1949-09-23

ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
Right Kon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I felt that my first public reference to the subject matter of the statements issued this morning by the President of the United States of America and by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be in this house.
In the course of Mr. Truman's statement he said:
We have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the U.S.S.R.
Ever since atomic energy was first released by man, the eventual development of this new force by other nations was to be expected. This probability has always been taken into account by us.
Nearly four years ago I pointed out that "scientific opinion appears to be practically unanimous that the essential theoretical knowledge upon which the discovery is based is already widely known. There is also substantial agreement that foreign research can come abreast of our present theoretical knowledge in time." And, in the three-nation declaration of the President of the United States and the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and of Canada, dated November 15, 1945, it was emphasized that no single nation could in fact have a monopoly of atomic weapons.
This recent development emphasizes once again, if indeed such emphasis were needed, the necessity for that truly effective enforceable international control of atomic energy which my government and the large majority of the members of the United Nations support.
On this occasion I would only say that the government of Canada associates itself fully with these observations, as it had done with the decision to make public the information contained in these statements.
May I express the hope that with new knowledge may come a new sense of a shared responsibility for and an equal interest in agreeing on an effective enforceable international control of atomic energy so that this new force can be used solely for peaceful purposes.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does section 52 of the Railway Act
give the government the power to rescind or vary a decision of the judgment of the board of transport commissioners? If so, in view of the discriminatory structure of Canadian railway and express rates, will the government exercise its authority to delay the coming into effect of the board's decision until the house has had an opportunity of discussing the royal commission's report on the present rate structure of the railways?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The Minister of Transport is prepared to answer the question.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The answer to the first question is that the powers of the governor in council under section 52 of the Railway Act are judicial in nature and have to my knowledge never been exercised since confederation with perhaps one exception in 1917, in the case of the McAdoo award.
The answer to the second question is that after giving consideration to the position, and without prejudice to appeal, the government does not intend to interfere with the judgment.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Does he think the devaluation of the Canadian dollar will cause Canadian exporters to cut their prices in foreign markets? What would be the effect of such cuts upon our receipts of foreign exchange?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member has given notice of this question, and I should like to answer it in this way. I would hope that Canadian exporters would not cut their prices unnecessarily. Canadian export prices have been competitive, and are relatively low compared with those in most other countries. If the prices at which our goods are sold abroad in terms of foreign currencies are reduced beyond what the competitive position requires, we shall get less foreign exchange. As I said the other day we need to receive all the foreign exchange we can get in order to enable us to pay for our imports and to keep our over-all trading account on the right side.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Lambert Gibson: May I ask
this supplementary question? If this course is followed, does it mean United States importers of Canadian products such as lumber and newsprint will be paying the same price in their currency as they formerly paid?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; that is right.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries, based upon a telegram received today from Vancouver. Is it the intention of the department to close area 17 on the Fraser river to pink salmon fishing? If curtailment of fishing is necessary for conservation, could it not be met by extending the weekly escape period, so that the hundreds of small gill net fishermen could get their fair share of the catch?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The department has already replied to a similar telegram received from the United Fishermen's Co-operative Association in Vancouver, pointing out that the situation is at present under review.
Under the Fisheries Act we are responsible for conserving the fisheries. This year the run of pink salmon up the Fraser river appears to be smaller than the parent run of two years ago. Up to the moment the number of fish which have been caught in the river itself is small, and escapement to the breeding grounds has been negligible. At present the gill netters are allowed to fish four days a week, with a closed period of seventy-two hours. During the current closure the department has all its available local staff on the river, and estimates are being made of escapement. No decision has yet been made to close the Fraser river next week. Any decision made then by our chief supervisor, who is on the river, will be based upon the views of an experienced staff, in consultation with fishermen and others interested.


Mr. Green:: I was going to ask the same question. It does not pay to be too polite around this chamber. Is the minister taking into consideration the fact that seine-fishing boats have already been able to catch a great many of the fish which would have been going up the Fraser river, and would otherwise be available to the small gill netters? The suggestion in the telegram I received is that the small man has not been treated fairly as compared with the big fellow who has an expensive seine boat.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Fishing by seines has been
closed for some time-since the twentieth, I believe. The only gill-netters in the Fraser river are now fishing in area 17, or up the Fraser river. The amount of fish caught by seines has been large because of the great amount caught this year in the strait. This year the weather was favourable for fishing in that area, and therefore the seine nets did [DOT] get quite a fair quantity of fish. The situation of the gill netters is one which is being considered.


John Lambert Gibson: Has the
minister any information about the quality of the gill net fish which are being caught in the far reaches of the Fraser river?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The quality of pink salmon caught in the Fraser river as a rule is not as high as the quality caught farther out in the sound, or in the strait of Juan de Fuca.



PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. During the summer it was believed that Canada might expect an official visit from Prime Minister Nehru of India. Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate to the house whether or not Canada will be favoured by a visit from him this fall?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The answer is yes. I could not give the house the tentative dates which have been set for the visit; I should not like to give them from memory. At another sitting I shall indicate the dates which have been tentatively set.



CANADIAN PACIFIC AIR LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has he any statement to make in connection with the destruction of a Canadian Pacific air liner a short time ago in the vicinity of Quebec? I think the minister will know that I ask this because of persistent rumours which have been heard.


Lionel Chevrier: I am aware that certain rumours have been circulated in connection with the air crash, but I am unable to make a statement until the investigating board appointed for the purpose of investigating the crash has

reported. My officials informed me this morning that the committee is still considering the facts.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Has it been found that there was an explosion before the crash?


Lionel Chevrier: The preliminary report so indicates.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources. Has the government given consideration to relaxing the immigration laws in order to let into this country German nationals who have relatives in Canada?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I did not receive notice of his question from the hon. member, but I shall be glad to look into the matter and make a statement later.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the bill now before the house, one must consider not only the broad principles involved but also the extent to which the bill meets or falls short of the requirements of the subject under consideration.
With the statements made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as to Canada's sovereignty, there will be little or no disagreement. Our full national stature was recognized without any reservation when Canada signed the treaty of Versailles in June, 1919. If there had been any doubt before, it was removed by the signature of Canada to that document, as a full and sovereign nation, and also by the statements which accompanied that act. Since then, of course, there have been a number of events which have emphasized the constitutional stature of Canada as a nation, and every Canadian shares a feeling of pride in the place which this country occupies in that respect. Every Canadian shares the pride that is felt in the great achievements of a nation of 13,500,000 people, which today occupies a position in the world out of all
Supreme Court Act
proportion to its population. About these things there can be no disagreement.
Because of the recent union of Newfoundland, Canada comprises the whole northern half of this great continent. Whatever other changes there may be at any time in Canada's external associations, there would appear to be no doubt that, as one of the hon. members from Newfoundland put it yesterday, Canada's territorial ambitions on the North American continent have been realized. We now occupy that great area, from sea to sea, which was envisaged as an entity by those who prior to 1867 met, first at Charlottetown and later at Quebec, to join in drafting what amounted to a basic constitution under which this federation has grown great and strong throughout the years, upon the very principle of partnership and division of responsibility which was set out in that constitution.
We are all conscious of the part that the constitution of Canada played throughout the years in the achievement of national unity, national growth and national understanding. We are not only proud of Canada's historic past in the sense of the achievements that can be measured in statistical terms; we are proud of it when R is measured in terms of increasing understanding among people who, of different races and different backgrounds, live in widely separated parts of this great land.
Geographical conditions, and the association of two great races, made it inevitable that Canada would adopt a federal constitution. In considering any aspect of this subject we must remember that there never could have been one united Canada as we know it today had there not been full acceptance of the principles incorporated in our federal constitution and set forth in simple terms in the British North America Act, 1867. For that reason it is extremely important that in looking to the immense possibilities of development of this country in the years ahead we should at no time forget that the very strength of this nation has rested upon the respect for that basic constitution which means so much to the people of every part of Canada.
There are some who, overpowered by the dramatic events of the past few years, are inclined to say: "Well, what does the constitution matter anyway? What difference does it make where the division of authority rests? What difference does it make who has the responsibility of particular acts of government or administration? Today we have had emphasized in this chamber the significance of dramatic changes throughout the world, of a kind which make people believe that every-

Supreme Court Act
thing has relationship to these terrifying advances of science which increase the power of destruction.
This is only natural. When we are told that Russia has discovered the secret of atomic power, and has actually carried that knowledge to the point of creating atomic explosions, there is a tendency to reduce all our thinking to the importance of these overpowering events. The fact is that man has gone through the centuries hearing of new dangers, learning of new means of destruction which seemed to be so terrifying that it did not appear worth while to carry on ordinary day by day occupations. Going back to the time when gunpowder was discovered, one can read almost as ominous predictions as one reads today in relation to what may happen as a result of nuclear fission. Recalling these various stages in the history of man's struggle we recognize how each new development brought new concern for the future. In the first world war the launching of the gas attack in April, 1915, caused people to wonder whether it would be possible to meet the terrible consequences of these discoveries of science. But with each of these developments men and women throughout the world are challenged to use, to a greater extent than ever, their intelligence and their powers of co-operation and association for high purposes. No matter what dramatic international events may occur, each nation should be extremely careful to retain the strength of its own internal structure. And when these powerful forces are associated with the danger of aggression against our free system, we should be doubly conscious of the need of strengthening that system to the utmost extent of our intelligence and ability, and in the light of a full understanding of the history of our own country.
Therefore no matter what occurs beyond the boundaries of Canada, a great contribution to the combined strength of the free nations, as well as to our own domestic stability and happiness, will be to remember the lessons of the past and to take no step which might reduce the safeguards we have set up for the preservation of the free system which has been developed and matured under our basic constitution.
No matter to what extent we may agree with the general purposes of the bill in its present form, it is extremely important that every member should examine carefully all its provisions. As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) when he moved second reading of the bill, section 3, the effect of which is to terminate further appeals to the privy council, is the key provision of the proposed legislation.

This is not the first time that the House of Commons has been called upon to discuss the abolition of appeals, or a limitation of the right of appeal, to the privy council. It is a long time since Sir John A. Macdonald was responsible for the introduction of legislation which limited the right of appeal to the privy council so far as criminal actions were concerned. I suggest that the history of that legislation in itself offers the strongest reasons why we should be most careful in dealing with this subject, no matter what our views may be as to the object of the bill now before us.
It will be recalled that there was an act of the parliament of Canada in 1887 which was found to be inadequate for the purposes intended. It was followed by another act in 1888, and it was many years afterwards before it was determined that there was any inadequacy in that statute. The history of that earlier legislation, for which Sir John A. Macdonald was responsible, suggests to us that in dealing with a matter which has been the subject of consideration since pre-confederation days we may well examine the full effect of any proposed legislation in this regard, no matter how strong our desire may be to carry out the object of this bill.
The bill does not affect only the right of appeal to the privy council by individuals and corporations in civil matters. If that alone were the effect, there might be little occasion to emphasize some of the considerations we should have in mind today. The effect of the bill would not only be to terminate the ordinary civil appeal to the privy council. It would also terminate the role of the privy council as the body which acts as the referee, if you will, between the different governments of Canada in determining their constitutional rights and responsibilities and the division of authority under the British North America Act. These two aspects of the position of the privy council are of great importance.
The Minister of Justice has pointed out that with the passing of this bill individuals or corporations who are litigants will not be confronted with the possibility of having to carry their litigation beyond Canada itself. But apart from the function of the privy council as an appeal tribunal in civic matters, affecting individuals or corporations, there is the immensely important place occupied by the privy council as an independent tribunal interpreting our constitution in cases where there is a difference of opinion between the dominion and provincial governments as to the effect of the constitution and as to some aspects of their rights and responsibilities or the respective fields of their administrative duties.

The purpose of and the result which would flow from the passing of this bill must be taken into consideration along with the statements which are made in the speech from the throne about proposals to take certain steps in regard to the amendment of the constitution. I should like to read two paragraphs from the speech from the throne which, it seems to me, have a direct bearing on a proper consideration of the full effect of the bill which is now before us. I quote:
You will also be asked to approve addresses praying the parliament of the United Kingdom to vest in the parliament of Canada the right to amend the constitution of Canada in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces nor affecting the constitutional rights and privileges of the provinces or existing rights and privileges with respect to education or the use of the English and French languages.
My ministers will seek to arrange for early consultation with the provincial governments with a view to agreeing upon an appropriate procedure for making within Canada such other amendments to the constitution as may from time to time be required.
As I said in my remarks in the debate on the address in reply, it is not easy to say exactly what those words mean until we have before us the resolution which is forecast in those two paragraphs. But from the wording of the second paragraph it would appear that this parliament is to be asked to draw a distinction between federal and provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions. May I qualify that statement by saying that when the resolution is introduced, it may, as sometimes happens, present a different picture from that which would seem to be indicated by the wording of the speech from the throne. I do not suggest that there is any intention that these words should not convey a completely accurate impression, but they are of necessity brief; and the resolutions which carry forward the intention stated in the speech from the throne may go much further than is here suggested. But if the wording of the second paragraph I have quoted means what it seems to mean, it would appear that the provincial governments are to be consulted only in regard to matters which in the opinion of the dominion government-with, of course, the support of parliament-do not fall within the federal jurisdiction.
The very fact that it is so difficult ,to determine what these words mean is in itself a reason why this whole subject should be approached with great caution, and, in the desire to carry out the object stated by the Minister of Justice, undue haste should not create any situation which might in itself defeat the purpose he has in mind. After all, the whole record of decisions of the privy council in constitutional matters since 1867 is almost entirely an interpretation of the
Supreme Court Act
rights or responsibilities of the various governments of Canada, and from time to time there was a different point of view as to where the boundary line between the rights and the responsibilities should be drawn. That being so, it would be unwise for the government or this parliament to seek to deliver the judgment of Solomon without calling in the parties concerned and at least trying to find out which one of them thinks it really owns any particular child that may be under consideration at the moment. After all, this is something that has been under consideration for a long time, and there are still many points of difference as to where that boundary line actually is.
This is not the first time this matter has been spoken of. It is not the first time it has been considered elsewhere. It was considered by a body which has, of course, no official authority to guide the course of any member of this house, which deals with the business of the people of Canada. But in view of the fact that this is largely a legal problem, some attention might well be paid to the views expressed by the lawyers of Canada at their annual meeting, in the same way that in a matter affecting the health of the people it might be wise to consider the opinions expressed by medical experts, or, in the case of some important construction program, the opinion of engineers through their organization. A resolution of the Canadian Bar Association has no higher authority than that of any other similar body, but at least it represents the considered opinion of a profession which is trained to deal with constitutional matters and with legal problems arising out of constitutional questions.
For this reason, and because of the importance of the subject, I should like to read into the record a resolution which was passed, I understand unanimously, by the Canadian Bar Association and-on the very day, if I am not misinformed, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was honoured by being chosen a life president of that important organization.
The resolution is headed, "Abolition of appeals to the privy council". It reads as follows:
Whereas the government of Canada has announced its intention to introduce legislation, at the next session of the parliament of Canada, providing for the abolition of appeals to the privy council, and making the Supreme Court of Canada our final court of appeal in all matters;
Be it resolved that the Canadian Bar Association, without expressing any view as to the wisdom or otherwise of the proposed abolition, is of the opinion:
1. That any bill for the abolition of the privy council appeal should contain the necessary provisions as to the organization and jurisdiction of the supreme court of the system by which its judges will be appointed. That sufficient time be given

Supreme Court Act
before the statute is enacted to permit the public to give consideration, both as to the question whether the abolition of the appeal to the privy council should take place and to the constitution and powers of the court that may replace it, and also to the effect which the abolition may have upon provincial and minority rights.
2. If, as and when the appeal should be abolished, it is the opinion of this association as at present advised:
(a)	That the supreme court should consist of nine judges.
(b)	That a quorum of the court should be five judges.
(c)	That it should sit always with an odd number of judges present.
(d)	That there should be no change in the present practice of the court, under which each member is free to give reasons for his judgment.
(e)	That the court should continue to sit at Ottawa only.
(f)	That the salaries of the judges of the court should be substantially increased so as to make such salaries commensurate with the responsibilities of the office, with an appropriate additional amount to the chief justice.
(g)	That the rule of stare decisis ought to continue to be applied with respect to past decisions of the court, as well as with respect to past decisions of the judicial committee.
This is the resolution which was adopted by the Canadian Bar Association. I point out again that it is no more than the resolution of an association made up of members of a profession of which, of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are members. Many of the members of this organization are called upon to deal with constitutional and legal problems.
Some of the points put forward in this recommendation are incorporated in this bill, such as the number of judges, and matters of the kind. I believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice will agree that those present at the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association were highly qualified Canadian lawyers, many of them top-ranking experts in constitutional law. It will be seen that they placed emphasis on two things. The first is that sufficient time be given before the bill is enacted to permit the public to give consideration to the question whether abolition of appeals to the privy council should take place, and-I should like to emphasize these words-"to the constitution and powers of the court that may replace it, and also to the effect which the abolition may have upon provincial and minority rights".
In the last subparagraph of paragraph 2 there is the recommendation that the rule of stare decisis ought to continue to be applied with respect to past decisions of the court as well as with respect to past decisions of the judicial committee. The recommendation of this annual meeting of senior members of the legal profession is not something new; it is not something that has been stated for the first time. Similar views have been expressed

in this chamber at various times when the subject of amendment of our constitution and related matters were under consideration.
Yesterday we listened to an illuminating exposition of some of the problems presented by this part of the speech from the throne. It was pointed out that the problems related to amendment of the constitution had been under consideration here, and it was one subject upon which Mr. King and Mr. Bennett were in agreement at a time when they sat on opposite sides of this house. In discussing amendments to the constitution, Mr. Bennett used these words-I quote from Hansard of 1937, page 2595:
-we can accomplish it more quickly, and more in accordance with our democratic institutions, if we hold a convention representing the provinces and the dominion and all shades of political opinion. There could then be presented to this parliament a petition which could be passed through the Commons and the Senate after the legislatures of the provinces' have dealt with it.
It was about that very proposal that Mr. King indicated that he thought this would be the ideal procedure. It may be suggested that the subject under discussion then did not cover as wide a field as that now under review. That is correct, but the fact that we have under consideration, as a result of the statements in the speech from the throne, a much wider field, seems to me to be all the greater reason why we should take steps which would avoid any conflicts or misunderstandings which in the future might weaken the feeling of confidence and mutual good will which has been the great achievement of this constitution during the eighty-two years since confederation.
Something more is involved than the question of appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. Before the provincial governments are told how their constitutional position will be interpreted it would seem highly desirable that they be consulted as to the procedure by which this will be done, as to the kind of tribunal which would meet their desires, and as to the authority of that tribunal to interpret the constitution.
In the very last subparagraph of paragraph 2 the Canadian Bar Association refers to a matter which is giving a great deal of concern to those who are thinking about this proposal. We must recognize that this is not a subject which can be fully understood without some knowledge of our constitutional structure and the constitutional problem. One question of great importance is this: What is to happen to the decisions which have been made during the past eighty-two years by the privy council and by the Supreme Court of Canada in interpreting our constitution? This is not some-

thing which affects only lawyers or persons who are interested in constitutional niceties; it affects the daily life of all our people.
If we look at the duties which are carried out by the dominion and the provincial governments through all their different departments, we find that many of these departments, if not most of them, are not even mentioned by name

or the subject is not mentioned by name-in the constitution. Whether these responsibilities and administrative duties fall within the jurisdiction of the dominion or of the province was in most cases determined by the result of an appeal to the courts to decide where the dividing line really lay between the fields of rights, responsibilities and duties of the different governments.
If the decisions in the past of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the privy council were to be swept aside, there would be endless confusion, and the whole structure of government would to some extent lose its defined form. Therefore great importance should be attached to the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association that, when this matter is dealt with, there be no doubt as to the extent to which judgments refining and defining our constitution, either by the Supreme Court of Canada or by the judicial committee of the privy council, shall have their continuing effect in the ordinary way as precedents to be recognized in future interpretations of that statute, except to such a degree as it may be amended.
At the moment we are not in a position to say how far these past decisions would be binding. We are not in a position to say exactly where the boundary line is to be, and what the things are in regard to which the members of the dominion government are to consult the provincial governments. Granted, it says in the speech from the throne that this consultation will be in regard to those other matters; but that implies that there is to be a decision as to what falls within the jurisdiction of the dominion government.
It may be said that it would be extremely difficult to get complete agreement, but the desirability of agreement and of consultation is asserted in the speech from the throne. If it is desirable that the provincial governments be consulted in regard to the way in which the amendments in respect to matters which are strictly provincial are to be made, it is equally important, if not more important, that there be consultation before any attempt is made to divide those fields, because there may be wide disagreement as to where the boundary line actually is. Until some statement is made as to how that definition will 45781-13
Supreme Court Act
be worked out, it is difficult for the provincial governments to know what the basis of consultation will be, or where the borderline will be.
What this really means is that we are splitting our constitution in two, and that in regard to a single constitution which has been the very framework of our nation, all of that structure might be changed without an opportunity to secure the opinion of those who carry on the other part of the combined business of government in this country.
Undoubtedly there are many who sincerely believe that it would be infinitely better if the powers of the provincial governments were limited, and that this country could be more efficiently governed if there were one single government having full authority over the whole of Canada. Those who hold this view are no doubt quite sincere in their expression of that opinion. There are others who do not hold that view, but who nevertheless seem to be unaware of the extent to which that division of authority can be whittled down by apparently innocent extensions of central authority which, step by step, might produce a fully centralized government, in fact if not in name.
There are many who regard the assertion of provincial rights as a relic of the past, as an attempt to play up the importance of provincial authority. But it goes far beyond that. In their wisdom the fathers of the Canadian confederation obtained from the parliament at Westminster a constitution which respected the traditions of our people in different parts of Canada, respected the rights of the people in different geographical areas, and established the rights of those who joined to make this one nation. And it is not enough to assert in mere words the retention of those rights. It is not enough to assert in mere words the retention of that local administrative authority. It must be a reality.
Suppose the dominion government further encroaches upon provincial fields of taxation, which might come from amendments which could be made by this parliament; how much meaning has an assertion of the right of the province to administer education or other local matters, if the province is not to have independent authority to raise the revenues to carry out its responsibilities in that field? The right and the power to obtain such revenue as is required for a particular purpose is the very power of government itself. Any government can be clothed with apparent authority and can be given apparent jurisdiction which has little or no meaning if that government must come to some other government and ask for a sum of money to carry it out.
1S4

Supreme Court Act
This is not a theoretical problem. These problems have arisen in other countries. The federal system has broken down in other countries where a division of real responsibility, of real taxing power, of real authority did not go hand in hand under a constitution which could be clearly interpreted and could be invoked through some recognized tribunal just as effectively by one government as by another.
This matter has been given extended consideration by other countries than Canada. It has been considered, for instance, by the United States and by Australia, which countries, with a number of differences, have a somewhat similar federal structure. Just a few years ago Mr. Franklin Roosevelt, discussing this whole subject of state rights- which corresponds to our problem of provincial rights-said something which it seemed to me has application to what we are considering here today. These are his words:
The preservation of this home rule by the states is not a cry of jealous commonwealths seeking their own aggrandizement at the expense of sister states. It is a fundamental necessity if we are to remain a truly united country. The whole success of our democracy has not been that it is a democracy wherein the will of a bare majority of the total inhabitants is imposed upon the minority, but because it has been a democracy where through a dividing of government into units called states the rights and interests of the minority have been respected and have always been given a voice in the control of our affairs.
This whole question of the importance of a constitution to divide authority and of the interpretation of that constitution was put forward extremely well by a great Australian constitutional expert, Mr. R. C. Teece, from whose analysis of the subject I should like to quote one paragraph:
The federal system requires a supreme law- known as the constitution-which will embody the above-mentioned principles, whose provisions can only be amended by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether central or provincial. The necessity for such a supreme law can be easily deduced from the other features of federalism. This dual system of government involves, as we have shown, an elaborate distribution of powers between the states and the nation, and the delimitation of the powers granted to each. If the national government were able to extend the powers vested in it, the component states would have no guarantee for the continuance of that amount of independence reserved to them when they entered the federation. If the legislature of state or province could extend its powers, the authority of the central government would be illusory. The very nature of federalism, then, demands that there should be a supreme law defining the powers of the central and state governments, and declaring illegal and invalid any law that they might pass in excess of those powers. For the same reason it follows that it must be beyond the competence of both central and provincial legislatures to alter that supreme law. The authority

to do that must be vested in some body in which the legal sovereignty of the federation will thus reside.
In that discussion and in the discussion which has taken place here in Canada there has been the repeated suggestion that if, as and when appeals to the privy council are ended in respect to constitutional matters, appeals in constitutional matters should not go to the Supreme Court of Canada as such but should go to some special constitutional tribunal. This may or may not be an acceptable suggestion but reasons have been put forward for its being considered desirable.
It has been pointed out that in the United States their constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been pointed out also that the Supreme Court of the United States operates within a much more rigid framework than the Supreme Court of Canada; not only is it part of the constitution, but the constitution is a rigid one which can be changed only by a system of general amendment supported by the people of the United States. Nevertheless, as you know, sir, questions have been raised as to the interpretation of' constitutional matters by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it has been suggested there that it has not been wise in every case to place upon the Supreme Court of the United States the onus of actually writing the constitution. Because of that very fact the Supreme Court of the United States has in certain cases become the centre of political controversy. I should hope that, by every device within the wisdom of this parliament in both its houses, the respect for the Supreme Court of Canada will be preserved by keeping it aloof from anything that might savour of controversy.
It may be said that these are not matters affecting the provinces, and that past history shows that it may be difficult to get agreement by the provinces. Our constitution is one constitution; it is not something that is broken down through the middle. If it is to be changed and a new tribunal set up to determine the rights, responsibilities and administrative duties under it, then I earnestly urge upon the government a recognition of the fact that such constitution as we have in the future will operate best to the advantage of every Canadian if suggestions and proposals are obtained in advance in regard to every aspect of this problem instead of dealing with it piecemeal as is now proposed.
The question of appeal in constitutional matters is part and parcel of our whole constitutional structure. It cannot be separated. As Mr. Teece points out, the constitution itself is the supreme law. But along with that goes the tribunal that will interpret the

law, and there must be acceptance of that tribunal; there must be understanding that the tribunal will protect and preserve the rights of all parties and all governments and of the people themselves who live under the guidance and jurisdiction of those governments.
It has been said by the Minister of Justice that there should be no delay in dealing with this matter. But it has not been made clear just why a matter of days or weeks is vital in connection with something that has been continued for eighty-two years.
The minister says that this decision should not be postponed an instant longer. I hope that when he was referring to the smallness of mind and the meanness of spirit of any who might question the desirability of acting immediately in this matter he was not referring to the members of the Canadian Bar Association, who have strongly recommended delay so that there may be full opportunity to examine this matter. I know that the matter was discussed with him when he was at Banff attending the meetings of the Canadian Bar Association, and of course he would be the first to recognize the sincerity of purpose of the men who drafted that resolution.
This question is related to the whole constitutional problem. I am speaking now about the constitutional aspect of it, not about the ordinary civil appeals. I am referring to the appeals that will determine the constitutional position of this country in the future and the kind of federal system we shall have. I know that assurance has been given by the Prime Minister that the rights of the provinces will not be whittled down, but I cannot imagine what injury will follow by holding this back until there can be full consultation in regard to the whole question. I strongly urge that this matter be held back, along with others affecting the constitution, until the whole constitution and its interpretation and the system by which its terms will be interpreted can be discussed fully by the representatives of the dominion government and the provinces.
I am not arguing today for any status quo in regard to the constitution. On the contrary I believe that our constitution can in many respects simplify the procedure and avoid the duplication that now exists between governments. I am not going to go over the many things that have been said, but I want to emphasize that I have not changed my belief in a strong central government dealing with matters that are of national concern, and defined as being of national concern, and in strong provincial governments dealing with matters of provincial concern. But we shall 45781-13J
Supreme Court Act
cut down the cost of government if we clearly define the fields of responsibility and avoid much of the duplication which now exists, and if there is general agreement as to the kind of tribunal which will interpret the constitution of our country.
I think there is a good case for the setting up of a special committee to deal with this whole matter, to examine the problems involved and to give advice. This would be accompanied by the setting up of a constitutional convention fully representative of the people of Canada, both in the dominion and in the provincial sphere. In this way we would be making a more progressive move, not merely taking a partial step, the effects of which cannot be fully known until the remainder of the picture is fully understood and is fully seen.
I would urge the setting up of a committee to deal with this whole constitutional question. Similar committees have been set up in the past to deal with this very subject. There are within this chamber many men whose special knowledge would greatly advance the sound development of our constitution and the procedure by which it will be interpreted. Having regard to the view I have expressed that there should be opportunity for consultation in regard to the whole constitutional question, I intend to move an amendment. This is not a formal amendment but it does give the opportunity to do the thing I have urged. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the word "now" be left out and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.
I present this amendment, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that it will be accepted as the means by which an opportunity can be afforded to carry out an inquiry and discussion of the kind suggested by the Canadian Bar Association and others interested in this subject. That, I believe, would not only preserve for the future the advantages we have derived from the great constitution we have known in the past, but would also develop, as the foundation of an even greater Canada in the years ahead, one of the most effective, most workable, and most easily understood constitutions in the world.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the Prime Minister wish to say something?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and even thank him for much of the constructive material in the interesting speech he has just delivered. Of course I must at once disappoint his hopes that the government would accept this amend-

Supreme Court Act
ment for a six months' hoist of this bill. There are some portions of the last part of his speech with which I cannot agree, but may I say at once that I think we are all pursuing the same objective and have the same goal. We wish to maintain in Canada a federal system that will promote the further development of the Canadian nation.
The leader of the opposition has suggested that at this time there might be set up a constitutional committee to go into the question. I think he himself provided the answer to that suggestion because he said it had been done many times before and had got us nowhere.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to .interrupt, but I did not say it got us nowhere.
I said it had been done many times before.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It had been done many times, and, knowing the record, I add that it got us nowhere. The leader of the opposition says that whenever there has to be any kind of amendment whatsoever to any part of the constitution there should be consultation with the provinces. That is an opinion that is very frequently voiced, but it is one which we cannot accept. It would imply that the British North America Act is a contract, and that every clause thereof has the effect of a contract between the Canada that did not then exist and the provinces that did not then exist, but which would affect Canada as it now exists and as it came into being when the act was proclaimed, and the provinces which came into being at that time.
With that theory we are in diametric disagreement. We think the British North America Act is a statute which had the effect of distributing the sovereign powers of this young and growing nation between the central authority as to one part of them and the provincial authorities as to the other. We think that the central authority has no right whatsoever to deal with anything which was allocated to the provincial authorities; and on the other hand that the provincial authorities, legislatures and governments, in respect of matters which by the constitution were allocated to the federal parliament and the federal government, do not represent the people who inhabit their provinces. With respect to those matters allocated to the federal parliament and the federal government, the people inhabiting the provinces are represented by the members they elect to sit and vote for them in this House of Commons.
That is not only our theory. That has been the theory followed in practice since the earliest days of confederation. Not less than ten times from 1871 to 1949, amendments to the constitution have been proposed and made without consultation with the provincial gov-

ernments or the members of the provincial legislatures. That has been the practice, and in the responsible position we occupy we feel that we have no right to recognize that the provincial legislatures or provincial governments have any control whatsoever over those matters of public interest and national sovereignty allocated to the federal authority.
I do not wish to anticipate the debate which will arise when we propose the address respecting the amendment of the constitution foreshadowed in the speech from the throne, but in an effort to allay any anxieties which may exist in anyone's mind, that we are going to attempt to say where the dividing line is between federal and provincial jurisdiction, may I say that I tried to point out the other day, as reported at page 35 of Hansard, that that would be a function the legislative body would not undertake. The legislative body would merely use language which would leave it to the courts to say where the line of demarcation was drawn. The principle would be established that this parliament could deal with matters that had been allocated to it by the constitution, and could not deal with matters that had been allocated to the provinces, or with rights or privileges guaranteed to the provinces, or with rights or privileges in respect of schools, or in respect of the use of the English and French languages, as guaranteed by the constitution.
The language to be used would be language which would have to be construed by the courts in each individual case when a particular amendment was challenged. The courts would have to decide whether there had been an attempt to deal with a subject matter here which did not come within the class of subjects allocated to the federal authority. That is why I agree fully with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that the role, whether it be that of the privy council if this bill is not adopted, or that of the Supreme Court of Canada if it becomes the final tribunal for the decision of Canadian cases, will be a most important one. When there is a contest the Supreme Court of Canada will have the function of deciding which contestant is in the right and which contestant is in the wrong, not by creating new law but by applying the law as it exists.
That makes it extremely important to have the right kind of a court of justice to make that pronouncement, and the only purpose and effect of this bill is to assert that we can organize and have that kind of court in Canada. If there are hon. members, lawyers or laymen, who doubt that the Canadian nation can provide the kind of court that will be worthy of the respect of the nation, they should oppose this bill. But those of us who

feel that this nation can and should at this time provide the kind of great national institution that will be able to perform the important function of determining, whenever there is any clash of interest, on which side is the right and on which side is the wrong, will I believe support the move that is now made to have that kind of court created and to have it function here in Canada.
There seems to be a suggestion that it would be something extraordinary to talk of any kind of amendment that could affect the constitutional organization of the central power. But hon. members know that from the origin of the act the provincial legislatures have had that right, as expressed in subsection 1 of section 92 of the act:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant governor.
From time to time modifications have been made in provincial constitutions by those who had the authority and were concerned about them, and no one else was consulted or had to be consulted. What is forecast in the speech from the throne is that there will be an application to the parliament at Westminster to say that such amendments to the Canadian constitution as do not affect the jurisdiction of the provinces, or the rights or privileges secured to the provinces, or the minority rights I referred to previously, can be made here in this parliament instead of being made in the parliament at Westminster on motions or addresses adopted by this parliament. That is the only purpose and effect of the measure forecast in the speech from the throne. But that measure would leave to the courts the responsibility and the burden of deciding what is within provincial jurisdiction or constitutes a provincial right and what is of concern only to the federal authority and their decisions will be binding as they have been in the past.
As to the resolution adopted by the Canadian Bar Association, I think it is worthy of great respect because I believe that all those who attend such a meeting, as do those who attend meetings of other professional bodies, attempt to act objectively and to give their fellow citizens the benefit of the best kind of opinion and advice they can tender. I think perhaps the most important provision of this resolution is that when the appeal to the privy council is abolished, provision should be made that the court consist of nine judges; and there are various organizational provisions that are contained in the legislation now
Supreme Court Act
submitted to this house. But subparagraph (g) of the resolution reads as follows:
That the rule of stare decisis ought to continue to be applied with respect to past decisions of the court, as well as with respect to past decisions of the judicial committee.
That is something with which I entirely agree. I think it is a part of the system of the administration of justice in British countries that the decisions are regarded as binding upon themselves and upon all courts of lower jurisdiction, until they are modified or set aside by legislative action. I think that forms part of the duties which a lawyer promoted to the bench promises on his oath to carry out. On his oath he promises to apply the law until such time, if any, as a legislature interferes with it. I would imagine that Canadian judges, sworn to apply and uphold the law, would be as faithful to their oaths of office as are hon. gentlemen called to sit as members of the judicial committee of the privy council in London. I believe that to be the case. If I did not, I would be opposed to this bill. But because I believe it to be the case, I have as firm confidence in a judicial body set up and operated in Canada and composed of my fellow Canadian citizens as I would have in a similar body set up and operating in any other country in the world.
Some suggestion has been made that constitutional cases should not go to the court of last resort. Why? It has been suggested that there should not be political controversy around the decisions of the courts. There should not be political controversies around the decisions of a court of last resort because such controversies would be quite futile unless, as might happen in some cases, they are directed to the obtaining of a legislative amendment of what has been declared by the judgment to be the existing law. But there is no other way to get a judicial pronouncement-and that is what is wanted in cases of dispute-than to have it made by a court of justice.
When our constitution was enacted, it was provided in express terms by section 96 of the British North America Act that:
The governor general shall appoint the judges of the superior, district, and county courts in each province, except those of the courts of probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Then section 101 provides:
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance, and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada.
That system has been operating for something over eighty years. I do not think there is any country in the world in which there is greater respect for the courts of justice,


Major James William Coldwell: During the years that I have been a member of the House of Commons, there have been discussions of matters similar to the subject which has been under consideration this afternoon. On every occasion the debates have been of a very high order. Those of us who are not lawyers have followed them with keen interest and have learned a great deal, not only about the judiciary of our own country but about its constitution and the application of that constitution both provincially and federally. The speeches which have been made on this occasion by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), have been of a very high order, and have given both this house and the country a great deal of information, and elucidated many of the arguments pro and con in relation to this important matter of appeals to the privy council.
Of course, the bill before us now is not new to those of us who have been in the house for some time. This bill is similar in terms to that which was introduced by the Minister of Justice last January. It is similar to a bill which was introduced in two sessions of the last parliament by the then hon. member for Kindersley, Mr. Jaenicke, K.C., who brought his bill before the house in a very able manner. I think everyone who was here appreciated what he did in that regard. While the fortunes of the election have removed him from the house, nevertheless, some of us
Supreme Court Act
remember the contribution that he mcde. Incidentally, in discussing this today I wish to say that to some extent at least I am relying upon the research work which he did in connection with this matter.
No matter what one's particular views are, one is always a little sorry when old traditions are broken and old ways to some extent set aside. One does not have to be of a conservative nature to feel that. When I see Mr. Speaker enter the chamber, or when I hear the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod knock on the door seeking admission, or when I see the mace lifted and placed on the table or removed from it, I am reminded that these gestures go deep down into our history and are a part of our traditions, of our parliamentary institution, and of our race. But the world moves forward and we have to cope with new conditions in new ways.
The privy council is one of those very interesting institutions which seem to have arisen without any conscious direction in the long history of our parliament and of our judiciary. William the Norman, who became King of England, ruled the Channel islands, and a method had to be found for him, as such, to deal with legal matters that arose in another part of his domain. From this through the years there gradually developed appeals to a committee of the king's privy council.
In volume 1 of the Dominion Law Reports of 1947 hon. members can read, as I have read with a great deal of interest, the judgment delivered by the judicial committee of the privy council by Lord Jowitt, the Lord Chancellor, on the appeal taken to the privy council on this parliament's right to deal with this matter. It was opposed by some provinces, supported by other provinces, and initiated by the government of Canada. On page 814 his lordship made two very important pronouncements which confirmed the view often expressed by members in this house who supported the idea of abolition of appeals to the privy council.
Speaking of this party, I may say that in our initial manifesto, adopted in Regina in July 1933, we included the suggestion that appeals to the privy council should be abolished. In his pronouncement at pages 814 and 815 Lord Jowitt refers to the changed circumstances which resulted from the passage of the Statute of Westminster, the spirit of which, he concluded, must confer the widest possible power on the Canadian parliament. Let me quote what Lord Jowitt said in that judgment:
It is in fact a prime element in the self-government of the dominion that it should be able to secure through its own courts of justice that the law should be one and the same for all its citizens.

Supreme Court Act He went on:
This result is attainable only if section 101 of the British North America Act now authorizes the establishment of a court with final and exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
As a layman it seems to me that that simply means that there could be no restriction on legislation adopted by a fully sovereign state, such as Canada now is, having of course, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) have pointed out this afternoon, regard to the rights of the provinces which are set out in the British North America Act. As the Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon, in section 92 of the British North America Act the rights of the provinces are set out. With the judgment of the privy council on the question initiated by Canada before us, surely there can be no question as to the right of this parliament to pass the legislation which has been moved for second reading by the Minister of Justice.
Over the years I have listened, as I have already said, to long constitutional arguments in this house on the question whether we could or could not deal with this matter. As I remember, eminent lawyers including Hon. C. H. Cahan who, I believe, occupied the very seat from which the leader of the opposition spoke today, Mr. Justice Thorson of the Exchequer Court of Canada, then the member for Selkirk, and of course the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe discussed the question at some length. It seems to me that with the judgment now before us the topic then under discussion is no longer necessary.
A moment ago I referred to Mr. Jaenicke's contributions. The other day I looked up what he had to say in certain particulars. At page 2948 of Hansard of May 9, 1947, he said that there can be no argument that the abolition of appeals to the privy council would take away the age-old prerogative of the king of hearing appeals of his subjects.
There can be no argument that that is being done. He correctly stated that His Majesty never hears appeals personally but depends on his judges. He then went on to say:
In making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal we simply substitute His Majesty's Canadian judges as the final arbiters upon any grievances brought before him by his subjects in Canada.
It seems to me that that is the whole point of this legislation at the present time; that we make our own courts, our own judiciary, an arm of our government, the sole, the final arbiters of any matter that a citizen or a province wishes to be dealt with by a court.
There is a very interesting book that I would recommend to hon. members who have 
not seen it, particularly if they are new members. I suggest that they get a copy of it and study it in relation to these matters and the rights, privileges and powers of our federal parliament. It is a book written by Mr. Maurice Ollivier, one of the outstanding legal advisers of this parliament. It is entitled "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty". Mr. Ollivier has a very interesting quotation along the same lines as that which I was giving a moment ago. It is a quotation from Lord Haldane. He quotes him as follows:
The prerogative of the crown is a vague expression . . . Since Lord Coke vindicated the powers of parliament in the days of James I, it has been clear that the sovereign can only administer justice in courts recognized by parliament, and that he cannot interfere with the judges who preside in these courts.
And later on, in the same book, Mr. Ollivier, at page 345, points out that if the judgment of the privy council is merely an order in council passed on the advice of a group of imperial advisers, to give effect to the report of the judicial committee of the privy council, it is high time that the right of appeal to a United Kingdom committee should be abolished. And the king, in his capacity as King of Canada, should act on the advice of his Canadian ministers. For, as stated in the report of the imperial conference of 1926, it is the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown in all matters relating to its own affairs.
If we adopt this bill-and I have no doubt parliament will adopt it, because I can see no purpose in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition except, of course, to kill the measure during this session of parliament-what we are actually doing, it seems to me, is to take for Canada the attributes of sovereignty which a self-governing nation should and must assume. Surely it does not break any valuable link with the commonwealth of nations. Indeed, in my opinion it removes what perhaps might become, and in some instances in the past has become, a somewhat fruitful cause of friction and of discontent.
Nor can I see that it jeopardizes in any particular the rights of Canadians, or their privileges as free citizens of this country. Surely one of the rights and privileges of free citizenship is the right of self-government; and to my mind this measure is a step in the direction of self-government for the Canadian people.
In support of my statement a moment ago, that this might at times become a cause of friction, let me quote the late Mr. Cahan in that memorable speech to which I listened in the House of Commons, which I am sure those of us who were then here will not

forget, and which some of us have from time to time read. His speech was delivered in April, 1939, and in part he said:
The more free the people of Canada are from the officious intervention in our domestic affairs by the government of the United Kingdom, the more readily will our people assume and fulfil the duties and responsibilities which are implied in our continued membership in the British commonwealth.
This was said, may I observe, by a leading member of the Conservative party in the House of Commons. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Hon. C. H. Cahan was the only member of the house at that time who had had personal contact and acquaintance with many of the fathers of confederation. There may have been others who knew one or two of them, but Mr. Cahan had known many.
The privy council up to now has had the power to declare ultra vires laws passed by this parliament. That being so, since it has that power, it is an integral part of the government of Canada. That is to say, it is a judicial arm of this country. Its composition and its procedure, however, are entirely beyond the control of Canada and of Canadians. And so long as these appeals remain, the nationhood of this country is restricted and denied.
As Chief Justice the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Duff said, and I believe it was to him the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was referring this afternoon, though he did not name him:
No legislature in Canada has. of course, anything to say about the constitution of the judicial committee or about its organization. Provision for all such matters is, as I have said, made by the legislature of the United Kingdom, and orders in council pursuant to authority derived therefrom.
In other words, as I have said, Canada is not fully self-governing so long as appeals to the privy council remain.
Sometimes, as the Prime Minister noted this afternoon, a Canadian judge has sat during deliberations of the privy council, but only at its invitation and not as of right. This, however, is seldom done. Indeed, when it is done it makes no real difference because the majority of the judges are non-Canadians who, as their judgments have shown, know very little about Canada and less about a federal system of government. That, of course, is quite natural; I do not criticize them for that, because they are familiar with a unitary form of government in which parliament is supreme, and where there is no division of powers between a central government and the provinces.
Let me say that Canada's action in abolishing appeals to the privy council is not without some, though perhaps incomplete, precedent within our commonwealth. The con-
Supreme Court Act
stitution of Australia, I believe, limits the scope of such appeals. And while the right remains in New Zealand and South Africa they very seldom use it because, like the United Kingdom, they are unitary nations with one government for all the country.
Then there is this consideration which has been brought before the House of Commons and emphasized particularly by the late Mr. Cahan and by Mr. J. T. Thorson in years gone by. I refer to results of appeals to the privy council. I believe what they said in the house regarding this matter is also the consensus among our own constitutional authorities, namely that our federal system as visualized by the fathers of confederation has been seriously impaired and the powers of this parliament greatly reduced by the decisions of the privy council from time to time.
When we deal with the constitutional matter implicit in proposals in the speech from the throne I have no doubt some of these aspects will be discussed. A reading of the debates leading up to confederation, and of the acts of this parliament after confederation, indicates that Sir John A. Macdonald and others among the fathers of confederation expected that the powers of this parliament might at least remain as they were intended to be. Sir John A. Macdonald expected that they might even be expanded, as time went by. So even if some people believe-and I do not think there are any in this House of Commons who do-that the privy council might be more trustworthy than our supreme court, that would not justify our refusal to accept the responsibility of judicial self-government. Indeed, until we accept all the obligations of political maturity we cannot in my opinion expect to develop truly responsible citizenship in our country. I must say that I find it rather difficult to follow or to understand the position of some provinces that are opposing this parliament's right to deal with the abolition of appeals to the privy council. I find it very difficult to understand why they should oppose a bill of this description.
In preparation for this debate and to get the background, I was reading the other day the interesting debates which took place at the time our supreme court was set up in 1875. In those days we did not have a Hansard as we have today, but very complete reports were kept in the third person of what the various people had to say. I noticed particularly the opinion of members of this house at that time from the province of Quebec. For example, Mr. Taschereau doubted the right to discontinue appeals to the privy council under the legislation that
202

Supreme Court Act
then existed, but he had this to say, and I quote from page 739 of the debates of 1875:
True, the appeal to the privy council had often proved fatal to suitors who had succeeded in all their courts, and sometimes by the unanimous voice of all their judges in Lower Canada.
True, some of the decisions of the privy council had been rendered contrary to the plainest principles of their civil law, but this evil had been and is, a necessary and inevitable one.
Why did he say that it was necessary and inevitable? He pointed out that the system of law in that province was vastly different in some respects from the laws of England which they were called upon to interpret. Mr. Langlois said, as reported on page 932, that there was a growing feeling in the province of Quebec in favour of abolishing appeals to the privy council and that one factor was the expense involved which militated against a poor litigant.
How true that is. That is one reason why we have so warmly supported the abolition of appeals to the privy council. Only people of wealth or corporations and provinces with great resources can carry through an appeal to the privy council. In other words, the poor litigant is denied recourse to the final court of appeal under the procedure we have had in our country for some generations. Then Mr. Laflamme is reported on page 935 as follows:
As to the allegation that the court would be perfectly useless so far as the province of Quebec was concerned, its peculiar institutions were undoubtedly threatened with danger when cases were decided by a tribunal most of whom were ignorant of the laws of Lower Canada, and he would oppose the bill if he were not convinced that its passage would have the effect of abolishing appeals to the privy council.
I could go on to quote a number of statements along the same line. One interesting record in connection with that debate is that Mr. Irving moved on third reading for the abolition of appeals to the privy council. A vote was taken and his motion was carried by people who were close to confederation, not after consultation with the provinces, by 112 to 40. A vast majority of the members of the house who were close to confederation, who understood all the considerations behind the constitutional agreements that had been achieved, were in favour, not only of setting up a supreme court but of making it the final court and abolishing appeals to the privy council. Subsequently the decision was changed.
But nations move slowly. I could not quite follow the leader of the opposition this afternoon when he said that there was no reason for haste, that we should move more slowly. As the records of parliament show, this mat-

ter has been discussed for the last 75 years. I hope that we do not move as slowly in improving our social and economic conditions in the next 75 years as we have been in bringing a measure of this description before the House of Commons for decision in 1949.
We support this proposal. If a vote is taken on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, of course we shall vote against it. We believe the time has arrived when this measure should be adopted. The constitutional discussions foreshadowed in the speech from the throne must go on, but it seems to me that this is a matter separate from those discussions. This bill gives a court already set up the power to decide, to the ultimate end, cases arising in Canada.
Because we believe that this is the proper step, recognized by the law lords of the judicial committee of the privy council themselves as the right thing for Canada to do, we support it. Since I have been a member of parliament I have followed the British Hansard, on the several occasions when at Canada's request constitutional changes have been made, to see what happens in the British house. I find that they are moved and carried with a few perfunctory remarks.
When a Conservative member of the British house was visiting Canada a few years ago I asked him what the House of Commons in Great Britain would do in regard to any constitutional change that Canada might ask for and he said, "We would pass it without any question and largely without any discussion." Consequently I think the time has surely arrived when we should take unto ourselves the attributes of nationhood, and one of those attributes is that we should have our own judiciary interpret our own laws and our own constitution. That is why we should have our own Canadian court of last resort.
Because we are of this opinion we shall support the second reading of this bill.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the house because I think the subject before us has been discussed quite thoroughly, but I feel sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would welcome a statement as to our position on this important measure. The government proposes by Bill No. 2 to abolish appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council. I notice that the bill provides that the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada as it will be constituted shall be final and conclusive in civil, criminal and constitutional cases.
The whole question of privy council appeal has been under consideration and study more or less intensively for a good many

years. Therefore it seems to me that we must make a final decision in the matter some time. Perhaps now is just as good a time as any to do the job. Surely it cannot be argued that Canada has not reached the age of responsibility. If we have not, then I doubt very much whether we ever shall.
That being the case, I feel that the bill should not be hoisted, but that a final decision should be reached by logical reasoning after debate, and after every argument that can be adduced before this assembly has been brought forward and considered.
Many good reasons can be cited to support the contention that appeals from the Canadian courts to the judicial committee of the privy council should be abolished now. Indeed, I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) listed a number of them in his speech when he introduced the bill. I cannot find myself in disagreement with any that he put before the house. I can think of no really important reasons why the step should not be taken at least within a matter of the next few months. If the passage of Bill No. 2 becomes the first step towards the early adoption of a suitable procedure for constitutional amendment within Canada, a procedure that is acceptable to the provinces as well as to the dominion, then we of the Social Credit party welcome the bill.
A clear-cut formula for constitutional amendment would certainly remove a great deal of confusion as well as a number of causes of friction between the federal and provincial governments. Nevertheless, I believe that the bill could have been introduced by the government at a more propitious time, a time better calculated to inspire confidence and good will between the various governments of the country. I do not mean to imply by that statement that I believe the bill should be hoisted, as suggested in the amendment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has already consulted the premiers of the various provinces as to a dominion-provincial conference. That conference is to consider ways and means of deciding on a procedure for constitutional amendment, and for the allocation of responsibilities between the provincial and dominion governments. That being the case, it seems to me that the provinces would have felt much more confident had the conference been held first, the procedure arrived at, and then the bill brought in. Then they certainly would have had something definite and tangible to take the place of what exists now.
That is my only criticism. Perhaps the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister may have something to say at a later time which will relieve the fears of at least some 45781-14J
Supreme Court Act
of the provinces that they might possibly be left without a definite procedure in which they could have complete confidence, a procedure for the amendment of the constitution when that becomes necessary as the result of dispute on any point. Apart from that, I cannot think of any cogent reason why the bill should not pass now, and I propose to support it.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that if I had known one of my colleagues was going away I would have given way to him very gladly, but I did not know anything about it. I may say that a private bill, somewhat similar, was introduced in the sessions of the house in the past four years, and I occupied some time of the house discussing the matter because I did not believe in the principle of the bill.
As to the bill now before the house, the procedure on second reading of a bill, according to the British and Canadian practice, is laid down in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 228, section 656, which reads as follows:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure.
Section, 657 states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees...
And so on. Therefore under the rules of this house and under British practice the proper place to discuss the question of the principle of a bill is on second reading. The following is stated in the thirteenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, at page 709:
The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure.
I believe that is our practice, and that if we approve of the principle we automatically approve of the bill. There are two classes of appeals to the privy council. They may be described as (a) appeals by statutory right, and (b) appeals as a matter of grace.
It is most important to remember this and to find the key to the solution of this great national problem. For that reason, on the first reading I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to explain (a) what are statutory rights and (b) what are appeals as a matter of grace, and to clarify it to the house, because the proposed amendments to the Supreme Court Act do not even mention it.

Supreme Court Act
It is the first time since I have been in the house that a minister of the crown has not answered a civil and proper question, and has refused to give me information about a bill.
I am not surprised at the present minister bringing in a bill such as the one before the house. It is altogether different from the various private bills which have been introduced in the past. One of them was brought in for four years in a row by the former member for Kindersley, Mr. Jaenicke. He was a member of the C.C.F. The present bill goes much further than his, which was a private bill introduced by a private member. The government is now attempting to do something about this matter. I may say that I look upon the bill as very largely a political bill. The minister has even failed to say who is asking for it.
I once described the House of Commons, when I first entered it, as a gentlemen's social club. That is what it is intended to be. As individual members we cannot all think alike, because we are different by temperament and training, environment and education, and in many other ways. I am strongly opposed to the bill. These are my own honest views after many years' study of the problem. If you look at the matter more closely and examine the context of the bill you will see that it is different from the bills introduced on the same subject by private members. This bill is mentioned in the speech from the throne with a great flourish of trumpets. They indicate what they are going to do. I look on all these matters as secondary. They want to propose a change in the office of the governor general. We have one of the greatest soldiers of all times as our governor general now. He is the greatest soldier in the history of the world. They want a change in the flag, in the text of the anthem, in the name of Dominion day; they want to end appeals to the privy council, and to do many similar things.
In my opinion those matters are only secondary when people have not houses in which to live, and should be allowed to stand over. At its meeting at Calgary the Canadian Bar Association asked that this bill should stand over. The bar is against it. In Ontario and Quebec the bill is not worth the paper it is written on at the present time, because a contract was made at confederation and it cannot be overriden here. As I say, these matters are only secondary; they are not primary.
Let us now look at this bill that was forecast in the speech from the throne and see what it actually means. What are appeals by statutory right? My answer is that they

are based on some statute, either provincial or dominion. In Ontario and Quebec there is the right of appeal on certain matters. This bill extinguishes that right. In the case of Ontario and Quebec this right is based on a contract made at confederation and before. In the other provinces the situation is somewhat the same, but it may vary in the mari-times.
I should like to quote what the Hon. Howard Ferguson, who was then premier of Ontario, said when he dealt with this matter. This is in a textbook on the Statute of Westminster. I think it is one of the most learned textbooks I have ever read. It is written by a great teacher in England, a great student and a great professor. At page 183 of his book, "The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status", Mr. K. C. Wheare, the author, says:
The report of the O.D.L. conference-
He is referring to a committee that met here when my former leader was Prime Minister. -was unanimously approved by the Canadian House of Commons in May, 1930 ... At the general election of July, 1930, the Conservative party, under the leadership of Mr. R. B. Bennett, was returned to power. Before Mr. Bennett left for the imperial conference of 1930 he received from the premier of Ontario, Mr. Howard Ferguson, also a Conservative, a memorandum in which the terms of the proposed statute were severely examined.
In a footnote the author states:
The following statement of the course of events is based upon Mr. Bennett's survey of negotiations in his speech, introducing the resolution requesting the passing of the statute, in the Canadian House of Commons in 1931.
Then at the bottom of page 183 the quotation continues:
In particular the two clauses quoted above were criticised as vague and inconclusive, and it was asserted "that no restatement of the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada can be accepted by the province of Ontario that does not fully and frankly acknowledge the right of all the provinces to be consulted and to become parties to the decision arrived at." Quebec and all the other provinces proved to be in agreement with these views. In consequence it was necessary for the Canadian delegation at the imperial conference of 1930 to ask that, in effect, the whole question of the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, in its application to Canada, should be left in suspense until the views of the provinces on the matter could be obtained. The reference to the Dominion of Canada and to the provinces of Canada was therefore deleted from the proposed clause, and it appeared in the schedule drawn up by the conference with a specific reference to Australia and New Zealand only. It was stated that "a section dealing exclusively with the Canadian position will be inserted after the representations of the provinces have received consideration."
What happened in New Zealand and in Australia? This so-called Statute of Westminster was one of the most mischievous statutes I think we have ever had in the history of the British empire because it caused a divided situation. Hon. members will notice

that clauses 6 to 13 of the Statute of Westminster were the reason that Australia and New Zealand had nothing to do with it; and they refused to do so until recently when they thought that, owing to the dollar and pound situation, they might consent to it. Those two dominions of Australia and New Zealand were excepted by clauses 6 to 13 of the Statute of Westminster, this statute which has caused so much trouble in the dominions and has divided the empire accordingly.
If we look at this bill more closely, what do we find? The right of appeal has existed in Canada since 1791, under the Constitutional Act by which we adopted so much of British law as was applicable or adapted to our circumstances. The bill does not allow an appeal in every case but only in a few. It is limited. The exact text and provisions of the statute and the restrictions on it are secured. Section 92 of the British North America Act, subsection 13, dealing with property and civil rights in the provinces, deals with matters of local import, and section 91 deals with federal rights. Provincial rights may or may not be protected accordingly.
First we have what is known as the Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider case. I myself was on that case. In the lower courts in Canada they had been beaten, both on injunction and on appeal to the court of appeal. At the assizes they were beaten, and they appealed to the privy council and won It over there. As I say, and as I have contended all along, in the Metropolitan case on Yonge street, where the Metropolitan railway had the right to run freight cars right down Yonge street from lake Simcoe, and then sought to make a connection with the C.P.R. and get running rights, had they been successful it would have destroyed municipal institutions and we would never have been able to take over the street railway. We appealed to the privy council in those two cases and the privy council gave a favourable decision. In my opinion the privy council is one court where the litigant can get substantial justice. I do not say that justice cannot be obtained in all of the courts, but decisions of the lower courts are appealable, and until the final decision is given you have not a pronouncement on the law as it is contained in the textbooks.
I have now and always have had every confidence in the Canadian courts because I myself am a member of the bar. I have always had a great respect and admiration for the way in which the magistrates, the county court judges, the high court judges and the others carry out their exceedingly laborious and difficult duties in Canada.
I may say that the bill that is proposed does not mention or consider some of these
Supreme Court Act
things at all. Most of the provinces' appeals to the privy council are by special leave. This class of appeal is in the exercise of the king's prerogative right. The bill now proposed by the minister is unlike some private bills that preceded it; it goes much further. The Supreme Court Act is now and always has been as contained in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 35, section 54. If that stands by itself, judgments established by it are final and conclusive.
When the Supreme Court Act was passed in 1875, it would have been competent for the parliament of Canada to provide for a statutory right of appeal to the privy council as it long had existed in the two old provinces of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, and I think it is also in the maritimes act. But in the act creating the Supreme Court of Canada the federal parliament not only omitted to include any statutory right of appeal from the decisions of that court, but also in express terms negatived that right of appeal. Some years ago, in other attempts at abolition of appeals to the privy council, all were not unanimous and the situation was only partly covered by limiting appeals to cases where the Supreme Court of Canada had not been unanimous. But none of these methods of appeal ever affected the prerogative right to appeal as a matter of grace. Notwithstanding this bill now before the house and the other federal bills of private members, none of them can sanction the taking away, by any statute whatever, of the prerogative right of the sovereign king in appeals of grace. Is it not a blessing we have had that language? Any British subject, whether in Britain, in the dominions or in any other place in the empire, has a right to petition His Majesty on the throne, and it will be a sorry day for this country when that right is taken away. The prerogative rights of the king are matters of empire policy, and no parliament in Britain or the empire can lessen or take away that right of grace.
We have some examples of this in Scripture, especially in the story about the Apostle St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles was written by St. Luke. In that book we have the story of how the Apostle Paul appealed first to Governor Festus. He said, "I appeal unto Caesar." Then he was brought before King Agrippa, and the king was almost persuaded to be a Christian. Finally, when the Apostle Paul said he appealed to Caesar, something happened and he was sent to Rome.
Statutory appeals were provided for those who had a claim against either the federal or the provincial government, and this right of appeal to the privy council is now being revoked. The king cannot be brought into court without his consent, but his consent is

Supreme Court Act
given through the attorney general of Canada or the attorney general of the province. These appeals are to the foot of the throne. It is merely an application to the attorney general, who represents the public, that the king give his consent to the claim being tried. The attorney general of Canada has many of these applications and usually passes them as a matter of form. Sir Allen Aylesworth said that during the time he was Minister of Justice he had forty-five such applications.
If this bill passes it can only affect certain classes of federal cases, but it cannot affect provincial cases since the provinces of Ontario and Quebec claim provincial consent is necessary. The bill before the house only seeks to restrict that prerogative; it cannot take away the right to present a petition as a matter of grace. This bill seeks to make the prerogative right a matter of statute, but appeals of grace are the result of government by monarchy.
The fact that the king was head of the state led to the doctrine that "the king is the source and fountain of justice". This was not always so under the Norman and early Plantagenet kings, during which time there were no judges and no courts except the court of the king. As the work of the king increased he delegated the administration of justice to others; thus law courts were constituted. In matters of grace, the king is still the source and fountain of justice. These are simply appeals to the king as head of the state.
There is no difference in principle between appeals from British courts and appeals from dominion courts. In both cases the appeal is to the House of Lords because London is the central place in the empire. These appeals go to the judicial committee of the privy council. Some of the members of this body are not members of the House of Lords, as . Sir Charles Fitzpatrick and Sir William Mulock were, and Sir Lyman Duff now is. Sir Lyman is a member of the judicial committee of the privy council

as the two others I have mentioned were-because he was a member of the imperial privy council.
Three important ministers of justice opposed this principle. The first was the minister of justice who took part in the Bering Sea arbitration, Sir Allen Aylesworth. He made a statement on this subject in an important debate in the Senate on June 18, 1936, which can be found at page 552 of the Senate debates, if members wish to see it. The next gentleman to whom I wish to refer is Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, and a very great lawyer. He was one of those retained

to defend Louis Riel in Regina in 1885. As one of the great lawyers of that day, he was opposed to the abolition of appeals to the privy council. Mr. Conant, one-time attorney general of Ontario, was of the same opinion.
May I quote a few words from Sir Charles Fitzpatrick:
In no part of the King's dominions has greater service been rendered by the judicial committee than in Canada, particularly since confederation.
Since 1867, the judicial committee has been called upon in scores of eases to trace out the line of demarcation between federal and provincial jurisdiction, and it must be truthfully said that the result has been eminently satisfactory. Removed, as the majority of judges are, from all local strifes, desirous as they are to distribute the most impartial justice, it is not surprising that the right of appeal to the King in his privy council is one of the privileges most highly prized by the people of the dominion. I do not mean to say that there has not been exception taken to the freedom with which appeals may be carried to the privy council in ordinary civil matters, but whatever view may obtain in other parts of the empire, so far as Canada is concerned, I think I may safely say that, amongst lawyers and judges competent to speak on the subject, there is but one opinion, that where constitutional questions are concerned an appeal to the judicial committee must always be retained.
I am offering that opinion to balance to some extent the opposite opinions which have been offered. I rather think the judicial committee of the privy council has rendered a real service to Canada. Their decisions have been one judgment, no dissenting judgments.
At one time Attorney General Conant, one of the most respected attorneys general, directed public attention to the contentious question of abolishing appeals to the privy council. At that time the proposal had been introduced by the Hon. C. H. Cahan. Then, as always, opinion was found to be strongly divided, and the bill was held over when the minister of justice suggested that it was too important a matter for summary decision.
It is important, vitally important, to the future of Canada and the commonwealth. The considered opinion of Ontario's attorney general should be a valuable guide to the House of Commons. His opinion is based on both domestic and imperial considerations, none of which can or should be left out of unbiased deliberation. He said that he had the greatest respect for the appeal court and all other Canadian courts, but was inclined to the view that in matters involving constitutional questions, particularly in issues between the dominion and a province, or provinces, the right of appeal to the privy council should be continued.
This, emphatically, is not the view of some who are, perhaps, quite as competent to judge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Pouliot:: I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, is it understood that the member for Broadview has adjourned the debate?


Mr. Knowles:: No, the member for Temis-couata.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the member for Broadview has not completed his remarks?


Thomas Langton Church: I have not finished.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the member for Broadview was still speaking when I interrupted him to say it was six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms services-
14.	Central experimental farm, $1,330,560.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The other evening when this item was before the committee the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the minister certain questions about the experimental farm here at Ottawa. The questions had to do with the additional acreage purchased in recent years and the price paid for it. Has the minister the answer to these questions?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I shall have the answers as soon as my officials are here with them. They were all prepared. I left them to be brought in. Probably the officials did not think we would get to this item quite so soon. I suggest that we let this item stand for the time being and return to it later.
Item stands.
15.	Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $3,819,403.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest that this item stand also.
Item stands.
Production service-health of animals-
17. Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,868,297.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have to rise again for about the third time in three sessions to bring to the minister's attention a matter which is of paramount importance to those who are directly affected. Perhaps I should wait until item 18 is called, but I shall continue on item 17 and what I have to say will apply to item 18.
Supply-Agriculture
In connection with inspection for tuberculosis in certain areas in Ontario, and it applies as well to a certain case in Nova Scotia, in former years the question of compensation for those reactors which went down under the T.B. test was a matter of acute concern because there were two special cases: one, that of a man near Stayner, by the name of McIntyre, and the other, that of a man in Nova Scotia whose name I am not able to recall at the moment. In the McIntyre case, which I raised in the house in previous sessions and do not hesitate to raise again because of the principle involved, the herd had been tested for T.B. for years before. In 1946, if my memory serves me correctly-I did not bring my notes down with me, but the minister will know of it because it has been brought up before-a further test was made, and of 44 cattle in his herd 43 went down. At that particular time the vaccine or the serum had been changed. Those who are acquainted with veterinary science and are more familiar with it than I am will bear me out when I say that, when there is a change in the vaccine, very often strange reactions occur in the test and sometimes herds which are normally regarded as completely free from tuberculosis go down and are taken to the abattoirs. The farmers lose their first-class, registered producing stock and they are sold at the slaughter price. It is true there is compensation; but, as the minister knows, it does not come anywhere near meeting the loss that the farmer sustains in losing as large a number as that.
When the vaccine was changed these cattle all reacted. As the minister knows, a check is always made in the abattoirs to see whether or not there are signs of T.B. in the meat which comes from the slaughtered reactors. If my memory serves me correctly, in this case only one of the 43 cattle was found at the abattoir to show any sign whatever of tuberculosis. One of them showed some signs of having had pneumonia at one time, but that fell somewhat short of tuberculosis. Naturally the farmer was much concerned about it. It practically put him out of business. Time after time urgent representations were made to the government but nothing whatever was done. He has had to suffer because of that. In addition, when I brought the matter up in the house two or three years ago for the first time a man in Nova Scotia wrote to me saying that he had had a similar experience. It is not widespread. If it were, perhaps the government might conceivably be somewhat influenced by the question of financial outlay which would be involved. So far as I know, there are very few cases of that kind. Because there are

Supply-Agriculture
few cases it constitutes discrimination against those farmers who are affected.
I know it is difficult to prove that it was the vaccine, but nevertheless a change of vaccine was made at that time. It seems to me that if the government are to change the vaccine, which means the very basis of the test of the cattle, and that change of vaccine means that the farmer's herd goes down when normally it would not react unfavourably, the government and not the individual farmer himself ought to bear the difference in the loss.
As I say, I regret having to raise the question again because I had hoped that before now some adjustment would have been made in connection with it. I have not been in touch with either of the parties for some considerable time but my understanding is that the government has not done anything about it. I would be glad to hear the minister say that something has been done. I do hope he will take into consideration the representations which I have now made. Neither of these people happened to be in my riding so I hope the minister will understand that I am putting forward something that is not of personal interest but rather a matter of general and public concern. For that reason I hope that the department will give consideration to it.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, last spring I referred to an item somewhat similar to that which has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Peel. I do not think the department is satisfied yet as to what caused that outbreak. Those cattle were tested about eleven months before, but the whole herd went down.
I raised certain points at that time. I have inquired into the matter deeply, and I felt at that time and I still feel that the feeding of dairy ration might have had something to do with it. However, I shall ask a question about that later. In the county of Lanark we are proud of our herds. It seems to me, however, that the better they get in developing blood lines, or perhaps it may be through inbreeding, the less resistance they seem to have to brucellosis, and particularly to tuberculosis.
Grade herds are passing all right. But every once in a while one of these good herds is seriously affected with tuberculosis, which wipes out the whole herd. Many of these herds are built from the ground up and represent the lifework of farmers. The compensation given does not begin to cover the loss suffered by the farmers. If a cow is worth a thousand dollars and the farmer 
receives the ordinary compensation from the government it does not begin to cover his loss incurred in building up a herd of that type.
The three chief diseases affecting those cattle are mastoiditis, tuberculosis and brucellosis-and I have talked about brucellosis in this chamber for the last four years. These diseases make the raising of purebred stock a hazardous occupation, so far as a farmer's finances are concerned.
I would appeal to the minister to have something done to help out these farmers. I saw an excellent propaganda film last spring dealing with mastoiditis. This film was put out by the government, and I am wondering if the Department of Agriculture could not make some arrangement whereby farmers might obtain some of the sulpha drugs at drug stores simply by signing for them. They could be given instructions how to give early treatment to these cattle. They could be instructed in the use of penicillin.
The situation in regard to brucellosis or Bang's disease has not changed. For four years I have advocated that something further be done by way of vaccination to help these people. Tuberculosis is another hazard-and a big one when we find farmers whose purebred herds are wiped out. There is no redress, except the minor compensation given by the Department of Agriculture. I realize the department could not possibly pay a thousand dollars for every cow destroyed but I am wondering if it could foster some form of insurance. It appears that the better the strains of cattle we get the more diminished is the immunity against these diseases.
As I have said, the grade cattle seem to get along all right, but when the blood line is developed, and possibly because of some inbreeding, it becomes apparent that the cattle are more susceptible to these diseases.
I leave these suggestions with the minister Something has to be done; otherwise it would not pay a young man to spend his life developing a herd of cattle. I realize that the government could not be expected to pay the true value of these cattle, but something could be done to help out the farmers so that they would get higher compensation for animals destroyed.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member for Peel pointed out, after he got under way, he was really discussing item 18, rather than item 17. We have not yet called item 18, and have had no discussion on item 17. Item 16 has been passed, and I am wondering if we might revert to item 14 so that we may discuss items 14 and 15. I have the infor-

mation here now, and if there is nothing further to be said on item 17 1 would suggest that we go to item 14.
Item stands.
14. Central experimental farm, $1,330,560.


James Garfield Gardiner: The other evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked a question with regard to the Ottawa central experimental farm, and questions were also asked by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. The first question was as to the size of the central experimental farm at Ottawa. I am informed that the size of the farm is 1194-4 acres, made up in the following way:	The old original farm, 468 acres;
the Caldwell farm of 300 acres, purchased some time ago and added to it; the Scott farm of 65 acres; and the Booth farm of 361-4 acres, making a total of 1194-4 acres.
Then, with respect to the land added to the central farm in the last two or three years, I would point out that the Caldwell farm of 300 acres was added in 1947 at a total cost of $75,000, averaging $250 per acre. In 1949 the Scott farm of 65 acres was added at a total cost of $56,000, at an average of $861.50 per acre. I might add that this last purchase comprises a piece of land lying close to the city between the experimental farm and Dow's lake. On that land we have located some of the equipment necessary to naval wireless control, affecting radio and different matters of that kind. In order to prevent buildings being placed upon that land in the immediate vicinity of this equipment, if the equipment was going to remain there, it was found necessary to have that land secure against such buildings being placed there. We had the land rented for experimental farm purposes, and on the suggestion of the department concerned we purchased it, rather than have it subject to that kind of development at this time. We were satisfied to pay that price per acre because it is estimated that if that equipment is placed elsewhere at some future time this property can be easily sold. The purchase was made of farm lands for experimental farm purposes only because of the necessity of having it under government control for the time being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the figure for the Booth farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: The average cost per acre for the two parcels of land I have mentioned is approximately $365, as compared with the decision handed down by the exchequer court in connection with the expropriation of the Booth farm in 1929. That is an old matter which had to do with a decision made before I came to the department, and I believe before most hon. members were in the house. They
Supply-Agriculture
disagreed on price, and it was expropriated in the legal manner. The 361.4 acres cost an average of $838 per acre, which is about the same as or a little less than the price we paid for this special land during the last year. The total price paid for all that land was $302,500.
A question asked by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton had to do with the operating costs of the Fredericton experimental station. The total cost was $163,765.62, broken down
as follows:
Main farm	 $107,965.69
Construction of warehouse and cold
storage	 44,490.00
Completion of three cottages	 6,000.00
Construction of reservoir	 499.95
Overhauling obsolete electrical wiring ..	4,810.00
Those are the figures for 1948-49.
Mr. Stewar.! (Winnipeg North): Is there any reason for continuing this farm so close to the city, except that it adds to the amenities of the neighbourhood?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been discussions from time to time of the advisability of retaining the farm in such close proximity to the city of Ottawa. It is argued by some that the property could be converted to other uses and thereby bring a considerable return to the government, and the farm could be moved farther away. I presume that some time that may be done, but the argument up to date has always been that it is a real asset to the city, to the eastern part of Canada, and to a very considerable extent to the people of Canada as a whole. When people, particularly from agricultural areas, come to the capital they can go out and see the latest experiments that are being carried on at a place close to the city. If it were ten or fifteen miles away many people would not go near it or would not be able to find the opportunity to go. Most people who come from the outlying sections of Canada look upon the farm as being one of the sights that they want to see while in Ottawa and I have no doubt that many of them carry away beneficial ideas in connection with agriculture that otherwise they would not get.


Mr. Fair:: Regardless of any profit or benefit that might accrue from the sale of the central experimental farm, I submit that it is the duty of the government in the interests of Canadian agriculture not only to see that that farm is kept there but that the experiments are extended. There are many people who do not give sufficient credit to the agricultural industry of this country. I say again that if we have an agricultural industry that is prosperous, then all Canada is prosperous. The only way to make that industry prosperous is to continue the experiments that make for progress in the production of a wide range of agricultural products.

Supply-Agriculture
During the past years that I have been in the house our scrap with the government at all times has been to have more money spent on experimental work. My own feelings and the feelings of those who sent me here-I believe I can speak for the farming industry generally-is that the work of the central experimental farm should be kept up at the highest degree of perfection.


Gordon Graydon: I fancy that every hon. member of the committee will agree with much of what has been said with respect to the experimental farm. I should like to make a suggestion to the minister and to the chairman of the agriculture committee which may be set up, that a visit to the central experimental farm should be made an annual event so that hon. members could examine the splendid work being done there. I remember that in previous years we used to go out to the farm, and I think we all received benefit from that visit.
When the agriculture committee is set up I think it might hold a meeting out there once in a while, because they have not been so good at that in the past. The members of that committee could then make a thorough study of the experiments being carried on.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member for Peel has said, prior to the war the members of the agriculture committee and any other hon. members who cared to go along were taken out to the farm and shown the developments there. I am sure that that can be arranged again if it is the wish of the committee and other hon. members. I shall take it up with the deputy minister and see if arrangements cannot be made to that end.
A question was asked the other night by the hon. member for Calgary East with regard to the capital cost of the science service laboratory at Lethbridge. The figures are as follows:
1946- 47	 $ 20,619.45
1947-	48	
112,255.541948-	49	
148,436.79Total	
$281,311.78
As I said the other day, the official opening of the finally completed plant is taking place today.


Mr. Harkness:: What work is being carried on at that plant in Lethbridge?


James Garfield Gardiner: It deals mainly with the diseases of cattle. Previously the laboratory was located some distance from Lethbridge and from our farm. This laboratory was put up in the early days at the request of the ranchers to investigate certain diseases from which cattle were suffering. The year before last it was decided that in order to make the

results more readily available to a greater number of people this plant should be moved closer to the experimental farm and the town of Lethbridge, and in addition that the work should be extended somewhat. Therefore, the expenditures I have referred to have been made. In addition, some work is being carried on in connection with plant diseases.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The expenditures which the minister has given are those for 1946-49 inclusive, but yesterday I asked what part of the $517,000 to be appropriated under the item we were dealing with for new construction was to be apportioned to that particular project. We have not yet obtained that information.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the question now put to be: What part of the total amount of over $500,000 spent last year was spent at Lethbridge? That is the last figure which I read. The amount spent in 1948-49 whs $148,436.79.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These estimates are for 194950. They are not for 1948-49.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course that money was in the estimates for this year. It is being voted just now. I would have to make further inquiries in order to make sure how much of this money came out of that vote. On second thought, none of it could come out of that vote.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It could not.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of money is in the estimates of 1949-50, and possibly the amount which has been spent on this project up to date will not yet appear in our accounts because much of it could not be paid. The money is not yet voted. During the last session we made provision for expenditures which would carry us over six months, but I am not certain that the expenditure from those amounts which were to carry us over six months would cover all of the costs of the work which would be done there, or whether some of it still has to be voted. I think it is pretty well assured that the estimates as brought down will be passed, but there is just a possibility that on work of that kind six months' supply would cover it, because all of these buildings are pretty well completed in the summertime. We are getting close to the end of the summer now, and we still have a short part of the six months' period to be covered. It is just possible that the total amount which was set aside for that building has been spent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Surely this procedure is a little loose as far as financing is concerned. To begin with, the minister said that the item for 1948-49, which he gave me as $148,436.79, was included in this amount, and

then he decided that it could not be. Now he says he does not know how much of that is spent or how much is not spent. But surely when the estimate was made there must have been a certain definite amount estimated for this particular project. Actually that is what I asked for in the first place three days ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was $117,000 set aside for that particular work, but the fact that the plant is just being opened today would suggest to me that as to any ordinary transactions in connection with it the contractors may not be all paid. I have not the figures here as to what is paid, but I would expect they are not all paid. Until that comes in we do not know what the exact figure is, but the estimate is $117,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Was that the estimate to complete this building or was it partly for the experimental work which is to be carried on there?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the estimate for the building itself for this year. I am not sure whether that estimate will completely cover it, or whether it more than covers it, but it is $117,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What will be the total cost of the building?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be what I have already given you plus whatever we spend this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said before, that is somewhat loose as far as financing is concerned. Taking what the minister has already given me, the figures come roughly to $270,000 plus $117,000. Is that the cost of the building?


James Garfield Gardiner: $281,000 plus possibly


Mr. Hansell:: I do not know whether I can throw any light on this particular item, but I will say that evidently a part of the money that was to be appropriated for this new venture at the Lethbridge experimental farm, or adjacent to it, was for the housing of a staff. The minister can correct me if I am not right. Additional staff was put there and they had nowhere to live. Some construction was started in order to house that staff and suddenly it stopped. The consensus among some who were there was, "We were only voted so much supply and we suppose the money has run out and building has stopped." The minister will not recall it, but I wrote a letter to him. It was during the election campaign and he was busy. I found time to write him a letter. Perhaps I was not as busy as he was. I got a reply from one of his officials-it may have been
Supply-Agriculture
his private secretary-to the effect that that was not the reason that any building was stopped, and as far as they knew the building program was still going ahead. I did not pursue the matter any further, but from that it would appear to me that perhaps the limited supply we voted for six months had run out. There was something mysterious about the stopping of that work.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is absolutely correct. These plants are not all made up of one building. There are also there some buildings which are necessary to the operation of the plant. The whole plant consists of the laboratory plus six suites in two buildings. I presume that is for a staff. Then there are four barns and two garages. Of course, the barns will be for the housing of the stock that is being used in connection with the laboratory study of diseases. It is these buildings plus the other that necessitate the whole expenditure. I have no information before me as to why some contractor may have stopped the building of any one of those buildings and been held up for a time. It may have been on account of lack of materials; it may have been any of a dozen and one different reasons; but my understanding is that the plant is so nearly complete now that they thought this was a good day to have the official opening, and they are having the official opening today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I might ask a question about the item we are supposed to be discussing, namely, item 14, the central experimental farm here at Ottawa. The last questions seem to have run over into the next item.
In the session earlier this year I asked the minister some questions with regard to employees at the central experimental farm. My questions are found in Hansard at pages 377 and 378. The date those questions were answered was February 9, 1949. One of my questions was:
What are the minimum and maximum wages per hour paid to labourers at the central experimental farm, Ottawa?
The answer to that question was:
Forty-five to seventy cents per hour.
Those are pretty low rates of wage under today's conditions.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With or without board?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand without board. These are people who live in Ottawa. My next question had to do with the wages paid to blacksmiths, carpenters, painters and other artisans at the central experimental farm. The answer is a long list. I will not read all of the figures, but here are some of them:

Supply-Agriculture
Farm mechanic, 69 cents per hour; teamster, 66 cents per hour; truck driver, 67 cents per hour; and night watchman, 59 cents per hour. I then asked what the hours of work per week were for these various people, and the figures vary. Some of the artisans are on a 44-hour week. The blacksmiths work 50 hours the year round.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Fifty hours per year?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fifty hours a week the year round in some cases and 55 hours-[DOT]


Arthur Leroy Smith: On Sunday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I find that my friend the hon. member for Calgary West is even more helpful now that we are a little farther apart in the chamber than he was last session. May I try that again?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You had better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of the artisans work 44 hours per week the year round but the unskilled labourers, according to these answers, work 50 hours per week in the winter and 55 hours per week in the summer. The other questions that I asked had to do with the arrangements for superannuation or retirement fund, and the information given was a bit puzzling. It indicated that the amount deducted was in some cases 5J per cent and in others 6 per cent, and that these deductions were based on a certain number of hours per year, whether or not the employees worked those hours. The complaint made to me was that in some cases the employees had to pay a deduction from their wages for hours that they did not work.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a wonderful scheme, is it not, if you can deduct for some hours that you did not work?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The figures indicate that in some cases unskilled labourers who were working 50 or 55 hours per week are deducted, for purposes of superannuation, at the rate of 60 hours per week. I do not wonder that the hon. member for Calgary West gets confused over the situation. Can the minister say whether there has been any improvement in respect to these matters since these answers were made on February 9 of this year? If perchance he can give a specific answ'er showing that improvements have been made, I should be glad if he would do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that there has been an increase of 5 cents an hour since that time. I would have to go back over the entire list in order to make certain that it applies to all the persons that have been spoken of in what the hon. member has said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pardon me for interrupting, but the answer that was placed on Hansard in reply to my question on February 9 of this year, which was placed there under the name of the minister's parliamentary assistant, concludes with this sentence:
The above wage rates include a flat increase of 5 cents per hour, which is being made effective as from October 1, 1948.
Has there been another five-cent-an-hour increase since then? One five-cent-an-hour increase was included in the figures I have given.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only five cent increase that has actually been applied up to now is the one that my hon. friend speaks of. There is another five cents that is involved, but I am not in a position to make an announcement about it one way or another at the moment. General consideration is now being given to the whole question as applied to all such employees in all the services in the government. It is not my place to make any announcement with regard to it, and I do not intend to undertake to do so tonight. I would say that the question is asked just with regard to the central experimental farm at Ottawa. But we have allowed both these items to stand because generally our discussion runs out of one into the other. For a long time, at all experimental farms, we have been paying for that kind of labour what are known as prevailing rates. That is, we pay in accordance with the payments which are being made in that locality. Our farms are in many different localities across Canada and in many different types of locality. Out in farming communities where the experimental farm is surrounded by operations being carried on by other farmers we have sometimes had complaints if we boosted wages in those areas by paying more than the prevailing rates in those areas for similar work. The same thing is true in another way in connection with operations when we are close to cities or towns. We must make our wages more or less in accordance with the prevailing rates in those localities. That is something which has been discussed widely with labour organizations and others and has been fairly well agreed upon. I should not like simply to state any particular rate as prevailing on all of our experimental farms. I think probably the highest rates that are being paid in Canada are being paid on the Ottawa farm, but I would not be too sure of that without going into all the records and finding out what the rates are, say, at the Agassiz farm in British Columbia. There may be some reason why wages there are higher than they are at some other place. But one would have to search into the con-

ditions surrounding these farms in order to give a general statement with regard to all of them. But as to the farm here, the rates which are paid upon these farms are related to what is being paid for similar work by those who are engaged in similar employment in the locality right around here. That is, a carpenter is paid something that has some relationship to what is being paid in the city.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to complete the picture. The minister suggested quite correctly that I had quoted some of the lower rates and not the higher ones. May I give the two highest figures that were included in the information given last February. A carpenter is listed as getting 98 cents an hour and a foreman carpenter gets the top rate of $1.03 an hour. I do not know what carpenters' rates are in this city, but I know that they are higher than that in the city from which I come, and I imagine they are higher than that here in Ottawa. If the minister is going to say that this is the prevailing rate, I would ask him to bear in mind the fact that these people live in Ottawa, which he will agree is a rather expensive city to live in. I hope serious consideration is being given to adjusting these matters.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there is a reason why a carpenter might be paid more in the city of Winnipeg than these men are being paid, and there is a reason why a carpenter who is employed in the city here might get more, if you just figure the days he works and the payment he gets per day. These men are continuously employed. As to the carpenter in Winnipeg, on most of the jobs I have seen conducted in that city there are many days in the wintertime when he is not employed and certainly not fully employed. On days when it is 40 below zero or more there is not much outside work being done in that area. In the work we have there, these carpenters are available. We have inside work available for them and they are carrying on right through the year. Any work that has to be done on the inside is done in the wintertime. So their wages might not be as great as those some groups might be drawing under union pay in Winnipeg for a shorter period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is hardly a satisfactory
answer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am still not at all satisfied about these buildings at Lethbridge. The minister has now told us that they cost in the neighbourhood of $400,000. I do not for a minute think they cost that much. Quite frankly, I think the minister is mixed up in his figures and is a little bit confused on the subject.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, I think the minister does not know any more about it than does the hon. member who is speaking. I have the figures which are given to me by the persons who are presumed to know, and I can only give the hon. member the answers they give me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the minister will give us a breakdown of those figures, I think we shall find that some of the money he indicated is for the building is actually for the cost of carrying on experimental work and so on. I do not think that the cost of the building was the $400,000 approximately which the minister gave. If it cost that much, I certainly have a few more questions to ask about it, but I do not think it did.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that it is all for capital expenditures in connection with the building. It might not be all for the building-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It may be for equipment, for I do not think it is for the building.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does include equipment; it will include plumbing and a lot of other things. It may include digging some ditches in order to get the water to where the plumbing is. It will not necessarily be just for the building itself, but everything associated with the building. There will be the building of roads through the grounds and everything else associated with it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, we are still going around in circles. I still have not the information for which I asked the day before yesterday. I wonder whether the minister could bring in a breakdown of the building costs so that we shall know where we stand. After all, $400,000 is not "hay", as we say in my part of the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: What the hon. gentleman asked for was the cost of this plant. He got the cost of the plant. If he wants something different, then he can put a question on the order paper indicating exactly what he wants to know and I will give him some figures within forty-eight hours. The figures are given to him exactly as he asked for them: he asked for the cost of that plant and he has the cost of the plant. In spite of what he says, I say it is the cost of the plant. If he has any way of proving it is not, then we shall have to get him some other figure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Minister of Agriculture is now suggesting a most unusual procedure so far as this house is concerned; that is, that instead of getting the information on the estimates item by item, I should put a question on the order paper. If there is any time during the course of this session when

Supply-Agriculture
I should be able to get the information for which I asked, it is when the estimates for this particular item are before us. The suggestion by the minister that I should put a question on the order paper is, I think, the most ridiculous and most contemptuous of parliament that I have heard him make. He should be ashamed to make such a suggestion.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I asked this question the day before yesterday. The minister has had forty-eight hours in which to get this information. He comes here and, practically speaking, by the manner in which he has been talking and the lack of information we have received, has admitted he does not know what the answer is. He has failed to give the information and then he tells me to put the question on the order paper. Before this item is passed I think the minister should give a detailed breakdown of the expenditures without any further delay.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I am accustomed to hearing that kind of speech made by the hon. member for Calgary East. He has been making them now for about four or five years. He never comes here with any information to back up any statement he makes, but merely makes general statements.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Look at Hansard for the last four years, and you will see something different.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question asked by the hon. member for Calgary East was as to the amount spent on the buildings for scientific services at Lethbridge, Alberta. The answer to that question, the same answer he would get if he were to put it on the order paper, is given in the figures I have supplied to him. This is the money actually expended. After he gets those figures, he says "Well, what was spent this year?" I informed him of our estimate of what it will cost for the work done this year, which amounts to $117,000 in addition to those figures. At the moment no one can tell him to the exact cent what that cost is going to be. The estimated cost is $117,000.
_ Now, that is the total cost of these buildings, and that is the information for which he asked. What I am going to say now is that, even if I were to say I will let the item stand and bring it down again, I have no reason to believe the figure would be any different from the figure he has. If the hon. member can stand up in his place in this house and, on his responsibility as a member, say that those are not the figures, then I am quite prepared to try to obtain what he has proven to be the figures. Those are the figures as they are given to me by the only people in Canada, of whom I am aware, who have the figures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I asked for the cost of these experimental buildings. As a result of a question asked a few moments ago by the member for Macleod, the minister admitted that part of the cost was for barns, for suites in which people live, for roads and drains and various other things along that line. I believe we should have a detailed breakdown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
15. Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $3,819,403.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I believe it was the minister himself who said he was coming back to this item 15 about which I wanted to ask a question. Is the minister in a position at this time to tell us whether any of this money has been spent in Newfoundland this summer or whether he proposes to spend any this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing provided in this vote for expenditure in Newfoundland. There is, however, a supplementary which comes up later. At the moment I am not prepared to say whether there is anything in that for agriculture. There may not be, but when we are dealing with the supplementary I shall be in a position to state whether there is or not. I have written to the premier and I discussed the matter with him when he was here a few days ago. He has been requested to advise me as to the needs of the new province of Newfoundland as soon as he returns to St. John's. I have suggested that any requests for expenditures will be investigated in order to put the province in relationship with the other provinces and put us in a position to proceed with that just as early as possible.


Mr. McLure:: With regard to vote 15, is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to eliminate these illustration farms throughout the province of Prince Edward Island? My reason for mentioning this is that there was a very fine illustration farm at South Rustico in Queens county. I understand that this is being closed. Probably the department knows something about it. I might say it was an excellent station run by Mr. John C. Clark. It was as important to the farmers in that locality as the central station, because a great deal of information was received from this farm. I should like to know what is being spent on it and whether it is being closed, because there was not enough money being spent on that station.


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the first part of the question, there has been no change in policy which would result in the closing of

any experimental station in Prince Edward Island. My memory is that there are ten in that province. The general practice is to continue those experimental stations at any particular location so long as it is necessary to conduct the investigations and distribute the information which they were set up to do.
It does happen from time to time that that work is completed in that locality and the station may be closed, or the work may be taken up by another station some distance away. The thing which most commonly happens is that the individual owning the land does not wish to have it carried on any longer or the land changes hands and the individual who purchases the land is not anxious to continue or is not the type of person who likes to do that sort of experimental work, which necessitates people being on his land from time to time to receive instructions. Then we have to change the location. These are the chief reasons for changing at any time, but there has been no change whatsoever in policy.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I just wish to say that this station was not closed because the man was incapable or anything like that. I understand that he could not afford to continue on the small amount he was receiving from the department. I know that his work as an experimental station farmer has been excellent, and the community was very proud of him and of the experimental station or farm that he had there.


William Joseph Browne: I hold in my hand a copy of the supplementary estimates. There are only three items in them, none of which refers to Newfoundland. Newfoundland came into confederation on April 1, which is six months ago. The minister has now informed the committee that he does not know whether anything has been spent down there or whether anything is to be spent there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say for my hon. friend's information that these supplemen-taries are expenditures of the last year. The supplementaries for the coming period are not yet in. They are not yet passed.


William Joseph Browne: It says:
To initiate the extension of normal dominion government services to the province of Newfoundland for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the year we are half through. No expenditures have been put in so far as the estimates which are before us now are concerned, and so far as I can remember there are none in for agriculture for Newfoundland. That is what I said at the beginning, but we have made inquiries down there. As a matter of fact, when the bring-
Supply-Agriculture
ing in of the new province was under discussion I raised that question myself, and my understanding is that up to that time claims in connection with it had not been clarified, and therefore were not included. I imagine that will be corrected. As a matter of fact, I have asked to have it corrected just as soon as possible.


William Joseph Browne: May I point out that there is in the cabinet a learned man from Newfoundland who should be able to give the minister any information he requires about that province. I should like to know if he would be good enough to inform me whether it is a fact that in the past six months not one cent of the vote for agriculture has been spent in Newfoundland.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, the vote dealing with compensation for animals that have been destroyed is not divided up by provinces. It is one vote for doing a job, and the law with regard to that now applies to Newfoundland the same as to any other province, and any payments which are required to be made there will be made. The same thing is true with regard to the amounts for freight which are paid on grain which is being shipped to the eastern part of Canada from the west. I understand that up to date there is $250,000 in that item alone. Anything that is provided by legislation or legalized by legislation must be done in the new province just the same as in the other provinces.


William Joseph Browne: Perhaps the minister was not expecting these questions tonight. I wonder whether he can give any further information, or is there any other information?


Mr. Lennard:: The item had better stand.


Mr. Stick:: I take it that when we deal with the supplementary estimates the information will be forthcoming. We are not dealing with the supplementaries tonight.


James Garfield Gardiner: I now have the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, and they read:



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Science service-
666.	Plant protection-further amount required, $9,325.
Demobilization and reconversion-
667.	Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $250,000.
668.	Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $25,000.
I understand that these further amounts are required because these expenditures are to be made in Newfoundland. In the general estimates we do not divide it up by provinces, and we do not divide it up in the
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
supplementaries either. The fact is that our department is making a request for more money.
Some hon. Members:: Yes, you do.


James Garfield Gardiner: You can get the particulars of the amounts which have been expended from year to year in the different provinces, but we vote a lump sum of money, as I expect we shall do in a few minutes under the item that was being discussed just before we reverted to this one, and we shall go on making expenditures in Newfoundland on that basis. What I am concerned about in this item is that I have not got, whatever others may have, and I do not think the department has, full information on where experimental stations ought to be established in the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the same principles we have applied to the other provinces. I can assure the hon. member that in due course we shall have them established there.


Mr. George:: I should like to ask a question on item 15. It has to do with the rehabilitation of the marshlands. In view of the work which has been done experimentally at Nappan, will the minister consider the establishment of illustration stations in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to investigate the soil fertility of the marshlands?


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume the questions which were handed to me are the questions which are in the hon. member's mind at the moment.


Edmund William George: No, sir. My question has to do with the establishment of illustration stations rather than marsh rehabilitation. I was wondering whether the government had considered the advisability of establishing illustration stations throughout New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in connection with the dike lands.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are 14 illustration stations in New Brunswick and 14 in Nova Scotia, similar to those which are established in the other provinces. The answer I have to the direct question which was asked is that there is no money taken out of the vote which was set aside for the reconditioning of the marshlands for the setting up of these stations. I presume that if we do set them up there they will be an enlargement of the principle that we have now for general purposes. If I were to examine the map carefully I might find that some of the stations we already have are in these areas, perhaps not on the marshlands. The only one that I am certain is there on the marshlands is an addition that was made to the farm at Nappan. I have been there two or three times

myself. I mentioned here the other night the excellent work which has been done there in demonstrating that three times as much alfalfa or three times as much hay of any kind can be grown on these lands when they are properly cared for and treated as can be grown when they are allowed to go along in the state in which much of them has been in recent years.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Can the minister tell me how many illustration stations there are in British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Seventeen.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I am in agreement with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Westmorland. The advisability, I would say the necessity, of establishing certain areas, under the control of the experimental farm detached from the present experimental farm, on areas of marshlands which are being reclaimed and drained was placed before the committee and before the minister last year. It was suggested that different blocks of 100 acres, or more, which could now be purchased at a nominal price should be acquired. I agree with the hon. member for Westmorland that it is most essential to give encouragement and instruction to the farmers who in recent years have suffered so much in these areas. Under the policy of reclamation, different qualities of marshlands will be reclaimed by the government. Certain areas should be taken over and set aside for pasture, and certain areas for a high quality of timothy and clover hay, such as they now produce at the experimental farm at Nappan, where they produce three tons per acre.
The land now produces only a small tonnage per acre. Not only that, but the hay produced is of a most inferior quality. The hay produced at the Nappan farm is of high quality, while the growth on the land being reclaimed is an inferior grade not worth half as much per ton as that produced at the experimental farm.
I am in complete agreement with what has been said by my colleague from Westmorland county, in which constituency there is the greatest acreage of marshlands to be found anywhere in eastern Canada. It is very essential that the government take over such areas as quickly as possible and bring them to the highest state of production in order to demonstrate to the private marsh owners and the people generally the benefits under proper treatment of the land to be reclaimed.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow this item to pass without expressing the special appreciation of my farmer constituents for the excellent work done throughout the years by the staff at the experimental

station at Summerland, particularly in connection with the analysis of food products, fungicides and soils, and in the matter of soil conservation and fertilizers. We appreciate the advisory service they have rendered generally to the farming people of my constituency.
While that experimental station renders us a great service it cannot, owing to its location, render us service in every respect, so far as the average farmer is concerned. In the west we have the Summerland experimental station and in the east the Windermere experimental station, both of which operate under conditions somewhat different from ours. Their rainfall is lighter. They operate under drier conditions. Many of my farming constituents have asked me to suggest to the minister that in the Kootenays there is a place for the establishment of an illustration station.
In the Kootenays both climatic and soil conditions vary greatly in short distances. For instance, I happen to own two properties within six miles of each other in the Arrow lakes district. Over a period of forty years the winter temperature of one property has averaged 10 degrees higher than that of the other. This indicates that tests and experiments conducted at Summerland or Windermere cannot always be satisfactorily used in our district. Therefore I would suggest that the minister give consideration to the establishment of an illustration station in the Kootenays. In the first instance it would deal with the proper application of fertilizers to our very different and changing soils. I am of the opinion that a considerable amount of money is wasted by farmers in the wrong application of fertilizers, particularly in certain districts of the constituency I have the honour to represent.
The same would apply to potato varieties, vegetable varieties, seed-growing, and the development of tree fruits. In that connection I would mention, to illustrate my point, that thirty miles south of where I live they can grow satisfactorily the Delicious apple, whereas within thirty miles of that growing area the same apple cannot be produced satisfactorily on a commercial basis.
I therefore urge that the minister give consideration to the establishment of an illustration station in the Kootenay area, which is so different from the other districts covered by the experimental stations in British Columbia. Our conditions are different from [DOT] those on the coastal area and from those in the dry belt area. Actually we live in a district which comes in between the damp coastal area and the dry belt as exemplified in the Okanagan and in the Inver-mere districts.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Jones:: I should like to join in the remarks of my colleague from Kootenay West in paying a compliment to the farm at Summerland. In my opinion the work it has done is excellent. They have a splendid staff, and are really doing good work.
May I draw the attention of the minister to a condition arising from the floods adjacent to the farms, where some of the land was lost through erosion. I understand that in the last year some work was done to prevent further flooding, and I would ask the minister how much money, if any, is set aside in this item for the Summerland area, to remove the flood danger which was apparent last year. Is there a special fund, or some other means of raising funds to assist in this work?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, may I bring to the attention of the minister the fact that in my riding we have the finest experimental farm in Canada, administered by Mr. Harold Hicks, the finest possible superintendent. We appreciate the assistance given to these junior ridings, which are following in our footsteps and copying the Agassiz experimental farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I might answer the question of the hon. member for Yale. My understanding is that he was talking about a small diking project on which the government spent a thousand dollars, and the municipality, or those concerned-I am not certain which put up the money

put up a proportionate amount. Each put up an amount proportionate to the amount the government was offering.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
17. Health of animals-Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,868,297.
Mr. Harris (Danforth):: I should like to say a few words with respect to this item which has to do with the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. During the last two decades we have noticed this item creeping up from a personnel of 100 to 400, and to the present 500. Inasmuch as we are an exporting country, that is all to the good. Over the past few years I have seen those of Australia, those of New Zealand and those of Canada and Canada still has some distance to go before she can reach the uniformity of quality and appearance of the exports of New Zealand. I think perhaps we are on a par with Australia, but there is room for improvement in other directions.
With the amount of exporting that we do and with an inspection staff of close to 500 we ought to improve our position very much and very soon. I think the minister should

Supply-Agriculture
try to inculcate into the minds of these 500 personnel that they have other things to do besides draw their breath and their pay. They are supposed to provide inspection services in connection with meats, canned foods and other matters coming under the administration of this particular act. Not only that; a little more encouragement should be given to the little producers instead of leaving everything in the hands of the big three.
You know and I know quite well whom I mean when I talk about the big three. The smaller slaughterers and producers in Canada should be given an opportunity to develop trade under federal inspection, and in this connection I am going to register a complaint on behalf of a small producer. This man handles only some thirty cattle per day, never more than one hundred. His plant contained a lavatory and washroom facilities and there was on duty one inspector, and occasionally two, but he was told that he must install a shower bath for the inspector who was there to watch entrails and the odd piece go through to see whether they were healthy.
I can quite understand that in a large abattoir where they are slaughtering a thousand cattle a day it might be desirable that the inspector should have a shower bath, but where a small producer is handling no more than thirty a day I do not think he should be put to the expense of providing the same facilities. These veterinary inspectors work probably two or three hours a day and yet they must have an individual shower bath.
I examined these premises and found that they had a washroom which was tiled to the height of four feet six inches; there were toilet facilities, and splendid office space was available. But they did not happen to have a shower bath and therefore federal inspection of their products was to be withheld. In April they were given six months in which to provide these facilities, and those six months are about up. This plant employs only thirty or forty men and the manager offered his own bathroom facilities in the office building for the use of the inspector, but, no, they want their own.
I ask the minister and the department to see that the inspection services give reasonable encouragement to smaller producers and exporters who want federal inspection. They should be permitted to get on with their job. They should not be hampered with too many strings and requirements based on an organization made up of 500 personnel, when perhaps only one or two out of that 500 find their vocation for a few hours a day within the confines of a particular federally inspected institution.
These smaller organizations across Canada should not be discouraged. They should not

be driven more and more into the hands of the big three. These younger organizations are trying to get established in this particular line of business. To my mind the deputies of the minister are inclined to be a little arbitrary. They are inclined to follow the letter of the law. I am not going to make a charge, but I say that that law has been developed by individuals who have found their job in Ottawa to be that of lobbying all departments of government on behalf of the big three. They have managed to have the regulations worded in such language as to sometimes make it most difficult for the little fellow to comply with them. These regulations emanate from discussions which these lobbyists have with deputies who in turn advise the minister. That is not a charge; that is just a suggestion that we should be a little more careful and a little more considerate of what is known by some people as the little fellow who is trying to get along, the underdog.
Tonight we are voting $3 million for these 500 personnel, when a few years ago they asked for only $1 million. Let them be a little more broadminded and not expect all the facilities that are to be found in the abattoirs of the big three. Those things should not be expected of the small producer who is doing only perhaps one-tenth of the business.
If these 500 personnel are receiving more consideration from the big three than they are from the little fellows the solution might be to alternate their services. Let them spend a few months with the big fellows and a month or two with the little fellows. But they should not demand of these small firms who are struggling to get along that they provide the same facilities furnished by the big three who are doing twenty, thirty, forty or fifty times as much business.


George Alexander Cruickshank: While it is desirable that the people of Ontario take a bath, I do not think it should be made compulsory.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just wondering
whether I should say anything in reply, but I do not think I should let the last two or three statements go by without anything being said. There are in Canada hundreds of slaughter houses-


Joseph Henry Harris: Not under federal inspection.


James Garfield Gardiner: -that are operating without any restrictions and over which we have no authority. There may be thousands; I have not counted them, but I know they run into hundreds. The suggestion is made that we interfere with the small plants.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get the figures if my hon. friend will permit me. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking. I do not agree with most of what he said. An attempt has been made to create the impression that all of these regulations, and everything having to do with them, are for the benefit of the big three. As I understand it the big three have only about twenty-five plants in Canada. Our inspectors are in 140 plants. In other words, there are 115 plants that belong to people who are much smaller than the big three. We have no inspection in any plant unless that plant is doing either interprovincial or international business, unless they are trading into another province outside the one where the plant is situated, or into another country.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is what I am referring to.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have inspectors in 140 plants. There are other plants that are pleading with us to put inspectors in them. They say that they want to get into this business too, and we are quite prepared to put inspectors into their plants when they put in the necessary equipment in order, to make it possible for us to pass the product that comes out out of the plant as meeting the food laws of the areas into which these products are going. We are not accepting responsibility for saying that we know that all of the food laws associated with the production of food that is to be sent to some other country, or from one province into another province, are being met, unless we have inspectors there. We are not prepared to put inspectors there unless the facilities that are necessary in order to turn out the food as the regulations require are placed in these plants.
I have not heard a great deal of complaint, except what I have heard here, about what is required of those who are meeting the requirements. I have heard some suggestion from others that maybe they ought to be able to have inspection, but when they tell me that they are only killing thirty hogs, or they are only killing thirty cattle, it is obvious that these people are not in the business in a big enough way to be able to stand the expense of putting out the product in the manner which is required if it is going to be shipped into another province or into another country.
If they are only supplying the surrounding community, or supplying areas within their own province, then they are subject to the health laws of that province and to any regulations in connection therewith. As a matter of fact, I sometimes find that what we are being blamed for and accused of is not being done at all under our laws. I had quite a
Supply-Agriculture
file of correspondence last year with a man living in Guelph about the prosecution of a certain gentleman who was selling meat. When the correspondence started I was under the impression that the man was under our regulations because our inspector had inspected his plant, and I thought he was being prosecuted as a result of those inspections. Finally I got a letter from an ardent supporter in that district, and he said, "Why does the dominion government employ the crown prosecutor appointed by the Ontario government in connection with this case?" Then I twigged there was something wrong somewhere.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You would never do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I checked into it and found that our inspector, as is the practice, had been appointed by the Ontario government as their inspector in connection with this particular activity. He had performed inspection work not under our pay at all but under the pay of the Ontario government. He had made his report to the Ontario government, and the prosecution was started from Toronto and not from here.
I only tell you that in order to emphasize what I was saying a moment ago, that all of the regulations and laws that have to do with the operation of these hundreds of plants all over the Dominion of Canada, which are operated to supply meat to local communities or to communities that do not extend outside the province, are regulations of the provinces. I must say that the provinces have good health laws in these matters. They enforce their laws and their regulations just as strenuously as we do.
I wanted to say that in order to clear up the impression that might be given that we insist on everyone operating a plant of this kind doing the things that people are required to do who are shipping outside their own province, either to other provinces or to other parts of the world.


Mr. Fulton:: I should like to discuss with the minister a matter which has been taken up with the officials of his department by correspondence. I refer to the question of conducting brucellosis tests. That is a word I am not familiar with, but I understand that it means Bang's disease. That is the description used in the language of the cattlemen. I understand that if any cattle are to be exported to the United States they require this test to be made.
The British Columbia Beef Cattle Producers Association has requested that the tests be carried out at Kamloops instead of at Vancouver, where they have to be carried

Supply-Agriculture
out at the present time. The reason for that request is that apparently the veterinarians of the department take samples from the cattle that are to be shipped, and they have to send their samples to the laboratory. That involves sending them by express to Vancouver, transporting them from there to the agricultural department laboratory at the university, making the test, and then sending a letter with the report back to the shipper. In some cases that has involved up to ten days for reasons which, though they have been investigated, are not very easy to understand.
One of the reasons for the extra delay is that apparently they are very complicated tests and the reports involve a large number of figures and serial letters. They used to send out the report by telegram, but it was found that it was too easy to transpose a number or a letter in the process of sending the wire. Therefore that practice has had to be discontinued, and in consequence the reports have had to come by letter. That means there is bound to be some delay in getting the report back.
Furthermore, owing to the fact that it takes some time to get the sample there, apparently in very hot weather or very cold weather some chemical change takes place in the blood in the test tube, and frequently the sample is of no use when it arrives at the laboratory. Then they have to send word to send in another sample. All of this involves a delay of a week or up to ten days, which, in dealing with cattle where markets may be fluctuating daily, is of course likely to prejudice the seller very considerably.
Furthermore, I am told that the United States buyers do not like these delays, and that it has a pretty serious effect on our cattle sales from British Columbia to the United States. The Department of Agriculture maintains several institutions at Kamloops. They have veterinarians in and around there, but the laboratory for doing this test work is in Vancouver. The Department of National Health and Welfare has in Kamloops quite an extensive laboratory which carries on experiments and research with regard to the diseases carried by animals. I am told that the personnel there are qualified to carry out brucellosis tests on cattle. There appears to be some reluctance to have the Department of National Health and Welfare laboratory at Kamloops used for this purpose.
I am also told that, while it would involve some extra work on their part, they could do it with their present staff. I am told that, if they merely had one qualified veterinarian to be there full time and one assistant, the work could be done with no strain at all. Under these circumstances, although the mat-
]Mr. Fulton.]
ter has been the subject of considerable correspondence, and various explanations have been given, the cattle growers association feels that the explanations and reasons are not adequate. They would be glad of further consideration, and they hope that eventually the Department of Agriculture will set up accommodation and equipment in Kamloops to carry out brucellosis tests either themselves or else in conjunction with the Department of National Health and Welfare.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are special reasons why it is not considered wise to do that at Kamloops. As has been suggested by the hon. member, there is a plant there which is doing work that has to do with human diseases. I understand that one of the important experiments being carried on there has to do with the prevention of the spread of what in the old days was known as bubonic plague, which can be carried by rats. That kind of experimental work is being done there, and it is considered by some inadvisable to have persons going in and out or to have traffic in and out of a place of that kind, a condition which would be necessary if the other work were to be done at that point. That is the position taken by some of our officials who are located there and who are doing that particular work. As my hon. friend knows, in addition to that, the numbers of cattle involved in that area, as compared with some other areas in Canada, are not great. In spite of that fact, I think nearly all of the kind of inspection that is referred to, namely the sending in of blood tests and getting reports back on them, in the prairie area, for example, is done in Lethbridge and Saskatoon. The area involved in miles or distance is much greater than the distance that has been referred to between Kamloops and Vancouver. Then too the number of stock involved is out of all proportion. So there can be some argument to the effect that, apart from the special reasons that they are not doing it, it might be difficult to get a plant established there in any case. In other words, I am not going to say tonight that the only reason why the plant is not there and why the work is not being done there is the special one. We would have to check on what we would be required to do elsewhere if we were going to give the same service all over Canada to the same number of persons, and involving the same number of cattle, and the distance that the samples are now being shipped in other areas as compared with that area. There is good train service between Kamloops and Vancouver and samples can go down on one train and come back on the next. There are many places in Canada where it is not as easy to have the samples

forwarded as it is there. I should not like to have it understood therefore that I am suggesting that, even if the other work were dropped, we might be in a position right away to establish such a plant. But I will give consideration to what the hon. member has said and will have my officials do likewise, and see if there is anything that can be done there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad of the assurance given, but in answer to the first of the points the minister raised, with regard to the distance from Kamloops to Vancouver and the train service, I should like to say this. If that were the only consideration involved I would entirely agree with him. A large part of the difficulty is in the nature of the area served. Kamloops is roughly the centre of the cattle-producing area of British Columbia. From there to Cariboo, or down from the Cariboo to Vancouver where the samples have to go, it is difficult to send them by rail because they have to go down the P.G.E. to Squamish, by boat to Vancouver, back to the normal mail channels and out to the university. Shipment from the Cariboo to Vancouver is slow and laborious whereas from the Cariboo to Kamloops it is much quicker. So it is not just a question of from Kamloops to Vancouver which is adequately served by mail. That is the first thing.
Then as to the other point, there are other areas on the prairies from which they have to ship samples further. The minister said that if he set up a service in Kamloops it might be a precedent for other areas asking for extra services as well. I think the answer to that suggestion is this. While there are not as many cattle in British Columbia as there are in the prairies, there are very few beef cattle produced in the Vancouver area. The whole beef cattle producing area in the province is roughly centred in Kamloops. If you are going to carry out these tests in British Columbia, it seems to me that Kamloops is logically the place to carry them out, for that reason, and because from the outlying districts communications into Kamloops are much quicker than they are into Vancouver.


Mr. Quelch:: The farmers in the Morrin district, which is a tuberculosis-free area, are glad to see that the work of testing cattle is to be started once again. I think the situation in that area is probably similar to that in other districts. When that area was set up-


James Garfield Gardiner: Can we declare item 17 carried if we are going on with item 18?


Victor Quelch: Does not item 17 deal with T.B.?


James Garfield Gardiner: Item 18 deals with pay and compensation.
Supply-Agriculture


Victor Quelch: I am not going to talk about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, all right.


Victor Quelch: As I was saying, when this area was set up some years ago, it was understood that additional areas would be set up in the surrounding country. But unfortunately, owing to the difficulty of securing the services of veterinaries the government had to discontinue that service. Consequently, as the minister can readily understand, a most unsatisfactory situation has developed there. I am sure the minister understands what I am referring to, so I will not say anything more about it.
The question I want to ask the minister is this. In districts where there is already a veterinary established, in which there is a T.B.-free area, will it be the policy of the government to utilize the services of that veterinary in carrying out the tests? I think the minister realizes only too well that many of these veterinaries in the country are not having any too easy time in making a living. They are performing a valuable service, and it certainly would help them to make a living if the government could give this work to them where they are qualified to do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. We have now about 550 men on that work; 300 of them are parttime men and about 250 are full-time. Whenever a district is set up and there is a veterinary established there, we give him all the work that he can do.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to the vaccination of horses that are transferred from one province to another. I do not know whether the necessity of vaccination in that case is a regulation proposed by this government or whether it would be a regulation proposed by the provincial government. The particular case I have in mind, and which was brought to my attention, was that of a man in Macleod who sold a team of horses to be transported to British Columbia. The man who purchased the horses wanted them for his work on farms, particularly for the haying season. That necessitated the vaccination of the horse, but this man could find no veterinary who would do the job. There was not one in the district. He phoned to Cardston about thirty or forty miles away. The veterinary said that he could not do it then and would not be able to do it for two weeks and advised the man to get in touch with Lethbridge. He did so and the veterinary there said that he could not do it then. He was going out of town, or something, for two weeks. He then got in touch with the Lethbridge veterinary. He was there and said, yes, bring the horses over. It would cost

Supply-Agriculture
the man $25 to transport those horses to Lethbridge to have the vaccinating done. Then he would have to have it done again in about a week or ten days' time, which would cost another $25. Eventually, the man heard from the purchaser of the animals to the effect that he wanted the team for haying, not for snow removal. Now, perhaps that is a provincial regulation. I am quite in sympathy with the minister or whoever is responsible. We have heard the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) say veterinarians find it very difficult to get along since the farms have been mechanized. Perhaps that is the case in this particular district.
I should like to ask whether any encouragement is given the veterinaries or someone who would do such a job as the vaccination of horses. I do not know, but I am told it is not a particularly difficult task. Perhaps some individual with even a smattering of knowledge of that sort of thing could vaccinate horses or cattle. These men who have a smattering of knowledge are not prepared to do it because they cannot get a licence, or something of that kind. The minister knows more about it than I do, but I should like an expression from him about what farmers or others who trade horses can do in such cases. Is the regulation a provincial or dominion regulation?


James Garfield Gardiner: In connection with such diseases as glanders, for example, we have a regulation to the effect that those animals must be quarantined and eradicated.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not think there was anything wrong with the horses.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am saying that is what the dominion does, that is the type of work we do. Many of these other diseases, which are not as readily communicable as some of those with which we deal, are the subject of special provincial regulations. I understand the province of British Columbia has regulations in connection with certain diseases with which they have had some trouble. It is their desire to keep out those diseases which are not covered by any of our regulations. In this particular case, I presume it was one of those diseases that they were fighting. In that case we had nothing to do with it; it is a provincial regulation. From the story which has been related, I would judge it to be one of those cases. If it came within the group with which the dominion deals, we would handle it in just the same way as we handle glanders or other diseases.


Ernest George Hansell: Is this licence, which is given a man to practise as a veterinary, granted by the dominion government or by the province?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is granted by a provincial association under provincial law, as in the medical profession.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: There are two or three questions I should like to direct to the minister concerning items 17 and 18. Two days ago I asked him about compensation for those cattle that farmers had lost through the T.B. test. I wanted to know whether the payments would be increased. After reading the reply I am of the opinion that the minister's intention is to increase it in due time. I hope that is right.
In looking over the estimates I find that, in the year 1948-49, $1,007,845 was spent in compensation, while in the year 1949-50, the estimates we are now discussing, the amount allotted is $1,042,500. This would indicate to me that no provision has been made in these estimates to take care of increased compensation that might be contemplated.
Yesterday I journeyed to Toronto to see slaughtered a herd of 44 cattle from my constituency that had reacted to the T.B. test. I mention this case only because many other farmers, not only in Middlesex, but in Oxford and many other counties of western Ontario, are finding themselves in a similar situation. The problem is not only the loss of the cattle; for if the farmer is going to continue in business he has to replace those animals. He has an investment in buildings. He has his crops stored and is now without income. When he comes to replace those cattle he finds the money he has received for the reactors is far from adequate. I have noticed that it seems easy for the government to put through an order in council when other departments want to spend money, but they have been hesitating about this for some time. Could it be because the farmers are not too well organized or that there is only a limited number affected and the government believes it can get by on promises?
The federation of agriculture of the county of Middlesex made representations to the minister about this matter during the last session. They were given assurance that action would be forthcoming. Farmers are wondering just what is likely to happen. I am asking these questions of the minister so that in his reply he can cover the whole matter.
One of the questions in which I was interested concerns the number of cattle in the province of Newfoundland that have been tested for T.B. since Newfoundland became the tenth province. Has the minister that information? How many cattle have been tested in East Middlesex and how many have been tested in West Middlesex during the past year? Is the increased compensation going

to take effect from the date the regulation becomes effective or will it be retroactive? During the war there was a period when the testing of cattle for T.B. was practically at a standstill because so many of the men who wdre capable of doing that work were in the army. During that same period the price of cattle increased, particularly good dairy cows, to such an extent that the compensation paid prior to that time is not adequate. I should like to have the minister bring us up to date on this whole question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the answer today is the same as it was a year ago. About ten per cent of the cattle that are reactors go into the tank. The increased price of cattle does not hurt the man who is being paid compensation unless there is a large proportion of the animal infected because it is only then that it goes into the tank. If an animal is worth $200 this year and it was worth only $50 ten years ago the compensation is on the same basis, but the remainder of the animal is sold and the individual gets the return. If his return is based on the $200 price he may get the greater part of the $200 and he gets the compensation as well. It is not correct to say that because the price has gone up on cattle the compensation ought to go up. The compensation is not the whole thing.
A year ago there was considerable discussion, and I think properly so, of the fact that ten per cent of the cattle did go into the tank, and that compensation was not high enough for these animals when we simply paid the amount that we were required by law to pay. We brought in a bill to change the law. I think I introduced it into the house but it did not get any further than the introduction by the time the house was< dissolved. In answer to a question the other day, I said that as far as I knew the same bill would come back again, and I have had assurance since that time that the legislation which did get to that stage last year, which passed council, was agreed to and reported to this house, is coming back. Only today I signed the bill and sent it on its regular course by which it will get into this house. That bill does provide that we pay the full compensation on animals which have gone into the tank. It is made retroactive to April 1, 1947. That is the way the bill was drawn last session, and it was drawn after full discussion with different areas concerned. The bill will be brought down in the same form. I do not think it will be changed in any word or letter. I presume it will go through the house. As soon as it does, money will be made available. Supplementary estimates will be brought down in order to take care of the expenditure in addition to what is in these regular estimates. The reason the estimates are not greatly increased
Supply-Agriculture
in relation to that problem is that the amount of money necessary to deal with it is not yet before the house because the legislation has not been passed by the house.
May I now deal with the question as to how many were slaughtered in Middlesex. I hold in my hand the information with regard to Middlesex. There are four headings which read as follows. The first heading is "Herds." The second heading is "Cattle." The third heading is "Reactors." The fourth heading is "Infected Herds", and the last column is "Amount of money paid in compensation." As applied to Middlesex the first figure is 2,931; the second figure, which is the one the hon. member is interested in, is 54,523. The number of reactors is 8,819. The number of herds affected is 1,274; and the amount of compensation paid is $317,905. That is the full total with regard to Middlesex.


William Gourlay Blair: Will the minister give the figures for Lanark in the last test, based on the Middlesex figures?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a difference
between Lanark and Middlesex, in that three tests have been made in Lanark and only one in Middlesex, which would make the figures not comparable as between the two areas. The first figure in Lanark in the third general test is 1,776, but the important fact is that there were 35,219 cattle tested and 106 reactors from 39 herds. The total amount paid is quite small as compared with the other, only $3,695. They had been cleaned up pretty well in the first two tests, and the number that reacted in the third test was quite small.


William Gourlay Blair: There were 106 reactors in 39 herds. The minister has not the figures for the 1,776 herds?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is the total out of 1,776 herds. Those were the reactors in the 39 herds in the third test. I think that is as it should be if the test is working. Clean up most of them the first time, clean up more the second, and there are not so. many left the third time.


Harry Oliver White: The minister has just mentioned that in the second test a much smaller number of cattle are found as reactors. The reason I journeyed to Toronto yesterday was to see this herd slaughtered. On the first test only three were found to be reactors. On the second test 44 were found to be reactors. That led to some doubt in the minds of people in my constituency as to just what was going on. But I want to say to the minister and to others that I saw 33 of the carcasses butchered yesterday and I am satisfied that on that test no mistake was made so far as these

Supply-Agriculture
cattle were concerned, but I do not see how they missed them the first time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, there is the possibility that the three which were found in the beginning left sufficient infection around for the others to become infected in the meantime. I know that happened once in my own herd.


Harry Oliver White: Have any T.B. tests been made in Newfoundland?


James Garfield Gardiner: No general tests have been made by this government. Whether one has been made by the other government, I do not know. Perhaps the Secretary of State can inform us.


Mr. Bradley:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand not.


William Gourlay Blair: Will the minister give consideration to the insurance scheme I suggested for the higher grades of purebred cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: After the hon. member spoke I tried to get some information as to the extent to which high-priced cattle can be insured. I imagine there is a possibility of insuring such cattle, which have been properly inspected and tested.


William Gourlay Blair: With commercial companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, by commercial companies. However, I do not know that the government would want to consider going into the insurance business in that way.


Robert Fair: What progress is being made in stamping out Bang's disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I can suggest that great progress is being made, but I believe I can say that fairly satisfactory progress is being made. I have here some figures showing the total number of herds under examination and control of our inspection staffs, and the number of herds declared clear. These headings mean that the herds are still under supervision, and to get the total number of herds the figures should be added together. The information I have here is as follows:
Herds under examination
		and control	Herds
		of inspec-	declared
		tion staffs	clear
Prince Edward Island ..	
37	10Nova Scotia 	
1.228	90New Brunswick ..	
20	9Quebec 	
294	200Ontario 	
1,975	1,432Manitoba 	
9	4Saskatchewan	
18	12Alberta 	
11	2British Columbia .	
29	18In all Canada	there	are 3,621 herds under	supervision and	1,777	declared clear.


Robert Fair: What method is being used? Is there a process of vaccination while the calves are young, or at some other time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Calf vaccine is being used by owners. Many of them tested these herds in order to render their cattle exempt from Bang's disease. This has proven successful in the United States. For a time we did not advocate its use here, but in more recent years we have accepted the proof given that it has been used successfully in the United States. We are now encouraging its use here, and many farmers are using it. In addition to that, there have been the ordinary tests which have been made, and animals condemned.


Robert Fair: What happened to the Koch treatment of some seven years ago?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has never been thought by the department to be satisfactory, and has never been encouraged by them.


Robert Fair: But some experiments have taken place in connection with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the department has tried to investigate everything that has been proposed at one time or another. This was one of the treatments they did not consider sufficiently satisfactory to warrant its recommendation.


Mr. Johnston:: It was three or four years ago that Dr. Arnott of London, Ontario, had something to do with this Koch treatment. There was an extensive investigation, and I am wondering whether a report has been made with respect to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, a report was made. He came here and discussed the matter with me and with others. I sent him to the officials, of course, and a full investigation was made into the treatment. The report was that the department was not prepared to recommend it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the minister make a copy of the report available? When Dr. Arnott was here he came to my office on several occasions to discuss this matter, and told us about the methods being employed and the manner in which the department was handling it. We were quite concerned at that time, because there did seem to be some hope that the treatment might have substantial results. If it is possible for the minister to submit the report to the committee, it would be of great service to us.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure whether the report was tabled in a previous year or not. I do know, however, that I have had considerable correspondence with regard to it, and I believe I sent the report to those who were interested in it. I am sure it is avail-

Supply-Agriculture
able to members of the house. I believe we Mr. Graydon: I do not think the minister could supply the hon. member or any other should be denied an opportunity of answering hon. members with copies of it.	my question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the minister send us a copy? It would be appreciated.


Mr. MacNaughi:: In connection with tuberculosis, I understand Prince Edward Island was one of the first provinces in which experiments were carried out. Tests were made this year. Has the minister any information as to the incidence?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe there were about 100,000 cattle, or something in that neighbourhood, and only about a dozen reactors in the whole group. In other words, the island is pretty well cleared up.
When I came here about fifteen years ago the maritime provinces were entirely covered by inspectors, and I think they were the only ones. One province at that time was strongly opposed to having any inspections, and no area in that province had been inspected. Today a considerable portion of it has been covered. Farmers right across Canada today are all agreed, and all agitate strongly that we come to check their cattle. However, up until fifteen or twenty years ago there was as much opposition to it as support of it. Now everyone wants it.


Mr. Stanfield:: Are all the counties of Nova Scotia tuberculosis-tested areas today?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are all restricted areas. I should not like to say they are all fully tested and clear to the extent that that obtains in Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
18. Production service-Compensation for animals slaughtered, $1,042,500.
Joseph Henry Harris: The minister will recall that at the last session I requested that some of the moneys provided under this item be used for the purpose of research to check on swine fever, owing to the fact that, with the present large volume of soap being used, and the garbage-fed hogs being offered, the alkalinity and the acidity had had some effect on the increase in swine fever. I asked that some research be done and I ask now whether any research has been done, or shall we have to wait a little longer?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that nothing new has been done since the discussion of last session, but that may be due partly to the fact that we were busy on other things in the meantime. As most hon. members know, I have just got back to the department within the last week. I shall see that consideration is given to the representations made.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member for Peel suggested, we have had this matter up at least twice or perhaps three times in the house. This claim is being made by Mr. McIntyre and I believe one other person for compensation because of a special condition that developed. I am not enough of a specialist to know what proportion of cattle slaughtered will show definite proof of T.B. when they have been tested previously and found to be reactors. I am quite satisfied that a considerable percentage would not give any indication in the meat itself. This indication might be apparent in some of the organs that are thrown away and not utilized for meat purposes.
I imagine that the officials who were responsible for the test used exactly the same test as had been used on cattle all across Canada and it is difficult to understand how under those circumstances some forty odd cattle should be tested and then when slaughtered show no trace of the disease. I do not remember all the details and unfortunately I have not got them here, because it is so long ago. However, I do recall that our people investigated the matter on more than one occasion and came to the conclusion that there were no grounds on which special payment could be made.
If the legislation that is now being brought down had been made retroactive for a year longer, and if the cattle had gone into the tank, then there would be provision for special payment. But the opposite occurred in this case. There was no reason to send the animals into the tank and apparently the meat was all usable. That would mean that he would get the full value of the cattle at that time, but not as high a value as they would bring now.
I understand that these were breeding stock of a grade which would bring a much higher price than beef cattle. I have no doubt that Mr. McIntyre and the other gentleman feel aggrieved but I doubt very much if there is any legislation under which we could make payment. There may be a question as to whether we should have legislation and whether it should be made retroactive. I do not know the extent to which it would involve us.
This work is being carried on because the government has been pressed to carry it on. It is quite true that in the early years we had to sell the idea, but in recent years farmers all over the country have been pressing us to carry out these tests. Most of them accept the result. Some of them may feel that they

Supply-Agriculture
have lost money, but I think most o1 them feel that over the long period they are really being helped.
But when a man takes some forty-odd cattle to be slaughtered, and then on examination no disease condition is found, there may be something special that we should do about it. All I can say is that I shall have the officials have another look at it to see if we cannot find some reason to take care of the situation.


Gordon Graydon: I thank the minister for his consideration. Perhaps he will just remind his officials that there were three factors involved which perhaps ought to be taken into consideration. The first was that the herd had not reacted for many years. There were no reactors in the tests that were made.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were tested every year.


Gordon Graydon: That is right. The second is that the serum used had been changed at that particular time. I would not want to give this as authentic information, but I understand that the serum was so severe that it had to be withdrawn afterward and another used. Mr. McIntyre's tests seemed to be in that particular period when the serum was so severe.


James Garfield Gardiner: My memory is that that is correct.


Gordon Graydon: The third was that no evidence was found in the carcasses. I hate to be bringing up this matter so often, but it does seem to me that this is a case that should receive consideration. I know that the minister will do his best to see that this man gets justice. If he is not entitled to anything, that is all right; but it seems to me that he is, and that is the only reason I plead his case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
21. Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $475,900.
Mr. Wright:: The details on page 109 indicate that $120,000 is to be paid to agricultural exhibition associations under order in council 2294 of June 6, 1947. I should like to know the subject matter of that order in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have what are known as regular grants to fairs. There is a grant of $1,800 per year to B fairs and $2,500 to A fairs. At the time these grants were set up it was realized that they would not cover all the requirements of these associations, particularly in view of the fact that in many cases buildings had been used during the war for training purposes and had to be

remodelled, while in some cases the fair association had to move from their own buildings to other grounds or buildings. Then in other cases buildings had been burned down and all that sort of thing. We provided that if they would agree that the $1,800 should be capitalized over ten years they would be given what amounted to a loan for the time being of $18,000 or a sum which would be in the neighbourhood of $18,000 when interest charges were included. That is paid back by paying $1,800 during each year of the ten years in order to take care of the amount. In other words, they can go ahead and spend $18,000 this year, and the amount is paid over the ten years of the grant. For the class A fairs it is $2,500, and on the same basis it gets you $25,000 to'spend at one time.
There is one other which I may as well recite at the moment. We make special grants of a much larger amount which are negotiated with the fair board, and which are usually three-way payments. The province puts up an amount similar to what we put up, and the fair board itself secures a similar amount either from the city in which the fair is located, or from the association. The three amounts are utilized in order to put up special buildings. That is being done now in the city of Ottawa. It is being done at present in the city of London and was done in the city of Vancouver. It was done on quite a number of occasions before the war, and is being repeated in Toronto as to certain sums in connection with both the winter and summer fairs. Grants of that kind are being made across Canada, and they are in very much larger sums.


Percy Ellis Wright: Can the class B fairs obtain these larger grants?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. So far as the class B fairs are concerned, it is the $1,800 grant which can be capitalized over ten years in order to make a larger expenditure at the moment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask the minister-


The Chairman:: Order; the hon. member for Prince.


John Watson MacNaught: I notice in the details that there are grants for exhibitions or fairs in every province in Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island. I understand that some years ago a grant was made to the Charlottetown exhibition. At Charlottetown we have one of the best annual fairs in Canada. I understand that they are contemplating some additional construction, and I would ask the minister to take under consideration the possibility of making a grant to that fair next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that Charlottetown is a class A fair, and of course they have all the opportunities that any other class A fairs have to make an application. They get their regular $2,500 grant, and that can be utilized to build up a larger fund. We will hold back payments over ten years in order to permit them to spend a larger amount now. Depending on how large a building they want to put up, as a class A fair they are in a position where it would be possible for them to come here and discuss a grant of a larger amount. I cannot say they would obtain it. It would depend on the circumstances.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When you shouted me down, Mr. Chairman, I got such a fright that I forgot my question. However, it was my fault. How many class A fairs are there? Will the minister read the list to us, also the class B fairs, and also the amount of the grant to each? Sometimes a class B fair becomes a class A fair, and sometimes they go the other way.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are seventeen class A fairs in Canada. There is one in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. There are no class A fairs in Nova Scotia. There are none in New Brunswick. The class A fairs in Quebec are at Lachute, St. Hyacinthe, Sherbrooke and Three Rivers. In Ontario they are at Galt, Lindsay, London, Ottawa, Peterborough and Toronto. In Manitoba there is a class A fair at Brandon. In Saskatchewan there are class A fairs at Regina and Saskatoon. In Alberta there are class A fairs at Calgary and Edmonton. In British Columbia there is a class A fair at 'Vancouver.
The returns are not in for most of the fairs for this year, but I can give the figures for 1948-49. The amount for Vancouver was $14,500; Calgary, $3,500. At Edmonton we have one of those agreements which extend over the years so that the grant that was actually paid for the year was only $500. At Regina the amount was $4,000, and at Saskatoon $4,000. They are both the same. At Brandon, Manitoba, the amount was $4,000. Taking Ontario, the amount for Galt was $4,000, Lindsay, $3,500; London, $4,000; Ottawa, $4,500; Peterborough, $4,000; and Toronto, $4,000. Those are made up of the regular grants plus the possibility of two five hundreds. Some get one and some get two. In Quebec the amount for Lachute was $3,612; St. Hyacinthe, $4,000; Sherbrooke, $4,500; and Three Rivers, $4,000. The amount for Charlottetown was $3,500.


Percy Chapman Black: In Cumberland county we have two fairs. One, the regular county fair, is held at Oxford, and is probably the best of its kind in Nova Scotia. It has been carried on and built up over the years by the wholehearted co-operation of the 45781-15i
Supply-Agriculture
citizens of that community. In the town of Amherst we have the maritime winter fair which has been in existence for about fifty years, and is now the senior winter fair in Canada. It is agreed by stock raisers all over the maritime provinces that it has done more to build up the standard of stock of all kinds than any other agency in the maritime provinces. The grant appears to be only $5,500. There is also assistance from the province of Nova Scotia, the province of New Brunswick, and the province of Prince Edward Island, but in view of the increasing [DOT] cost of carrying on the work, and the high standard that the fair has reached, the grant is not sufficient. The grant made to the royal agricultural winter fair in Toronto is $50,000. The maritime winter fair at Amherst is second to the royal agricultural winter fair, and the amount granted to it by the federal government is entirely inadequate today.
One member of this house, the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie, has gone down there from year to year. As he is a member of the house, we are glad to see him there judging the horses, with his silk hat, tuxedo, his cane, his gloves and so on. He is popular in Amherst; and if he were here tonight he would corroborate what I am saying and tell the members of the committee what a splendid exhibition has been built up there. We have been disappointed that the minister has not found it convenient to attend oftener. Over the years the other ministers of agriculture, from the days of Hon. Sydney Fisher, made it a practice of attending our show. I am not saying that the present minister has never been there, but he has not always come when he has been invited. Last year, when he was in Nova Scotia, the senior member for Halifax inveigled him away to another meeting of a different character. It did not have anything to do with agriculture. Anyway, on behalf of the people of the maritimes, and especially on behalf of the people of Amherst, I extend to the minister a special invitation to attend this year. Last year we were favoured by having the leader of the opposition make a personal visit, and when it was found that he was interested he received a special invitation. The large arena, the construction of which has been contributed to by both the federal government and the provincial government, was packed. Mr. Drew examined the exhibits and stated that he was amazed at the quality of the stock and the quantity shown at the maritime winter fair.
I make two appeals to the minister tonight: first, to attend our fair this year; and, secondly, to examine into the requirements and see if the grant being made to the mari-

Supply-Agriculture
time winter fair cannot be materially increased in order to give further encouragement in the splendid work that has been done over the years-about fifty, in all-by the citizens of Amherst and the stock raisers in the maritime provinces.


Edmund William George: I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Cumberland in asking the Minister of Agriculture to attend the maritime winter fair this fall. While it is probably the smallest among the fairs he has attended, it is one of the best fairs we know of. I am sure he will see that this money is being well expended and that we have use for more. This fair is one of the best attended fairs in eastern Canada and the buildings are crowded. The facilities are not large enough to hold the crowd around the exhibits. As a member of the board of directors for the past year, although I am not a member now, and especially as a member of one of the committees of the fair, I appreciate their difficulties; and I would recommend to the minister that he consider visiting that fair this fall and seeing what we really have.


Robert Fair: Will the minister be good enough to give us the list of B fairs in 1948-49 and the grants that were paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The list is a rather long one. There are Bridgewater, Oxford, Sydney and Truro in Nova Scotia. Amherst is a winter fair. That is the one that has been spoken of. I think the second fair I visited after I became minister was the Amherst fair. The first one was Sherbrooke, I think, and the second one was Amherst. I have not got around to all of them yet. Probably I shall get back there some time. To return to the B fairs, in New Brunswick there is Fredericton; in Quebec: Ayer's Cliff, Brome, Cook-shire, Quebec, Rimouski, Roberval, Ste. Scholastique, Shawville, Victoriaville and Waterloo; provincial fairs, Ormstown and Quebec; winter fairs, Sherbrooke. Then in Ontario: Barrie, Belleville, Brampton, Fort William, Kingston, Leamington, Markham, Owen Sound, Renfrew, Richmond, Simcoe, Stratford, Strathroy, Teeswater, Welland and Woodstock; winter fairs, Ottawa and Toronto. Then in Manitoba: Carman, Dauphin and Portage la Prairie, with a winter fair at Brandon. In Saskatchewan: Estevan, Lloyd-minster, Melfort, Moose Jaw, North Battle-ford, Prince Albert, Weyburn and Yorkton, with winter fairs at Regina and Saskatoon. In Alberta: Camrose, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Vegreville and Vermilion, with winter fairs at Calgary and Edmonton. In British Columbia: Armstrong, Chilliwack and Kamloops. That is the list.
[Mr. Black (Cumberland) .1


Robert Fair: Can the minister give us some idea of the amount of the grants to fairs in those western provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The grants are about $2,500.
I notice that at Lethbridge the grant is $2,500; at Red Deer it is $2,500; and at Vegreville it is $2,093.07. I do not know just why they got the seven cents. At Vermilion it is $2,500.


George Alexander Drew: I just want to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Cumberland in regard to the maritime winter fair. I had a special interest in that fair because the royal winter fair, which was originally in Guelph before it went to Toronto, always had some argument as to which was the senior winter fair. However,
I do not think there is any doubt about Amherst's properly claiming that right. It is a magnificent fair of the maritime provinces. It does tremendous work in advancing the quality of the stock and of the agricultural production generally. But at that fair there are not some of the opportunities for raising outside revenue that there are at the royal winter fair, for instance. I would join in what the hon. member for Cumberland has already said about considering the propriety of substantially increasing the grant to that fair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Out of this building grant of $120,000 for this year and $80,000 which was spent last year, can the minister tell me how much, if any, was allocated to the Calgary and Edmonton fairs respectively?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there is any special grant being made to Calgary, because they got their total amount last year of $3,500. Edmonton received only $500, which would suggest that we did make an agreement there. I am speaking from memory now, but I am quite certain that, owing to the construction of a grandstand, there was a special grant arranged for Edmonton, which results in our taking the money out of the regular grant from year to year in order to make up the larger amount which was required.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to follow this up. I was asked by one of the directors of the Calgary Stampede why Edmonton was able to get a building grant for its exhibition while Calgary could not get one. It is for that reason I asked the question. The minister says that Edmonton has about $500 this year, but I understood the amount was in the neighbourhood of ten or fifteen thousand dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no reason why Calgary cannot get it if Calgary comes here as Edmonton did and puts forward special reasons for erecting a building. If they are

prepared to capitalize the grant over a term of years, it can be done. In the case of Edmonton, instead of getting $3,500 they will receive $500. The $500 is a grant which covers boys' and girls' clubs, and is never taken into an arrangement of that kind. We believe it is important that these boys' and girls' clubs be continued and the amount is paid for that purpose.
When a board comes along and says that, so far as the regular grant is concerned, they understand they are to receive $3,000 or $2,500-


Douglas Scott Harkness: What do you mean by "regular grant" in that case?


James Garfield Gardiner: The grant which is based on the fact the fair has a prize list and is a class A or B fair. It is permissible for such a fair to put up a building and utilize all the money they would receive over five years-it may be five but not more than ten years. This would mean that if they were entitled to a regular grant of $3,000, they could get $30,000. If they wanted half that amount, they could take half the amount from that particular fund or enter into a five-year arrangement. Edmonton has made such an arrangement but Calgary has not, so far as I know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The arrangement made was the one the minister suggests, a borrowing into the future; it was not one of the other types of grant he mentioned about an hour ago, which also came under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Except that when I was dealing with it a while ago I did cover this type of grant as well as the larger grant which is made to fairs such as Toronto, Ottawa, London, and Vancouver.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In Chilliwack we have a class B fair and we are perfectly satisfied with the fair treatment we have received in the past from the government. Over $100,000 of our own money was spent on a building for the Chilliwack fair. This money was contributed by the farmers and businessmen of the district. Unfortunately, we find we are in no position to complete the building. There are only two class B fairs in the province of British Columbia. I should like to ask the minister whether his department will consider giving us a grant or a loan-we would prefer a grant-to enable us to complete our building.


James Garfield Gardiner: These arrangements are made by grant, that is, a grant of so much money to a class B fair. These grants go as high as $2,500, $1,800 of which is the ordinary grant; $200 is to provide for judges and $500 for boys' and girls' clubs. The only part of this grant about which we undertake to enter into an agreement is the $1,800. According
Supply-Agricu Iture
to our legislation, the time limit is ten years. In the case of the Chilliwack fair, they could negotiate for the full amount or any part of the full amount of approximately $18,000 to be paid this year. If such an agreement were made, however, there would be no annual grant beyond the $200 and the $500. If only half of that amount were needed, arrangements could be made to charge it over a five year period or half of it over ten years.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. We are not in a position to complete our building after having invested $100,000 of our own money. We frankly admit it. There is a roof over the building, but we owe for the steel in the roof. This is a recreational centre as well as a building used for fair purposes. Is it not possible for the government to consider making a grant to us, or a loan at a reasonable rate of interest to complete this building?


James Garfield Gardiner: By agreement, you can get $18,000 from the government for that purpose if that will complete the building. If that will not complete the building, then you can secure the money by means of a threeway agreement such as we have entered into with other fairs, whereby the province gives a similar amount. If your people can count what they have done as their share, then we would put up the $18,000.


Percy Ellis Wright: Could the minister give the committee some idea of the qualifications that are necessary for the establishment of a class B fair? Is the number of class B fairs restricted in each province? If that is so, then until such time as one of the present class B fairs drops its charter, could another class B fair be operated in that province? Could the minister inform us as to the method of organization for having a class B fair established in an area where there is a class C fair now?


James Garfield Gardiner: A class B fair is established when a fair has paid prizes amounting to $3,000 for three years. In order to prove that has been done, the evidence is submitted to us by the province which has control over these smaller fairs. When the point is reached where $3,000 in prizes has been paid for three years, then it can be classified as a class B fair.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, we will resume the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


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

[Stage Direction]
14.	Central experimental farm, $1,330,560.
15.	Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $3,819,403.
Production service-
16.	Production service administration, $51,915.
Health of animals-
17.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,868,297.
18.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $1,042,500.
19.	Live stock and poultry, $1,261,343.
Plant products-
20.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $1,166,052.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 26, 1949