of Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Co. versus Manitoba Free Press, make it clear that parliament does accept a responsibility; and that decision is regarded by the courts as a finding of fact which they will disturb only upon the very strongest possible evidence of a complete disregard of every other consideration. That is a declaration that was followed in the case decided only three weeks ago in Manitoba, by unanimous decision of the supreme court of that province, on appeal.
The Minister of Justice is trying to create the impression that the courts have the whole responsibility. The courts have the responsibility of seeing whether or not there has been a complete disregard of all the considerations that should guide parliament in making its decision, or the government in acting by order in council under any law that has been passed.
But the cases leave no parliament the responsibility of determining whether there is in fact an emergency, or whether there is not an emergency. And when the Minister of Justice seeks to convey the impression that the arguments that are being put forward are being put forward for political purposes, he invites comment upon the statements he has been making outside of this house for some time in regard to dominion-provincial relations, and the statements he has been making for political purposes com-28087-1261
Agricultural Products Act pletely misrepresenting the nature of the discussions which did take place at the time the governments of this country met to try to find a solution of their constitutional difficulties.
According to him, anyone who seeks to stand by the constitution as it has been clearly defined for years is trying to prevent advantages being gained by a particular province. And if any man in this house has sought to misinterpret and has sought to convey impressions as to the actions of particular provinces, that man is the Minister of Justice himself, in his interpretations of what has already taken place.
We are discussing this upon the straight basis of the constitution itself, and the kind of emergency which permits parliament- not the government-to make a decision under the broad reference to peace, order and good government.
Throughout all the years since confederation it has been perfectly clear-and the judgments are clear in this respect-that only an emergency in the nature of war, or a major national threat of that kind, is an emergency which justifies the abandonment of the ordinary division of power and authority as between the dominion and provincial governments, and permits the dominion government to go into what is strictly a provincial field, through resort to the broad provision in the general clause of section 91 of the British North America Act.
Today the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in a perfectly fair interpretation of the problems that are before him in relation to certain contracts, indicated what he conceived to be the kind of emergency which would justify the government acting in this case. He pictured the difficulties with which the people of Britain are confronted at this time and the need for this country, through its government and parliament, to take such steps as might be necessary to meet their requirements under the contracts which have been made under this act.
But the point which was made and the point which should be borne in mind is that an emergency outside of Canada, no matter how much every hon. member of this house may feel that such an emergency should be dealt with by us in every way that we can, is not an emergency such as permits the parliament of Canada to declare that it abandons its ordinary constitutional position. There are ways of dealing with that problem. The way to deal with that problem is by joint action of the different governments who between them have the full authority.
No one here seeks to put anything in the way of a fulfilment of the contracts which will supply the necessary food to the people

Agricultural Products Act of Britain. It is not only Britain that is benefiting. As far as this country is concerned, our farmers are benefiting under the sale of these commodities to Britain at this time. It is something that affects both those who are selling and those who are buying. But no matter how desirable we may think any particular object is, that is no excuse for this house or for the parliament of Canada at any time taking shortcuts which evade the proper division of authority within the constitution itself.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that the leader of the opposition is really missing the point of my argument, I presume inadvertently. The point of my argument was that the emergency had its beginnings in the conditions that existed during the war, that there is a continuing emergency in which at least the greater part of the population of Canada is concerned. On the one side, they are concerned because we assumed obligations toward them and, on the other side, they are concerned because certain sections of the population, through the government, assumed obligations on behalf of other sections. We think that in order to carry out those obligations we must have these powers.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that the Minister of Agriculture is greatly concerned about the need of fulfilling these contracts, and their importance to the farmers of this country. But the importance of these contracts to the farmers of this country and the importance of the fulfilment of these contracts to the people of Britain is not an emergency of the kind that is interpreted by the courts as justifying the declaration of a general emergency such as is indicated in the preamble of the act itself.
After all, the point that has been put forward in the discussions that have taken place is that, no matter how desirable the object may be, the members of this house cannot disregard the preamble of the act and the basis which the act puts forward as the reason for the adoption of these extremely wide powers, which go far beyond the contracts with Britain that are now in operation. As has already been pointed out by another hon. member, if the desirability of finding a means of carrying out the contracts is in itself a justification for the abandonment of the ordinary constitutional division of authority, there would hardly be a year in the life
of this country when it would not have been possible to say for the same reason that the constitution could be disregarded and that this house could pass an appropriate measure to deal with the subject.
The reason that this is a strange argument coming from the government is that the strongest arguments that have been made against the theory being advocated today by the government in support of this measure were put forward by the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) as early as 1932 when the house was dealing with another measure which sought to base its validity upon a reference to peace, order and good government.
On that occasion there was certainly something that appeared in itself to be much more of an emergency than the matter now before the house. It is not necessary to recall that the measures then being put forward were related to the disastrous situation that existed in the country. As a result of the economic crisis that had come at that time, scores of thousands of men across the country were in desperate plight. On the basis of that emergency the government of that day attempted to introduce measures which would deal with the situation. The right hon. member for Glengarry pointed out that, serious though the situation might be in itself, the House of Commons and parliament must not claim that an emergency of that kind was one which permitted the abandonment of the divisions of authority as laid down in our constitution.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Maclnnis:: May we have the business for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: We hope to conclude this debate tomorrow afternoon. The house will have to sit tomorrow night for the sanction of these bills after they go to the Senate. We would then take up items Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the order paper, which are four noncontentious bills.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.

Friday, March 25, 1949