1949-11-30

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

Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is the total income of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from advertising in each of the years 1940, 1945, 1948 and for 1949 to date?


Mr. McCann:: The income accruing to the corporation from commercial advertising was as follows:
Fiscal year ended	Amount
March 31, 1940	 $ 773,521.89
March	31,	1945	
1,639,159.97March	31,	1948	
1,842,558.29March	31,	1949	
2,217,129.91


AMUSEMENT TAXES
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	In what years did the federal government collect amusement taxes?
2.	What was the revenue for each of the years the amusement tax was collected?
3.	Did the provinces collect amusement taxes during the years the federal government collected same?
4.	If so, what revenue was collected by the different provinces for each year?
5.	What revenue has been collected by each of the provinces during the years since the federal tax was removed?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The amusement tax was imposed in so far as moving pictures were concerned on May 19, 1941, and on other forms of amusements effective July 1, 1941. This tax was repealed May 19, 1948.
2.
1941- 42	 $ 7,710,360.89
1942-	43	
10,778,384.841943-	44	
12,018,950.291944-	45	
12,283,988.041945-	46	
13,387,340.551946-	47	
14,551,637.331947-	48	
15,368,632.341948-	49	
2,482,837.183.	It is understood that some provinces did collect amusement tax during the years the federal government collected it.4.	No information.5.	No information.


HOUSING
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	What was the total cost of building by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the Normandville plan, Three Rivers, Quebec?
2.	How many houses were built?
3.	What was the individual cost of the 4-room units?
4.	What was the individual cost of the 5-room units?
5.	What was the individual cost of the 6-room units?
6.	Are these houses for sale presently?
7.	If so, how much is asked for each type of house?


Mr. Winiers:: 1.	Project known as Terrace de Normandville, at Three Rivers, Que., was built by Housing Enterprises of Canada Limited at a total cost of $499,787.47.
2.	57.
3.	Average individual cost of 4-room units, $6,504.60.
4.	Average individual cost of 5-room units, $8,152.95.
5.	Average individual cost of 6-room units, $10,536.67.
6.	Yes.
7.	Sales prices are as follows: 4-room units, $6,300 and $6,400; 5-room units, $7,300 and $7,750; 6-room units, $8,800.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Are there any persons producing for or displaying films of the national film board in Washington, D.C.?
2. If so, what are the names of such persons; giving the salaries and expenses of each of them since January 1, 1949?


Mr. Winiers:: 1.	There is no member of the national film board staff stationed in Washington, D.C. A library of Canadian films, established by the board and formerly operated by a staff member, exists and is now under the administration of the Department of External Affairs.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1. What was the total cost of operating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation international service for 1948?

Questions
2. What is the estimated total cost of operating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation international service for 1949?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Fiscal year ended March 31, 1949, $1,437,524.68.
2.	Fiscal year ended March 31, 1950, as per rote No. 305, $1,781,850.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since January 1, 1949, how many contracts have been made by the Department of Public Works for the purchase of (a) sea sponges; (b) synthetic cellulose sponges; (c) wool sponges?
2.	With reference to each such contract, what is the name of the supplier; what are the types, sizes and quantities of sponges supplied, and what is the contract price for each such type, size and quality?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) None, (b) none, (c) one.
2.	(a) The Casselman Company, (b) Mediterranean sheep's wool, (c) 8-10 to the pound, (d) 500 in quantity, (e) $1.31 each, making a total of $655 for prime No. 1 quality sponges.


WASHING MACHINES
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many washing machines were imported into Canada from the United States from May 1, 1949, to October 31, 1949?
2.	What makes and how many of each make?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Electric operated, 103; power operated, except electric, 19; hand operated, 1.
2.	Information not available.


FUR PELTS
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many pelts of fur-bearing animals were imported into Canada from Russia during the past ten months of 1949?
2.	How many of each variety?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1 and 2. Persian lamb, 1,440.



DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY


Mr. Courlemanche:: How many persons are in the employ of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply at present?


Mr. Winters:: 121.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. Coldwell:: 1. What was the name and address of the manufacturer referred to on line 30 of page 5 of the annual report of proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947?
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]
2. What was the name and address of the cooperative which was discriminated against in this instance?


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What was the name of the manufacturer referred to on line 23 of page 7 of the annual report of the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948?
2.	What was the name and address of the cooperative discriminated against in this instance?


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the manufacturers referred to on line 4 of page 12 of the annual report of the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949?
2.	What is the name and address of the co-operative which was discriminated against in this instance?


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What was the name and address of the manufacturer referred to in line 20 of page 7 of the annual report of the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948?
2.	What was the nature of the restrictive clauses referred to in this instance?


Mr. Garson:: The four preceding questions, standing in the name of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, seek the disclosure of information which for a great many years it has been contrary to the practice of the combines investigation commission to disclose. I regard the information as privileged, and I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw the questions.


Mr. Coldwell:: I have every confidence in the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. If the practice in each case has been as the minister has stated, I am quite willing to withdraw the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: These four questions standing in the name of Mr. Coldwell are withdrawn.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in Saskatchewan in the year 1948-1949?
2.	What sum of money was paid to each person as (a) wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances?
3.	At what rate are (a) wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances paid to inspectors?



NORTH SYDNEY, N.S., RAILWAY TERMINAL WHARF

Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	Have the plans for the new railway terminal wharf at North Sydney been completed?
2.	If so, when will tenders be called for this work?



CIVIL SERVICE-PERCENTAGE OF PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg Norih):: 1.	How many nonpermanent civil servants have been in the service (a) 10 to 15 years; (b) 15 to 20 years; (c) 20 to 25 years; (d) 25 to 30 years; (e) over 30 years?
2.	What percentage of the quota of permanencies allowable in the civil service has been filled to November 1, 1949, in each department and unit?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the Minister of National Revenue, dated since June 8, 1948, having to do with refunding any overpayment of taxes made possible because of the exchequer court decision relating to the deductibility of trade union dues in the years 1945, 1946 and 1947; also for a copy of all correspondence from the same date, in the possession of the Minister of National Revenue and/or the Minister of Finance, having to do with government policy in relation to the deductibility of trade union dues and teachers' federation fees from taxable income for the years 1948 and 1949.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if this motion carries it should be subject to the reservation that communications which are marked "confidential and personal," and also that correspondence between individual taxpayers and the department, which by virtue of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act cannot be disclosed, be not included.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Letters regarding policy can be produced.


Mr. Graydon:: There will not be any letters produced.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the reservations made by the Minister of National Revenue.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 64, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
Judges Act


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: have a very few words to say on this bill, and I think it would be better to say them on the motion for second reading.
When the bill was in the resolution stage I referred to a press report of a statement alleged to have been made at the meeting of the bar association by the chief justice of the province of British Columbia in regard to judges' salaries. The chief justice of British Columbia advised me that he made no such statement. The item I read from the press is quoted in the letter that the chief justice wrote me, and reads as follows:
At the convention of the bar association at Banff, the statement was made by the chief justice of the province of British Columbia that salaries of judges are entirely inadequate and not in keeping with the dignity of superior courts.
The chief justice says that he did not make any such statement. He says that at the bar convention it was recommended by a special committee that the salaries of the puisne judges of the Supreme Court of Canada be increased to $25,000 a year, and that the salary of the chief justice be proportionately increased. On a motion to refer that report back, the chief justice, according to his letter, said that he did ask, not for any increase in judges' salaries, but that the salaries of superior court judges in the provinces should be brought more in line with those of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the point that was made by the chief justice of British Columbia. Since he took the trouble to draw it to my attention, I thought I should bring it to the attention of the house.
Just one other word on the proposed increase in salaries mentioned in the bill. I emphasize only what I said when the bill was in the resolution stage. If I can make it any stronger than I made it then, I shall endeavour to do so. I do not believe it is anything short of a scandal that at this time we should be raising salaries that are of the proportions of supreme court judges' salaries, when hundreds of thousands of people throughout this country are being paid meagre salaries which are not going up but falling every day. I asked some questions on the unemployment situation in the dominion in the last two months as compared with the same period last year and I received figures which indicated that unemployment was approximately twice as great as it was last year. This means that twice as many people will be compelled to live on the meagre benefits from unemployment insurance. Because of that they will have to accept a lower standard of living. But here we are increasing salaries which in my opinion are already high enough.

Judges Act
The point made by the Minister of Justice when this matter was up for discussion before was that when they are appointed to the supreme court the judges are asked to give up certain things and perhaps make sacrifices by leaving their homes and taking smaller incomes than they received in the practice of their profession. I am not sure that there are not compensating factors for anything of that kind that may take place. The position of a justice of the supreme court is an honourable one. The honour itself is worth something, and the salary which goes with it is surely not inconsiderable. Not only is there the salary, but there is the pension. As long as they live, the justices of the supreme court receive a pension of two-thirds of their salary after they retire. When they die, one-third of that substantial pension goes to their widows. There are very few widows among the people with whom I associate who are left in that very fortunate position. I suggest to the House of Commons that if we want to improve the standard of living of the people of Canada we should begin at the bottom, and riot at the top.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) and the ideas he has expressed. However, we are setting up a supreme court which is indeed to be the highest court in this land. If ever there was a time when we should endeavour to secure the best possible men for the bench, surely that time is now, when the supreme court has become the court of last resort.
I am not unmindful of the facts set out by my hon. friend, and I am not at all certain that this present time is the most propitious for bringing into effect these very considerable increases. Having regard to powers it will now have, I do not think anyone will consider it presumption on my part if I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that in making appointments to the supreme court the first qualifications should be the highest integrity and ability, and also that no suggestion of political fitness as a major basis of appointment should be allowed to creep into appointments to that court.
I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for his obvious agreement with what I now say; for if we are to raise this court to the dignity and honour it must have in order to discharge its vast responsibilities, then above everything else ability, capacity and a sense of justice must characterize the appointments made to that bench.
In the United States-and I mentioned this on one other occasion-in order to guard the standard of their supreme court provision
was made for approval of appointments by the Senate. No doubt that system is inapplicable to our form of government, but it does ensure that appointments shall not be made that cannot pass the criticism and examination of that distinguished legislative body, which so often places the public good above private and political concepts. Unless in every appointment made to the Supreme Court of Canada qualifications transcend every political consideration, a blow will have been struck at the court from which it will not soon recover.
I believe the time has come to have only one court in this country known as a supreme court. It is most difficult for the laymen, if indeed it is not for the lawyer, to understand why in one province there is a supreme court while in another there is the court of king's bench. The time has come to amend the law so as to provide that there shall be one supreme court in Canada, so that when a judgment is given by the supreme court it will be generally known that it is the Supreme Court of Canada, and no other, to which reference is made.
The next point I make in connection with raising the standard of the bench-and I speak without any desire to arouse antagonism-is one which I suggest the minister might very well consider. Judges ought not to serve on royal commissions which have a political background. The inherent danger in the appointment of judges to royal commissions political in nature is that our judiciary is thereby undermined in the opinion of the people. I am not referring to royal commissions the purpose of which is to solve economic problems; I have in mind, for instance, the coal commission, which was presided over by the present hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll). I refer to royal commissions which have been appointed as a result of political criticism. It is my belief that the judiciary should not be called upon to serve on such commissions.
This matter was before the house in 1927. Mr. Bennett, who subsequently was president of the Canadian Bar Association, dealt with the matter from a nonpartisan standpoint. In 1927, when this act was before the house, he said, among other things:
Sometimes we have made appointments that have been political in their character. That is true; both sides have done it. It has been the reward sometimes for candidates who have run elections. Men have run elections, gone into a campaign, faced a constituency and said; Well, this is the only sure way by which I can get a judgeship. I know of cases like that, and so does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I regret to say that in every province in Canada you will probably find on the bench one or two men whose

appointments have been made solely because of the services they have rendered of a political character.
He went on to make this statement:
If you are to have justice administered efficiently and faithfully, if you are to have confidence in the judges of our courts, to rely upon their judgments and to feel that the differences between labour and capital and the great issues involving property and men's liberties, privileges and lives are honestly and justly dealt with, it can be done only by attracting to the bench men with the qualifications and attributes to which I have alluded.
That was in 1927. I remember well hearing the present Prime Minister, speaking before the Canadian Bar Association, express himself in sentiments very much the same. I think I speak for hon. members of the legal profession, as well as those outside of it, when I say that the people are asking that the appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada shall be such that the most benevolent political eye will not be able to discern qualifications based in part on political fitness.
We have set up a body that is to deal with the lives and the future of Canada, that will have the difficult task of settling major jurisdictional problems that arise between the dominion and the provinces. If this court is to discharge these vast responsibilities, above everything else it must be a court that merits and deserves, by reason of the fitness of those appointed to it, the custody of the future of the Canadian people. With all the power I can give to my words I ask the government that in making these appointments they select men who enjoy the respect of people everywhere in Canada, men whose honour and capacity is above reproach. If the government will do this, they will go far towards laying the foundation for the type of Supreme Court of Canada that the Canadian people wish to have.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, this bill emphasizes the need of a legal committee of this house. Such a committee should have been set up long ago. I remember when my former leader appointed a committee to advise on and consider the revision of judges' salaries. At that time the government was having a great deal of difficulty in securing properly qualified men to fill vacancies in the high courts and other courts throughout the country. The committee recommended certain changes in the salaries and expenses of the judiciary.
This country has been well served by the large body of members of the bar who in the past have done so much for Canada in the matter of the administration of justice. Under the British North America Act the organization
Judges Act
of the courts is a provincial matter, but the dominion pays the salaries and retiring allowances.
This bill provides that the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is to be increased from $20,000 to $25,000 and the salaries of the other judges from $16,000 to $20,000. The number of judges of the Ontario court of appeal has been increased by Ontario legislation from seven to nine. The judges who go out on circuit are doing good work, but they have to put up with considerable hardship in connection with hotel accommodation and other matters. Most of the hotels are constantly filled to capacity and these judges have great difficulty in securing suitable accommodation. I think the minister should make some allowance for this branch of the work.
The need of a legal committee has been demonstrated during this session. Three-quarters of the time of the house has been taken up in debating the principles of legal bills. We should not make a political football out of the administration of justice. This prevents the minister from filling vacancies and getting members of the bar to give up their private practices at great cost. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) represents that large body of men who are giving their time to this particular branch of work at great cost to themselves.	.
I am doubtful if the provision to increase the number of judges in the Ontario court of appeal from seven to nine is a wise provision. Ontario legislation has increased the number of judges of the high court from fourteen to sixteen. At one time the judges of the court of appeal had to reside in Toronto. It is difficult to obtain housing accommodation and at the present time one of them, owing to lack of housing accommodation, does not live in Toronto, even during court sittings.
We have a very able young supreme court judge who is now sitting in Ottawa, Mr. Justice G. A. Gale. He is a friend of the Speaker and of many other hon. members. He used to be in the firm of Mr. G. W. Mason, treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and is able to conduct cases in such a manner that his ability has received widespread recognition throughout the country. He is only one of a number of younger members of the bar who have taken up this work in Ontario at considerable cost to themselves.
Some arrangements should be made to provide allowances for these judges who travel on circuit. There are no houses available in Toronto, and like everybody else they are

Judges Act
forced to pay two or three times the ordinary value for a house. The increase in the number of judges of the high court of Ontario will provide some assistance for the judges who are now bearing the burden and the heat of the day on circuit throughout our province. Further assistance should be given in the way of travelling expenses. I do not see why the municipalities should have to pay all this when our judges are dealing with national work, and with 200,000 orders in council passed by this government.
I hope some arrangement will be made for consideration of this bill by a legal committee, because that is the only kind of body that can properly deal with it. Members of the bar, the judges and the attorneys general of the provinces could appear before that committee and give their views on these subjects, which are largely provincial. Under the British North America Act the organization of our courts is a provincial matter, and the dominion provides salaries and pensions for those who take up this most important work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just one suggestion I should like to make. I do so partly because the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has suggested what I think would be a desirable change in terminology.
While I am on my feet, however, but without taking the time to repeat them, I want to support the views expressed so well by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I feel it is not proper to increase both the salaries and the pensions of persons in these higher brackets when the government finds it so difficult to do the same thing for people in lower brackets. If this measure did only that, we would oppose it. We are in the position of having to accept the bill, because we recognize the need for an increased number of judges, but we shall shout "on division" as a protest against these increases in salaries already high.
The suggestion I should like to make as to terminology relates to the word "puisne". I suppose, like "Newfoundland", there are half a dozen pronunciations of it. I understand the correct pronunciation is "puny". It does not sound to me like a very complimentary title to give a judge. Certainly the salaries and pensions that go with being "puisne" are not puny. I wonder if consideration should not be given to changing that word to "associate". After all, that is what these justices of the supreme court are, other than the chief justice; they are associate
justices. I would hope that, when consideration is given to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre, consideration will be given also to the suggestion I have made.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, most of the matters which have been referred to this morning were discussed at some length when the bill was in the resolution stage. I do not intend to traverse the ground again at any great length, but a few points have been raised this morning to which I think some attention should be paid.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has suggested that there should be only one supreme court in Canada, and I think there would be none who would dissent from that view. May I point out to my hon. friend, however, that the naming of provincial courts is a provincial prerogative, and there is nothing that we in this House of Commons can do to change the name of the supreme court of Ontario except by making representations to the government and the legislature of that province. I would be quite in accord with doing so, but I think this is one of those dominion-provincial matters in connection with which it would have to be done tactfully. If we were to arrogate to ourselves, as one might infer from my hon. friend's remarks, the privilege of saying what the names of the provincial courts shall be, then we might not-


John George Diefenbaker: There is no question of that at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -we might not produce the result he had in mind.
The hon. member also said that judges should not be appointed as members of royal commissions. Almost instantly we can see that there are certain disadvantages in the appointment of judges to royal commissions. Nevertheless upon further examination of the problem one can see great advantages in having them so act. After all, most royal commissions exercise judicial functions to a greater or lesser degree, and usually to a greater degree. The idea some people seem to have that the judicial function is something anyone with reasonable capacity can exercise without previous experience or training is a wrong one. Therefore when we have to look around in Canada for the most suitable members of royal commissions, judges are eminently fitted as candidates for such posts because of the fact they have been trained in exercising the function which is the chief function of a royal commission.
rMr. Church.1

I think my hon. friend will agree with the observation I am now making, and perhaps will concur in my present agreement with the view he has expressed that in the face of the general problem the only thing a prudent and wise government can do is to balance the advantages against the disadvantages, and endeavour to secure the best of judicial talent for royal commissions, while at the same time not appointing judges to commissions which are likely to become the subject of political controversy.
As to the matter of salaries, I am greatly indebted to the hon. member for Lake Centre for the emphasis which he has placed upon the necessity of obtaining the very best talent that can be secured for the Supreme Court of Canada. I wonder whether we realize that, as a result of the supreme court amendment bill which we passed a few weeks ago, in a sense a new court is being established with greatly increased responsibilities and jurisdiction. The position of a final court of appeal is not only quite distinct and different from that of any other court in the country, but it is also quite different from the supreme court as it has been up until the present time, because it is now the court of last resort. The new court is to take the place of the privy council, which by general consent is one of the greatest appellate tribunals in history, and I suppose certainly the greatest appellate tribunal in the world today. We must remember that the function of deciding the law of our country in the last resort, which we are now turning over to the supreme court judges, was well described by the Earl of Carnarvon at the very time the Supreme Court of Canada was first set up. In doing so he used these words:
The supreme appellate authority of the empire or the realm is unquestionably one of the highest functions and duties of sovereignty. The power of construing, determining and enforcing" the law in the last resort is, in truth, a power which overrides all other powers since there is no act which may not in some form or other become the subject of a decision by the supreme appellate tribunal.
If we have any doubts as to the importance of the function which the court of last resort exercises in this or any other country, we only have to look back upon the effect which certain decisions of the privy council have had upon the constitution of our country. With respect to many judgments of the privy council, I venture to suggest that if any legislative body in Canada had attempted to achieve the same results by legislative action there would have been a tremendous outcry. So when we are setting up, as we have done, a court of last resort in Canada, it is not only preferable and advisable but imperative that we should secure the very best talent, men of the highest
Judges Act
integrity, because there can be few responsibilities in Canada the proper discharge of which will be more important to the welfare of our country than those of the chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
This being so, and having regard to the fact that all those likely to be suitable candidates for appointment to such a court are men in the high income brackets, while we have always expected them, and I think must continue to expect them, to make a substantial financial sacrifice by accepting appointment to this court, there is a certain salary to which we must reconcile ourselves if we are to induce mature lawyers of the highest ability to leave their home communities and come with their families to a new environment in order to serve upon the Supreme Court of Canada. It may be that the amount we are now providing is not enough; but whatever the figure may be that is considered enough, the fact that it is more than we pay some other official in Canada, or more than is earned by the general body of taxpayers in Canada, I suggest is irrelevant to the problem we are considering here.
Canada is not the only country that has to face this problem of offering salaries sufficient to induce lawyers of mature age to leave their home cities and their friends in order to serve upon a supreme court in a capital city. In the United States, for example, in spite of the egalitarian tendency in the matter of salaries, which is far stronger than in Canada, there is still a wide difference in this regard. In some departments there you may have a chief with twenty-five or thirty assistants, and there will be a difference of less than $50 between the salaries of the chief and his assistants, as in the interstate commerce commission, for one example. In that country, however, in spite of the egalitarian tendency to which I have referred, the associate judges of the supreme court in Washington are paid $25,000, whereas judges of the federal district courts of appeal, presumably men who after their appointment would usually remain in the communities in which they had been practising, receive $17,500, and the judges of the federal district trial courts are paid $15,000. So there is quite a wide spread.
If we are to secure the discharge in a proper manner of a function of government that has been described in the terms I previously quoted from the Earl of Carnarvon, we must not approach this matter in any penny-pinching spirit. For some time I acted as treasurer of a province, and I was not noted then as a spendthrift; but there are cases in which one can be penny wise and pound foolish, and I think this is eminently such a case. The total amount we propose to spend upon the

Judges Act
supreme court for the proper discharge of one of the most vital functions in our body politic is not in any sense exorbitant; it never has and never will be. The course we propose in this bill is wise, prudent and economical, a course for which we solicit the support of every hon. member of this house, regardless of party.
I should like to conclude with just a reference to the emphasis laid by the hon. member for Lake Centre-with which I am in entire agreement-on the suggestion that in appointments to this court political considerations should not be permitted to carry weight. In fairness to this government, however, I think I should draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that within recent years there have been cases, which I think it would be invidious for me to identify by name, of appointment of judges who are now ornaments of the bench and who were appointed by this government in spite of the fact that they were of the opposite political persuasion-


Mr. Drew:: You perhaps knew more than we did.


John George Diefenbaker: How many of them were there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and whose appointments have been generally commended by the communities in which they serve, and in fact by the whole country. I agree that it is certainly advisable in all cases, and essential in appointments to the supreme court, that the major test that should be made concerning any candidate is with respect to his legal ability and integrity and judgment. Certainly that is the policy that will be followed in such appointments.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Salaries of judges of Supreme Court of Canada.
The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


George Alexander Drew: In his concluding remarks the minister pointed out that the supreme court would have new duties resulting from the fact that it now becomes the final tribunal, not only in the ordinary civil cases that may come before it but also in the constitutional cases which in so many instances were previously decided by the privy council. I think it would be well for hon. members to
remember that the functions of that court have not yet been clearly defined so far as its constitutional responsibilities are concerned. For this reason I have some concern about the time at which this bill comes before us. The number of judges required to make that court an effective tribunal for all cases that may come before it, and the salaries necessary to attract the type of men who will give this judicial tribunal the very highest possible standing, to some extent relate to the new responsibilities that are to be accepted, and the extent to which these responsibilities will impose additional burdens upon the court. Hon. members of this committee do not yet know what is going to happen in regard to a large number of those constitutional cases which are called for decision by this court. In examining this bill and the arguments that have been put forward, it is necessary to remember that most of the constitutional appeals have related to matters of provincial concern. We do not yet know how those appeals are to be dealt with. That decision can be made only after consultation with the provinces. Undoubtedly it will be one of the first subjects discussed when the provincial governments meet the representatives of the dominion government on January 10. We do not yet know whether the provincial governments will ask for some other form of tribunal, or whether they will ask for some special procedure in relation to these cases.
While supporting without reservation the statement that it should be the desire of every one of us to raise the Supreme Court of Canada to a position of recognized preeminence in the judicial field, I have some concern about being called upon to express at this time an opinion as to the size of that court and the salaries that are required. It might have been advisable to defer the decision until after the meeting with the provinces, so that if agreement is reached, as we all hope it will be, the decision could be made with knowledge of the kind of procedure that is to be adopted in regard to the whole field of constitutional decisions.
I do not think, however, that there appears to be any question that this bill is to be adopted at the present time. I can therefore only reiterate what I have already said and what others have said: Let us hope, as Canadians, that the appointments which are made will give every Canadian reason to be proud of the Supreme Court of Canada. At the same time, in view of the observations I have made, I also urge that the representatives of the dominion government, when they meet the representatives of the provinces, bear in mind that the decisions then made will have

a continuing effect upon the status of the supreme court as our final court of resort in constitutional cases.
I have no thought of reviewing debates which have already taken place, but it will be remembered that one of our objections to a partial amendment to the constitution and a partial procedure for amendment of that constitution was related to this very fact. Some appeals can now go to the Supreme Court of Canada, and some-probably the largest number-can continue to go to the privy council, until there has been this joint decision. Let us hope, whatever procedure is followed as a result of the conference which opens on January 10, that we are not to have two types of constitutional appeal, but that our constitution will be one and indivisible.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister in a position to say when the supreme court will in fact be set up? The press has reported as to whom the two appointees will be.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: They do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: No. Whether that be correct or not, I do not know. But will the minister say when he expects that the court will be set up, so that it will in fact be proclaimed to be a final court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure that anyone listening to the question which has just been asked, and to the speech of the leader of the opposition which preceded it, and who carried in his mind the remarks made yesterday in the matter of the rent reference, must see what a difficult position this government is placed in as a result of the advice which it from time to time gets from the opposition. On the rent reference, I understood that the hon. member for Lake Centre was complaining because the government had not had the Supreme Court Act amendment bill assented to and the whole matter set up so that the rent reference could go to the supreme court in such a way that there would be no appeal to the privy council. Today the leader of the opposition is suggesting that we should not deal with the Supreme Court Act amendment until we have a conference with the provinces. Then the hon. member for Lake Centre wants to know when we are going to bring the Supreme Court Act amendment into effect.


Mr. Casselman:: You have many worse troubles than that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I say to these gentlemen who tender this inconsistent advice that we do not intend to reach a decision about these matters while we are preoccupied daily with an eight-hour sitting of the house and are trying to do our departmental work in the
Judges Act
other two hours. But taking into account all the excellent pieces of inconsistent advice that we have received from the opposition, we shall endeavour to reconcile them all and to reach, at as early a date as possible, a decision with regard to the matter of the appointment of the supreme court judges and the organization of the court on its new basis.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice has in recent days proven that he belongs to a group to whom inconsistency has indeed become a virtue. I can understand his feelings when he endeavours to find inconsistency between the two views expressed. The view I expressed the other evening was that the reason the Supreme Court Act amendment had not been brought into effect might have been that the government wanted to postpone indefinitely a decision whether or not they in fact had the power to continue rent control. They left the door open in that regard, having informed the house that it was most necessary to get that bill through quickly so that the final court could be set up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If we postponed organization of the supreme court until after the dominion-provincial conference, as was suggested by my hon. friend's leader, would we not inevitably become involved in a privy council appeal in a certain set of circumstances if the rent control reference were made to the supreme court before that time?


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly it. The court will not sit until the middle of January, or possibly February. That was the point I was making the other night. Why draft an order in council and place it in the hands of the court before the court is a final court? The minister could have brought the whole question of rent control before the dominion-provincial conference, which could have determined the nature of the question to be submitted, at the same time protecting the constitution and the rights of the provinces. Then he could have made his submission to the final court. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
What the minister did in connection with rent control is this-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. We are discussing a bill to amend the Judges Act to increase the salaries of judges; that is all. We are not discussing a bill to amend the Supreme Court Act. That has been done.

Judges Act


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, you did not notice the departure from the rules when my hon. friend was the one who was committing the breach.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Lake Centre started the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, my departure from the rules was in my endeavour to answer the question which had been asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the minister why the secrecy? Why did he not tell the house when the court is to be set up?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have just finished telling my hon. friend.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. That question refers to the Supreme Court Act; it does not refer to the bill to amend the Judges Act. The question we are discussing is a matter of salaries; that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: Your ruling is final, sir; therefore one can only accept it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: If you accept it, do not discuss it.


John George Diefenbaker: At the same time I have a right to assert, with the greatest deference, that if my hon. friend can break the rules, there is no reason why an hon. member on this side cannot do so.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: My ruling is not debatable. Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Gillis:: I have a few remarks to make on this question.


An hon. Member:: You had better be careful.


Clarence Gillis: I am always in order on these legal points, I am not opposed to increasing judges' salaries as such, but I am certainly not in accord with the reasons given by the Minister of Justice for doing so. He argues that in order to attract the best people to that particular field you have to pay them a high salary, and so forth, and so on. In going through life it has been my experience that you do not buy brains and judgment. You either have it or you have not. To justify the increases in salary on that argument is wrong, in my opinion. I have always found that the persons who have qualifications, ability and principles are generally those who are working for their living, because they believe in the principles they are working for, and they are not for sale. That has been my experience.
I want to leave this thought with the Minister of Justice. The taxpayers of Canada as a whole are the ones who will pay the
[The Chairman.]
salaries that we are setting now. Sitting here as an ordinary individual, who has no legal training, the thing that strikes me is that ninety-five per cent of the people who will pay the salaries will never be in a position to receive any of the super-justice dispensed by this particular body. They will never get before that court. Large corporations, provinces and others who are aggrieved and who have the necessary finances and can pay the fees required to employ legal talent, are the ones that this court will function for. On one occasion in the house I said-and I know there are over eighty lawyers in the house- that you can get as much justice as you can buy. Everyone raised the cry that that was a reflection on the judiciary. It is no such thing. I have never cast any aspersions on the judiciary. I made that statement, and it is a statement of fact. In order to get before this supreme court you will have to pay. I suggested to the previous minister of justice, Mr. Ilsley, that in looking over this whole legal set-up and the matter of dispensing justice, improvements should be made in the courts where ninety per cent of our people see justice dispensed, namely, in the magistrates' courts. These courts certainly do not give the average person in this country very much confidence in the way justice is meted out.
I am not opposed to getting the best men possible for these positions, but I do not agree with the idea that the best man possible for any position is the man who has his talents for sale, and sticks to that particular angle of it. People in certain positions should receive a large enough salary to get along on, and some in some positions require more than others.
During the Minister of Justice's tenure of office I should like him to give attention to the county courts, to which the ordinary citizen who is aggrieved and who has the finances may go. If he has the finances he is reasonably sure of getting some kind of balanced decision there. When the minister is looking at the question I wish he would take a look at the magistrates' courts. If he does I think he will agree that a large percentage of our young people who, because of lack of judgment in many instances, are thrown into penitentiaries for a year or two years, come out with a very bad picture in their minds as to the way in which justice is dispensed. Many of them carry on with that feeling. I suggest that the whole question of justice goes back to the courts of first instance. While it may be all right to get supermen for the super-court, it will not do the ordinary citizen of this country very much good unless he has the finances to get before it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I should let my hon. friend's observations pass unanswered. With the spirit of his reasoning I am in complete accord, but with great respect, I think that he has some of his premises wrong -some of his facts. For example, my hon. friend said that ninety per cent of the citizens of Canada could never get into this highest court of the land, and therefore they are in effect uninterested in the judgments which it renders. I suggest to my hon. friend that while many of this ninety per cent may not get into the highest court in the land as litigants, their lives are being affected every day by the interpretation which is placed by the highest court in the land upon, for example, a division of legislative powers between the dominion and the provinces.
One of the things we have to bear in mind is that it is not only by legislative action that the constitution of a country can be amended. When the fathers of confederation said that all the residuary powers in the country were to be exercised by the dominion, and the privy council in effect over a period of time interpreted property and civil rights within a province as being so wide as to include some residuary powers, they accomplished a change, and I think my hon. friend, being a practical and sensible man, would be the first to agree with me that any change of that kind, which is created by a court of last resort, goes to the hearthstone of every person in the country, no matter how humble he may be. This being so, the humblest man in Canada has a far greater interest in the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada than in some of the intervening appeal courts, because in the last resort it will be the Supreme Court of Canada which will interpret what the law of Canada shall be. The magistrates' courts and the high courts of the provinces, and the like, apply, in relation to the principle of stare decisis which we discussed at such great length on another occasion, the law as determined in the Supreme Court of Canada. With regard to the hon. member's observations as to magistrates' courts and the like, I am sure that upon reflection he will recall that they are all set up provincially, and that if any reforms are required in that direction his observations should be addressed to the provincial authorities.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I always like to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He is the iconoclast of the house. He clears up these images so that they can be seen.
There is only one thing which I believe the minister missed. Up until the time of the amendment to the Supreme Court Act this
Judges Act
year a poor man could not get to the supreme court. He could go to the privy council in forma pauperis; in other words, he could apply to the courts for permission to go there, no matter how poor he might be. Provision was made this year, however, through an amendment introduced by my hon. friend, whereby anyone in this country, however humble, however poor, and despite his inability to meet the cost of litigation or the security for costs, may go to the Supreme Court of Canada, except so far as his constitutional freedoms are concerned, by simply making the necessary application. This was a step forward. My hon. friend asks where he would get counsel to argue the case. Well, no matter how eminent counsel may be, from my experience they will take anybody's case, regardless of fees, where a matter of injustice has been established. Today any person can go to the supreme court. Lack of finances does not now keep him back, and I am sure counsel could be found to take a case.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with everything the minister said, but he started off on the wrong foot by misquoting me.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry if I misquoted the hon. member; certainly I did not intend to do so.


Clarence Gillis: He said that I had said the average citizen is unaffected by and not interested in decisions of the supreme court. I did not say that, because I know he is. I am satisfied with the discussion thus far. It was my intention merely to focus the attention of the Minister of Justice upon the fact that justice does not begin in the supreme court, it has its beginning in the courts of first instance. If you are lucky you will get justice; but I could mention many cases coming within my personal knowledge in which people had good cases but lacked the necessary financial backing to follow them up. I shall not say anything further on the point at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister comment upon my suggestion to change the word "puisne" to "associate"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was trying to be polite and not comment upon it. The fact that my hon. friend is not aware of the tradition attaching to the use of this word is not in my opinion a good reason for changing it. The word is not synonymous with "puny", in any sense. Among those who use the term it is generally understood as having a meaning the equivalent of the word associate. I can see no reason why it should be changed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
Fish Inspection Act
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Some hon. Members Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



FISH INSPECTION ACT


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 63, respecting the inspection of fish and marine plants.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Regulations.


Mr. Applewhaiie:: Mr. Chairman, this is the pertinent section of the bill. I should like to make some brief observations and ask one question.
I have received from the Pacific coast representations which indicate that the industry as a whole not only welcomes this bill but welcomes also the regulations which will be adopted thereunder. Bearing in mind that, speaking roughly, the industry consists of two main parts, namely, the fishermen, and the fish houses and processing plants, may we have the assurance from the minister that when the regulations under this provision are being prepared, both sections of the industry will be given ample opportunity to make recommendations and representations with regard thereto? I am not suggesting for one moment that the government should turn over to the industry its power to make regulations. I am asking that, with a view to the drafting of workable and practicable regulations, consideration be given to both branches of the industry, so that we may have the assurance that the regulations will be based upon commercial standards and not solely upon laboratory, abstract and scientific principles. We want the assurance that they will be workable and devised for the protection of the industry as well as of the consuming public, either in this country or, as in this instance, the country to which the goods are exported.
I can assure the minister that under these circumstances he nfill find in all branches of

the industry on the Pacific coast that his act and the regulations will be lived up to in spirit and to the letter.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, I have already agreed with the industry that they would have an opportunity of discussing regulations with us before they are put into effect. The hon. member is asking that the fishermen, and others not definitely in the industry, have the same privilege. I can assure him they will, although we must have the last say. It is our belief that if we are to have regulations which will be operative and serve the industry to the best advantage, they must be regulations which all sections of the industry understand, and in the fulfilment of the purpose of which all sections of the industry will co-operate.


Mr. Carroll:: Is it only fish to be exported to foreign countries that will be subject to this inspection?


Mr. MacNaughi:: It applies to interprovincial trade as well.


William F. Carroll: I think it should apply also to fish that are caught, processed and used in a particular province.


John Watson MacNaught: As my hon. friend knows, that is a matter of provincial concern, and we hope that the provinces will pass enabling legislation so that the desired effect can be obtained.


William F. Carroll: It should be the concern of the Department of Fisheries, because this parliament can pass ancillary legislation. The conditions here are somewhat similar to those which obtained in the apple industry in Nova Scotia. Apples that were to be sent to England or other places were inspected, but those consumed in the province were not, and the result was that the people in the province got very poor apples.


Mr. Higgins:: This bill has been studied by a standing committee of the house, by the fisheries council of Canada and by the fisheries board of Newfoundland, and was given the approval of all those bodies. I can see no need of considering the matter further. It would appear that the bill will be of great value to the fisheries of this country, and it is something that we have needed for some time. I do not think we should spend too much time in discussing it.


John Watson MacNaught: I think it should be pointed out that paragraph (e) was amended in the standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Sections 5 to 11 inclusive agreed to.

On section 12-Marine plants. Conditions for export.
Mr. McLure:: I think a further statement should be made with regard to this section. We should be told what regulations will be prescribed.


John Watson MacNaught: No regulations have been drawn up as yet. This section will permit the department to enforce regulations in connection with the export of marine plants, particularly Irish moss. As the hon. member for Queens knows, for some time past there has been a voluntary inspection of Irish moss. The industry, and the people dealing in Irish moss, have asked that there be compulsory inspection. We hope to prepare regulations to be submitted to the industry for approval, and they will then be proclaimed and carried out. It is important that proper regulations be prepared, otherwise this industry may be lost to the maritime provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Appointment of inspectors, etc.
Mr. Anderson:: I should like to compliment the minister upon this most worthy bill. I am sure that the people all over Canada, and especially those in Norfolk county, from which I come, approve the provisions of this bill. At Port Dover we have what I understand is the largest fresh water fishing fleet in the world-and in saying this I am not trying to advertise Port Dover. I urge upon the minister that he consider having a resident of Port Dover as inspector at that point.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member's letter was received only this morning. I assure him it will be given careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 18 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved: Canada Forestry Act
that are being harvested. In order to accomplish this he recommends, amongst other things:
1.	Fire protection must be greatly increased.
2.	The rate of planting denuded areas of productive forest land must be greatly increased.
3.	Logging methods must be regulated to prevent destructive exploitation, and to ensure full regeneration of cut-over lands.
4.	New systems of tenure and taxation need to be formulated to encourage private forestry and to remove causes compelling liquidation.
5.	There must be a more intensified research in the practice of silvicultural methods.
6.	Facilities and funds must be provided for extensive forestry research.
This is a responsibility that faces every province. It is a program which entails heavy expense, but an expense that is small in relation to the revenue derived from our forest industries. It could be said that, as our natural resources belong to the provinces, they should be responsible for their protection, but this overlooks the fact that the dominion, quite apart from all other benefits, derives considerable revenue from our forest industries and the subsidiary industries that they sustain. We undoubtedly have an obligation to assist the provinces, and to do so in a way that will contribute most to the common good.
During the course of the debate in committee when we were discussing the resolution preceding the bill, many statements were made which demonstrated the interest of members in the subject of forestry, but in some cases they also indicated that some members do not altogether realize the extent of the work at present being carried on in our forestry division. For example, one member stated that my department "had no experience really in regard to forests", and suggested that we should consult the provinces, overlooking the fact that until 1930 the dominion had direct control over 33,000 square miles of national forests. While in 1930 the government handed over our natural resources in the west, including our national forests, to the four western provinces, we by no means eliminated our dominion forest service. It continued to operate very efficiently, in spite of the limited appropriations that were available, and through close and continued co-operation with the provinces has been able to provide most useful services.
By maintaining three forest products laboratories and five forest experimental stations, much valuable information has been secured. If any of the members wish to visit

our forest products laboratory in Ottawa, I am sure that they will find it just as interesting as I did when I visited it for the first time.
Through district offices established across Canada, close contact is maintained with the provincial authorities. In addition, during the summer months thirty-one forest survey parties have been in the field compiling information on such subjects as forest inventories, fire danger research, regeneration, and the growth and yield in various forest regions. Many of these parties have been working in provincial areas securing data which is available to both the provinces and the dominion. By means of air photography, and by using new techniques developed in the department, considerable information has been secured as to forest resources.
1 think hon. members will agree that all this is good as far as it goes, but I do not think anyone believes that it is sufficient to provide adequate protection for the forest resources of Canada. I mentioned a few moments ago the limited appropriations, which were reduced from $1,427,000 in 1930-31 to a low of $241,000 in 1934-35. Since then our appropriations for forest services have been gradually increased until we have in the estimates today the sum of $1,418,000 for 1949-50, and additional sums provided for special projects amounting to nearly two and one-half million dollars.
It was in 1943 that eight of the provinces submitted a brief outlining recommendations for a forestry program, some of which have already been partly implemented. The provinces recommended first that the dominion government grant assistance to the provinces for forest protection, including protection against fire, insects and diseases; second, that the dominion government consider the advisability of intensifying research on forest problems; and third, that the dominion government give special consideration to the whole question of conservation and proper utilization and management of forest resources as a permanent national forest policy.
I have said that some of these recommendations have already been partly implemented. The forest insect control board was set up in 1945, consisting of representatives from the forestry branch, the Department of Agriculture, and the provinces, and appropriations for forest entomology were increased from $70,000 a year to $1,087,000. At the present time this board reports to the Department of Mines and Resources, while the research work in forest entomology is undertaken by the Department of Agriculture. A forest entomological laboratory at Sault Ste. Marie was built by the province of Ontario, and in

1945 was equipped and staffed by the dominion government. A new forest pathological laboratory is also being completed at the Sault with dominion funds, and is being staffed by the dominion. This will be, I may say, one of the most up-to-date laboratories of its kind in the world.
Our forest products laboratories carry out research to promote the more efficient use of our forest resources, to prevent waste, and to provide new uses for species of wood now used only to a limited extent.
Fire of course provides the great hazard that annually destroys millions of dollars' worth of timber, and this is a danger that must be faced by the dominion and the provinces together. I think hon. members will be interested in the statistics for 1948, which show that 23 per cent of all fires were started by smokers, 18 per cent by lightning, 17 per cent by camp fires, 12 per cent by railways, 11 per cent by settlers; and 19 per cent were attributable to various other causes. In the same year, 1948, there were 5,368 forest fires in the provinces, and the total damage, including fire-fighting costs, is estimated at more than $8,500,000.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: If I may interrupt the minister, what percentage of the fires was caused by smokers?


Colin William George Gibson: Twenty-three per cent.
When a fire starts in a forest it can be controlled only if early warning is received and if it is possible to reach the fire quickly with adequate equipment. To combat fires we require roads which make forest areas readily accessible, extensions to our telephone and radio communication, fire-fighting equipment, and additions to our forest ranger services.
The provinces themselves have not found it possible to provide sufficient facilities to deal with fires, and would welcome dominion assistance. I may say that approaches already have been made by some of the provinces to open negotiations under the provisions of this legislation. The bill itself does not set out any definite forest program, as that can be worked out only in consultation with the provinces; but it does authorize the department to enter into agreements with provincial governments, with other departments of our government, and with private interests. Such agreements can provide for research programs which will avoid duplication or overlapping and at the same time make assistance available to the provinces to enable them to carry out constructive forestry programs. Already we are working in co-operation with the province of Alberta to protect the forests on the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains.
45781-157i
Canada Forestry Act
Not having such a bill as is being considered today, it was necessary to adopt a special act to provide for this assistance. In the future it is hoped and expected that through this measure progressive policies can be developed and put into operation not only for the protection but also for the development of our forest resources.


George Alexander Drew: The general subject matter of this bill is perhaps one of the most important with which this house will be called upon to deal. The working out of the details of course will have to await the arrangements made with the provinces, though many things are being done now under agreements between the dominion and provincial governments.
It does seem to me that everything possible should be done to impress upon the minds of our people the immense importance of protection of the forests. There is not only the damage to the soil which results from excessive cutting or the burning over of areas which are not replanted; there is also the loss of water power and the very great danger that fire or excessive cutting may result in communities which have been built up around the production of forest products being left without the raw materials necessary for that purpose. Right across Canada there are many examples of ghost towns which were once prosperous communities, but which found themselves ultimately in that position for no other reason than that the forest resources within the immediate area had been cut away to a point where economic supplies of wood were no longer available.
The minister has pointed out that the limitation of cutting is of necessity a matter for the provincial governments to deal with. Nevertheless a great deal can be accomplished in developing a better understanding of the obligation upon every citizen and every visitor to this country to avoid endangering these great continuing crops which today provide the largest single dollar value in the production of this country.
The minister has given the figures for 1948, and the percentage of fires resulting from various causes. It happens that I have the figures for 1949, which have just been prepared by the province of Ontario. They indicate the damage being done by certain types of fires, and undoubtedly call for an educational program in which our service clubs and other similar organizations can play an extremely important part by reason of their opportunity to place these ideas before the people.
As an example of the continuing nature of this damage I point out that in Ontario alone

Livestock Pedigree Act in 1949, according to the departmental records, there were 1,762 forest fires. The causes of those fires are interesting. They
were as follows:
Lightning	 451
Campers	 421
Smokers	 370
Settlers	 164
Railway operations	 139
Road construction activities	 53
Logging operations	 51
Incendiarism	 28
Mining operations	 6
Prospecting operations	 5
Undetermined	 74
These figures, I think, would represent a relatively uniform pattern right across Canada, and it will be seen that most of the fires were the result of carelessness. On the other hand the number of fires caused by lightning is an extremely important consideration to which I think we should direct our attention in discussing this subject.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions, I wish to table a summary of orders in council passed during the period September 1 to October 31, 1949.
The previous summary was tabled on November 18. Like the previous summary, this one does not include a summary of the treasury board minutes.



LIVESTOCK PEDIGREE ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 120, respecting the incorporation of purebred livestock record associations.


George Alexander Drew: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been suggested that I explain. This bill passed the Senate in the last session, came to this house just before parliament was dissolved and was not discussed in this house. But on that occasion it passed through the Senate. It went to a committee in the Senate and was discussed fully there. This session it has gone through the same process; it has been

in the Senate. It was introduced in the Senate, went to a committee, was discussed fully there, and has been referred by the Senate to this house. Instead of going into a lengthy discussion of the measure on second reading, I would suggest that it might be acceptable to the house to have it go to committee and that we have our discussion, if any, there. I make that suggestion in order to speed up the handling of the measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 185, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Blocks ineligible for award.


Mr. Argue:: Before section 1 is carried, Mr. Chairman, I should like to state to the minister my views on the substance of subclause (a) and ask for his opinion on what is proposed in that clause. The minister was unable to attend the meetings of the committee on agriculture, and for that reason there was no one there to give an explanation of government policy.
The amendment to the act reduces from a block of nine sections to a block of six that area which may be removed from a township that is eligible for prairie farm assistance. It reduces the average yield in the block which may be removed from something over fourteen bushels to anything over ten. My point is that within this six-section rectangular block, when it is removed, there may be one or two farmers with a crop of less than eight bushels per acre and therefore a crop failure according to the provisions of this act. I do not believe that any farmer within an eligible township, and who has a crop of less than eight bushels per acre, should be removed from the provisions of this act. I think it is discriminatory to remove any farmer on that basis.
I want to point out that in the committee we tried to have this section amended so that no farmer within a six-section block should be taken out of an eligible township if his yield was under eight bushels per acre. I would point out that in 1947, while there were 2,644 townships eligible under the act, only 17 part townships were removed. I might further point out that the departmental official, Mr. Matte, gave us some interesting

information when he said that the board of review went over the experience they have had with 300 townships. He found that there were just three instances in which a block of six sections would have been removed. In these three instances there was just one farmer with a yield of less than eight bushels per acre. If this provision could be changed so that no farmer would be excluded from getting the bonus if he had a yield of less than eight bushels per acre it would certainly cost the government very little money, perhaps just a few hundred dollars. As. the departmental official, Mr. Matte, said, in the 300 townships only one farmer was excluded. Therefore if this provision was changed to that extent it would cost the government only two or three hundred dollars to give a bonus to a farmer who has in fact a crop failure.
I know the minister has done a great deal toward improving this act, and I think it would be a small change and I should like to have his views on it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, although I was not able to be present in the agriculture and colonization committee I did read all of the evidence that was taken there, and therefore I am well aware of the views which the hon. member for Assiniboia holds. The opinion which is held is one which I have been trying to remove from the minds of persons in western Canada generally ever since the act was enacted in 1939. We do not make payments to anyone because of the small or large amount of wheat that he may produce on an acre of land. That is not done. And to put up the argument at any time that, because a man has only eight bushels of wheat to the acre, he ought to have payment is not in accordance with any part of the principle of this act. The act simply says that we use the yield of wheat on the land in a township for the purpose of finding out whether it has been dry or not. We do not make payment on the basis of wheat. A man does not have to grow any wheat in order to get payment. A man does not have to grow any grain at all in order to get payment. A man may have nothing but grass with livestock running on it and he will still get payment. Payments are not made on the basis of wheat at all. We take the yield of wheat only to find out how dry it has been in a certain area. And when we find that it has been so dry that the average yield of wheat in a township is eight bushels or less, to the acre, when wheat is at the present price, we say that payment ought to be made to every farmer in that township.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
In so far as this particular section is concerned, as I said before, when the average yield was more than fourteen bushels to the acre then nine or more sections of land in a rectangular form might be removed from the benefits of the act. It was found by experience, and from the criticisms of the municipal associations, that we had not given sufficient thought to the matter when we put in nine, whatever the figure should have been, because there is no way you can get a rectangular block of nine sections unless it be three by three. Therefore that was not a very good figure to have taken.
In this particular amendment we say six instead of nine. And when it is six it is one strip up one side of a township, or it may be two by three running directly away from the ineligible area, or it may be two by three running up and down alongside the area. There are quite a number of ways in which you can figure six townships and still get it rectangular, as against a number that you can figure out with nine. Then, of course, the condition with regard to the greater numbers is much the same. It could be twelve; it could be some other figure and still be rectangular. But the reason for changing from fourteen to ten is that the act as it stood was operative up to twelve bushels to the acre until wheat rose in price from down around 50 or 60 cents up to over 80 cents. There is one section of the act that is not operative at all and has not been operative since wheat passed 80 cents a bushel some years ago. That part is the section which provides for payments between eight and twelve bushels. Payments are made there only when the price of wheat is under 81 cents. When it is over 80 cents it cuts out altogether. That again is just a means of figuring out what the returns are that a farmer is likely to get in an area. While that was operative we said fourteen bushels to the acre was the point at which you started to take land out of an eligible township. We have been operating with the section in during the last few years, and there was no way of taking land out until it got up to that particular level, with the result that many sections of land were permitted to remain in where the yield was not below eight bushels to the acre on the average. Therefore, criticisms were made that some people, who had very high yields not only of wheat but of oats and barley or very good grass crops, were getting paid at a time when some other people were not being paid. We have simply reduced it down to having the same relationship to eight now as it had to twelve before. It is ten now before you start to take it out as against eight when it comes in. It was fourteen before as against twelve;

Prairie Farm Assistance Act so that unless we get down to the point where we are getting 80 cents a bushel for our wheat there will be no reason for having to figure any change.
The only other thing I should like to say about the matter is that I think the argument that was put up by hon. members of the committee against the proposed amendment of the member for Assiniboia, and which resulted in its being voted down when it was before the committee, is a sound argument, namely, that not only are you starting to make payments on the yield of wheat that an individual has, but you are trying to base this legislation more or less on an individual basis. I know that in the committee hon. members from other parts of Canada were desirous of knowing what is a section. It is about 640 acres of land. What is the size of a farm in western Canada? I think the impression was given that a section of land is about the size of a farm. That of course is not correct. In western Canada the average-size farm is more nearly a half-section of land than a section. As a matter of fact it is under three hundred acres. A short time ago I had occasion to look at our own figures to find out how many farms there are in Saskatchewan that have two sections or more of land. It is less than two per cent. In other words, this idea that farms in western Canada are big carries us away sometimes. On the average they are not as big as some people think they are. The average farm is much smaller than was suggested the other day. While you would not be getting down to an individual basis if you made it a section of land, yet you would be getting down to a unit so small that it would not meet the purposes that are fundamental in the act itself. One of these purposes is that a man should not be encouraged to stay on land that is never going to produce a good crop at any time. In order to emphasize what that means I shall give the committee a few facts with regard to the area where the payments have been highest.
Take a block of land in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan, with its west boundary on the boundary of Alberta and its east boundary, No. 4 highway, running north from the United States border through Swift Current, crossing the Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing, directly north of Swift Current; and take as the north boundary the South Saskatchewan river, and the south boundary the United States border- in that area there are 369 townships. In that area there are only three townships which have received payment in only one year out of the last nine years. In that area there are only four townships which have received payment for only two years, and

only one that has received payment for only three years. Then, there are 14 that have received payment for four years, and 31 that have received payment for five years out of nine. That is just slightly more than half the period. There are only 69 townships in that block of 369 that have not had payments for more than five years. In other words 300 townships in there have had payments five years or more.


John George Diefenbaker: That is in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, in Saskatchewan-in that one block in Saskatchewan. Those who prepared the act had in mind two things, one of which was to assist the people in remaining on areas where it is very difficult for them to remain until such time as we can work out some plan to have them resettled. The other was to determine, by getting information just as we are getting it today, what areas ought to be resettled.
I believe there will be very little doubt in the minds of most people that when an area has had payments for five years out of nine- and 31 of these townships received them five years out of nine, 82 received them six years out of nine, 114 received them seven years out of nine, 75 received them eight years out of nine, and 29 received them nine years out of nine,-there is no doubt that someone should begin to arrange some plan to have them resettled rather than continue paying to keep them on.
Therefore I say it is not desirable to have a section put into the bill which says that if a man is living on a piece of land with a yield of less than eight bushels to the acre he ought to be paid, no matter what his neighbours are getting off their lands. He may be living on a sandhill. It may be that he is not utilizing his land to the best advantage, as some of his neighbours are. There may be many reasons. But we are not paying on the basis of what he produces in wheat; we are paying on the basis of what it is possible for him to do because of the climatic conditions in the whole area in which he lives. We desire to have the act maintained on that basis, rather than to have it put on an individual basis in the sense that some people will be paid, while others are not, on a basis different from that on which others are being paid.


Hazen Robert Argue: I agree that the attitude of the government has always been that this act should not be placed on an individual basis. I also differ from the minister in his belief that it should not be placed on an individual basis. I do agree that something has to be done, and very soon, to take care of people farming in the area the minister has just mentioned.

I do not want to go outside the act in the discussion but if the government is interested in doing something to remove people from the provisions of the act, so that they will not have crop failures year in and year out, then of course it should do something about irrigation. However I am not suggesting at this time that the purposes of the act be changed.
The act applies only when there is a township with a crop failure and, if there is a township with a crop failure, then it can be applied to half townships with crop failures and thus, on a basis of rough justice, to people in a township or a half township. All I asked under paragraph (a) was that the minister should see that one or two farmers who are discriminated against at the present time should be allowed to get payments.
While I am on my feet I should like to deal with paragraph (b) of section 1, which deals with bringing into an eligible township a block of land outside the eligible township and lying within an ineligible township. This provision used to be applied to a rectangular block of nine sections, and has now been reduced to a rectangular block of six sections.
I point out to the minister that when he takes in a rectangular block he is very likely taking in some farmers who have more than eight bushels to the acre and, beyond question, he is leaving out many farmers in the ineligible neighbouring township who have a yield of less than eight bushels of wheat to the acre. I do not wish to leave the impression that I do not know a farmer can be paid for a crop failure, even though he does not grow wheat. Wheat is taken only as a yardstick by which payments are made.
In the committee I suggested that the clause be changed, and that instead of adding to an eligible township rectangular blocks of a given size the government should add to the township a section or string of sections contiguous to the eligible township, so long as the yield in those sections was less than eight bushels to the acre.
The minister added strength to my argument when he pointed out that there are more half-section farms in western Canada than farms of any other size. My suggestion was that after an area has been declared eligible the department should go on from there and add on sections of land-not individual farms-but sections of land in which the yield of wheat was less than eight bushels to the acre.
Irrespective of the government's attitude or the purposes of the act as set out by the minister, I say without fear of successful contradiction that the farmers of western Canada are interested in having the payments made on an individual basis. They
Prairie Farm Assistance Act are interested, particularly after a township has been declared eligible, that the individual sections of land outside the township may be included.
With that in mind, in the committee on agriculture I offered an amendment. The chairman of the committee said that the committee did not have the right to change the bill, but that after it was passed in committee we might tag on to it certain recommendations to the government. Therefore my suggestion would not even have changed the bill, but would have merely brought to the attention of the minister the majority opinion of the committee on agriculture, had that recommendation been accepted. My amendment was that the committee recommend that the government consider the advisability of amending Bill No. 185 by deleting subparagraph (b) of the proposed new section 7, in section 1 of the bill, and substituting therefor the following:
(b) Where a section of land lies within an ineligible township and has a side that lies alongside an eligible township or is a section which lies alongside an eligible section or a corner of which touches the corner of an eligible township or an eligible section, such section of land1 shall be eligible for award as though it were a complete township.
If that recommendation had been made to the government and if the government had changed the bill accordingly it would mean that farmers alongside an eligible township who had a crop failure because of drought could become eligible under the act. The yeas were Argue, Bryce, Fair, Wright. The nays were Bennett, Blue, Corry, Darroch, Dumas, Elderkin, George, Hetland, Jutras, Kent, Laing, Leger, MacKenzie, McCubbin, Murray (Oxford), Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche), Roberge, Studer.
I would like to point out that the Conservatives on that committee were not responsible for the defeat of my amendment. I do not think there were any Conservative members from western Canada present when the vote was taken. The Conservative members from eastern Canada apparently felt that they did not have sufficient information to judge whether my suggestion was a good one or not. There were four yeas and eighteen nays, and among those eighteen nays was the hon. member for Maple Creek and the hon. member for Humboldt. How members of the agriculture committee who came from Saskatchewan could vote against a suggestion that a recommendation be made to the government to improve the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is entirely beyond me.
I could not understand the vote of the hon. member for Maple Creek because a large part of these payments have been made in his

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
constituency. I know it is said that the rural municipal association wanted this amendment and I think it can be said that they thought it would be a step in the right direction. I venture to say that there are not a dozen farmers in the dried-out areas of Saskatchewan who would vote against the suggestion I made in the committee.
Here is what the hon. member for Humboldt said in the committee, and I quote from page 11:
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should change it very much; as a matter of fact, I do not think we should change it at all. This is a thing that we have been asking for over the years, and now that we have it here in the form in which it is before us, X think we should accept it.
As I have said before and as I say now, the present act does not go far enough. I am sorry the Liberal members of that committee did not support my amendment. If it had passed it would not have defeated the government, it would not even have criticized the government; it was merely asking the government to consider whether or not the act could be broadened to include farmers who have a crop failure. Irrespective of whether the minister is satisfied with this act, I am not, and I shall raise this matter at every session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has referred to the agriculture committee and lest there be any misunderstanding in that connection may I say that I attended in that committee during the forenoon and expressed myself with regard to his suggestion. I believed that it was something that I could support and that it should be sent on as a recommendation. However, I was not present when the vote was taken. The debate on the combines matter was going on in the house and I felt that I had some responsibility in that connection and could not be present when the vote in the committee was taken.
Having said that, there are one or two matters I should like to ask the minister about. I think the amendment does meet a situation about which there has been criticism over the years. Personally I have felt that some change along this line should be made and that as far as possible the aim should be to have the payments made on an individual basis.
At all times I have endeavoured to be fair and have said that I thought it would be impossible to make these payments on an individual basis without a substantial increase in the amounts presently deducted from the producers. In order to be in position to bring to the attention of the committee certain suggestions in connection with the Prairie Farm

Assistance Act amendments, and to keep this matter non-political, I wrote to various municipalities in my constituency.
In the southern part of my constituency there are large areas which have had continuing drought such as was referred to a moment ago by the Minister of Agriculture. Year after year there have been crop failures such as the hon. member for Maple Creek referred to in his first speech in the house. These areas require consideration from all parts of Canada in order that the people living there may be assured that they will at least have an opportunity through assistance given under this act to prepare for the next year. The minister says, "Why don't they leave?"


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Words to that effect, or that something should be done to remove them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that we should do something to resettle them, not necessarily that they should leave the district.


John George Diefenbaker: That something should be done. But while that thing is being done, and it has not been done


James Garfield Gardiner: A lot of it has.


John George Diefenbaker: -every consideration
should be given to making the payments as nearly as possible on an individual basis. The minister has referred to the size of the farms in Saskatchewan, and what he says about the average size is correct. I should like to quote from the letter I received from the municipality of Willner. This reads:
When the Prairie Farm Assistance Act first came into operation the average farm unit was about three-quarters of a section. It now appears that a farmer needs from one and a half to two sections if he is going to own a full line of power machinery. As a result of this the limit of 200 acres imposes a hardship on many farmers.
In that particular area the farms are fairly large in acreage and one complaint is that with the law as it is today the qualification requirements are such that they work an injustice on those who are farming the larger tracts. Generally speaking, the information from the municipalities, which I intend to bring to the attention of the minister, indicates that they believe that crop insurance is not possible because the premiums would be too high.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask what is the largest town in Willner? I just want to find out.


John George Diefenbaker: I would say the largest farm-


James Garfield Gardiner: The largest town.


John George Diefenbaker: Davidson is the largest town and, as the minister knows, farming

operations in that area are on a large scale. The usual letter is along the lines of the letter I received from the rural municipality of Rosedale at Hanley. The letter was submitted to the reeve and the councillors, and the council is of the opinion that the amount of the award should be substantially increased. There is the same recommendation from the rural municipality of Dufferin at Bethune. They set forth in their recommendation the amount of the increase, which is approximately $1 to $1.50 an acre. The rural municipality of Touchwood at the eastern end of the constituency, which is not affected to the same degree, suggests that the area of qualification be reduced to six sections, very much after the fashion of the amendment before the house. The rural municipality of Big Arm also asks that, so far as possible, the qualification be reduced to an individual basis. The rural municipality of McKillop at Strasbourg asks for an increase in the amount paid. In no case is the increase asked for an exorbitant amount. It runs from 50 cents to $1 an acre. These in general represent the consensus of the rural municipalities in an area that over the years has been subject to the danger of recurring drought. The only exception to that is the eastern area around Punnichy.
I pass on from there to a matter on which I have received correspondence as late as today. I should like the minister to answer a question that I will propound to him based on what is now taking place in the province of Saskatchewan. A series of mass meetings are being held during the present week, beginning on the 28th of November at Hodge-ville and continuing in various parts of the province, regarding payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. They are extensively advertised. The areas in the southern part of the province are those to which the minister made reference a moment ago when he gave statistics of certain townships that for a period of seven successive years had received payments under this act.
As I said a moment ago, these meetings have been extensively advertised in the press, and are given widespread publicity in the Western Producer. The situation in many of these areas of central and southern Saskatchewan is more serious than it has been since the days of the thirties when drought swept everything away except hope and determination on the part of those living there. These farmers are meeting together for the purpose of having some provision made by parliament for a temporary increase in benefits for this year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Several farmers in different areas have written to me, apparently without collaboration, intimating that the government has 45781-158
Prairie Farm Assistance Act under consideration the raising of benefits for this year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act by $1 an acre under legislation to be introduced before the end of this session or at the next session of parliament. I should like the minister to say whether or not consideration is being given to an increase of $1 an acre, which would be most helpful at this time and would be uplifting to the spirit of these people, who find themselves today under the conditions that were so eloquently described by the hon. member for Maple Creek in a speech to which I have already made reference.
That is one of the matters coming before these meetings. Apparently those responsible for organizing them are doing so in a widespread area. The second thing they are asking is whether or not, having regard to the failures they have suffered, consideration is being given either under this act or outside it-I presume it would be within the purview of this act-to the supplying of farmers in these areas with seed wheat at reduced prices in order to enable them to carry on and face the next year with at least the opportunity of again challenging nature, as they do in these areas, by seeding crops in the springtime.
I know in my own constituency registered seed grain is being offered by municipalities at $2.40 a bushel. Prices are very high for seed barley. The farmers in these municipalities are asking whether or not, having regard to the fact that in these areas there is an emergency condition so great in scope as to merit national attention, the government has in mind the granting of either of the requests to which I have made reference. These are matters that transcend any consideration of party, or the location in the house which any hon. member occupies for the moment. They are matters which affect all members from Saskatchewan. As I see it, being a question of national moment inasmuch as the drought areas affect a population of 150,000 or 200,000 people, these are matters about which I am sure the people living in these areas would like to have some assurance from the Minister of Agriculture as to what is going to be done.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, when the bill was discussed before on the motion for second reading, I expressed certain views on behalf of this group, and I may say that my views are just the same today as they were then, notwithstanding anything that took place in the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. I regret that I was unavoidably absent from that committee at the time the bill was being discussed. First of all I notice the minister takes exception to the suggestion

Prairie Farm Assistance Act that the average size farm would be a section or more. He may be correct in so far as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta generally are concerned, but it is not true as regards the area in Alberta coming under the act. For instance, three-quarters of my constituency comes under the act, and I would say the average size of the farms would be well over a section, and is more likely two or three sections. That is the area to which the act applies. We are not interested in areas in the province that do not come under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask my friend one question? Will he not admit when these farms are organized into much larger units those doing so eliminate themselves from the act? They do it quite deliberately.


Victor Quelch: I did not get the minister's point.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount you can draw under the act is limited to 200 acres of cultivated land. When a man reorganizes his farm and extends it to cover two sections, he does so because he thinks he is going to be better off with two sections of land, in view of the conditions under which he is living. In other words he is assisting in the resettlement and reorganization of the area, just as the government is assisting; and he knows what he is doing when he does it.


Victor Quelch: I did not say the average amount of cultivated acreage per farmer was more than a section; I said the average size of a farm is over a section. That would include a great deal of pasture land because, as the minister knows, in that area it often takes around two thousand acres of land to pasture sixty head of stock. But that farmer would still be eligible under the act for assistance on up to 200 acres.
Generally speaking, as I said on second reading, I think the P.F.A.A. is a good act. I think these amendments are going to improve it. On the other hand they do not remove some of the main criticisms we hear against it. I want to deal with the first two amendments contained in this bill. First is the amendment to section 7(a). Would the minister say the real purpose of this amendment is to deny the bonus to a farmer who has suffered crop failure within an eligible township? I think he will agree that is not the purpose, but that the purpose is to deny the bonus to a farmer in an eligible township who has over ten bushels to the acre.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no, it is not. It is to deny to a farmer in an area of six sections or more the right to come under the provisions of this act because of the fact that he is not living in an area which is now said
[Mr. Quelch.}
to be in the same position as a full township in relation to all the terms of this legislation. He is living in an area where the average yield is more than eight bushels to the acre; that is why he is denied this assistance. It has nothing to do with his individual position.


Victor Quelch: Nevertheless the yield in those six sections must be over ten bushels to the acre. As I pointed out on second reading, under this section farmers residing in an eligible township with a total crop failure have been denied the bonus, not because they were residing in a district where the yield was good but simply because they happened to be adjacent to a small block that had a good yield. Surely the minister must agree that a farmer residing in a township where 28 sections of land, we will say, have had a total crop failure should be considered as residing in an area where there has been a large degree of crop failure, and therefore should be entitled to the bonus. In that case the minister could not suggest that we are asking for the bonus for a farmer just because he happens to have a poor piece of land. That is the general condition. The yield on the six or nine sections is not to be taken as indicating the general condition in that township. If a farmer suffering a crop failure happens to be unfortunate enough to reside on one quarter of that six-section area, I should say he would be far more entitled to the bonus than the farmer who happened to have his farm adjacent to a small block of land where there was a crop failure.
I give the minister this example, which happened in the Rumsey area. A township had been declared eligible; then in one corner they found six sections with a yield of around twenty bushels to the acre. They could not take out those six sections because the minimum number was nine. So they added three sections that had practically a total crop failure, but still the average was above fourteen bushels. The minister must admit that it was hardly fair to include the other three sections. I took up the matter with the P.F.A. officials here, who said it was very unfortunate but that as the act was worded they had no alternative. Therefore I suggest that under this amendment those officials should be given power to use their discretion in determining whether or not certain sections should be denied the benefits of the act.
I noticed that in committee the assistant director under P.F.A.A. said this very seldom happened. Well, it seems to me that whenever it has happened it has been in my constituency, because several such cases have been drawn to my attention. I took up two of them with the officials here at Ottawa, but when I found I could not get anywhere I did
247f

not bring any more up. However, I know of several instances in my constituency where this has happened, and I imagine it has happened elsewhere as well.
When this bill was being considered in committee the hon. member for Battle River moved this amendment:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no section of land having an average of less than eight bushels to the acre shall be denied the bonus in an eligible township.
That amendment was ruled out of order, and later was voted down as a recommendation; yet I am satisfied that a majority of the Liberal members from western Canada were in favour of it. I had been discussing it with them in the lobby and found that they approved it; but they found themselves, I suppose, in the unfortunate position of having to agree with the ruling of the government. How could anyone from western Canada disagree with that amendment? It is based upon a sound principle; it is fair, as I am sure the minister himself would be the first to agree. It would not provide for the payment of a bonus to a man just because he happened to have a piece of sandy land. It would provide the bonus to a farmer because a majority of the land in the township was in the same fix as his piece of land. It seems to me very unfair to deny the bonus just because a man happens to be adjacent to five other sections that have a high yield. Surely the fact that he is adjacent to thirty-one sections of land that had a crop failure should be a better argument for giving him the bonus; and on that basis it defeats the very argument made by the minister.
With respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, in committee, had I been there I would have supported it because it was an attempt to get away from that rectangle which the minister seems to love so much.


James Garfield Gardiner: A section is a rectangle. You cannot have any other kind of farm in western Canada but a rectangle, no matter on what basis you put it.


Victor Quelch: But you can have two or three of these sections which are not in a rectangular block. You could have five. Can the minister explain why six sections can be eligible, yet a block of seven may not be? It would be a bigger area. Surely an L-forma-tion should be just as eligible as a rectangle. In my opinion the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia was good, because there again I am sure the minister would not argue that the amendment would put it on an individual basis. Under that amendment 45781-158J
Prairie Farm Assistance Act the section or sections would have to be adjacent to another block of land that had been declared eligible.	[DOT]
It is always hard to make a farmer understand why, when land on one side of the road allowance is eligible, he should be denied the bonus simply because he is on the other side of the township line. That is something the farmers cannot understand; yet in spite of these amendments that situation quite often arises. I suppose these amendments will go through in their present form, but I hope the minister will give this matter further consideration, to see whether or not the two points we have brought up can be taken into account. We are supporting the amendments because, as I said before, they go in the right direction; they improve the act, and though the amendments themselves may not go as far as we would like to see them go, as long as they are in the right direction we shall give them our support.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the last point brought up by the hon. member should be dealt with, because when this bill was drafted a year ago it contained a provision which would have met the requests that have been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Acadia. The meeting held in Regina a year ago last June, which was referred to in committee when this bill was under consideration, was attended by representatives of the three prairie provinces, and also by representatives of the municipal associations of those provinces. At that meeting these two amendments which are before the house were discussed, and also a third amendment. The third amendment was based upon the idea that the federal government is not the only government that is responsible for giving assistance to people who are in difficulties. The argument put forward was the argument that has so often been put forward in the house, namely, that when the responsibility was all on the province and Ottawa did not acknowledge any responsibility for the situations-and they did not down until a recent date-we did at one time say that until twenty-five municipalities were in difficulty in a province we would not take any responsibility. When twenty-five municipalities were in difficulty we considered that the problem was too big for the provincial governments, and then we would consider doing something about it. That was in the days before I came to Ottawa; but having been in the government of one of the provinces that suffered most, I know fairly well what was the position that was taken.
Then when it came to a matter of removing responsibility, we said right down until about the middle of the thirties that as soon

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
as it got down to the point where there were ten municipalities-not ten townships but ten municipalities, each of them having nine townships in it which need assistance-then the dominion government had nothing more to do with it and the provincial government and the municipalities had to take care of the whole problem. That was the practice prior to 1939. Then in 1939 we brought in this bill. At the time the bill was brought in we submitted the question to the provinces as to whether they desired to co-operate with us and pay some money into the fund, just as the federal government was paying money into the fund, in order to take care of all the persons that might be in difficulties in the area. All I can say at the moment is that in spite of the fact that it was not in all cases the same governments that are there now, the governments that were there then were not satisfied to enter into the plan on that basis. So what we did was to bring in this bill, and what we said in the house when we put it through was that we were going to ask the people of all Canada to help in making assistance payments in the full townships, and that the remainder of the area should be left to the provinces and the municipalities to take care of, as we thought that the district would be small enough then for them to take care of it.
Everyone here knows the history of it. The municipalities and the provinces did just what they nearly always do. They say: When once the dominion government get into a field of this kind they will eventually be forced to do it all, so we will just let them do it. I presume that is the attitude that has been taken, because I have met them many times and discussed the question with them. The last time we discussed it was a year ago last June at this meeting in Regina that I referred to. At that meeting the representatives of the provinces agreed that we should put in this act an amendment which would state, in effect, that the dominion government would be prepared to accept from each of the provinces a payment which would be proportionate to the amount of land that they were asking to have taken care of as against the amount of land that we were taking care of; and that if that were done, then they would recommend to us the taking in of these areas round about the areas eligible for payment, and having recommended that they be taken in, they would pay in their proportionate amount which, as has been stated by some of the members, would be small.
It has been argued that the amount the federal government would have to put in, in order to take care of these extras, is small

as compared with the amount that we are now putting in. What we argued was that the amounts the provinces would put in under these circumstances would be very small as compared with the amount that we ourselves would be putting in. Then it was understood that this recommendation would be taken back to the governments of the three provinces and that they in due course would inform me as to whether or not they desired to have that amendment and whether or not they were prepared to carry on under it.
As I stated a moment ago, a bill with that provision in it was drafted a year ago; and since a year ago I have had letters from all three of the provinces saying that they were not prepared to recommend it or to carry on under it. That is the only reason it is not in here now. It could have been brought in and it would have been brought in for the purpose of making it possible to take care of the very areas that are being talked about. Some have said: Why not make it an L? If you make it an L, you will still have a township in the corner of the L, and in all probability everybody will come along and say it should be taken care of. It does not make any difference what form, shape or number you put in, there will always be that road allowance where the crop will be just about as bad on the other side as it is on this side. Our hope was to settle that question so that we would not have to explain to all the other people in Canada who are helping to pay for this assistance that they are not paying for it all, but that the province is also putting a certain amount of money in; and I still hold that is the only solution for the problem that is continuously put up by the hon. member for Acadia and by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I would suggest to both of them that they have much greater influence than I have with the governments back home. If they can just persuade those governments to allow the other amendment, which would have been the third amendment on this occasion if they had not objected to it, if they would just agree to that other amendment-and we do not think it would cost them a great deal-we will get rid of all those political speeches such as the one we heard a few moments ago.
I do not know that it is proper to take a division of opinion in a committee such as the one to which this bill was referred, bring it up here and say this member voted that way, the other member voted the other way, I voted so and so, and base an argument on that. Either it is right to do the thing that was suggested or it is wrong to do it. I think we are all prepared to argue this matter out

in the country in the same way as we argue it in the committee or as we argue it in the house. I do not know what other members have found but as for myself-and I naturally come in contact with this argument more than anyone else-I have never yet met with a group of farmers, either behind closed doors, or out in the open, who have not agreed, after the argument was all over, that the position I am taking now in this committee is the correct one and the one that I should continue to take, so as not to put before the house propositions which might be opposed by other parts of Canada because they are not reasonable. I think that these provinces should be prepared to come forward with a certain amount of money and put it into the treasury-and it would be small-and justify the position that other people are taking all over Canada. If they did so they would be making it possible to deal with the small blocks without compelling other parts of Canada to bear the entire burden.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the minister some questions.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but I did not answer the questions of the hon. member for Lake Centre. The first question was as to whether any consideration was given to paying a dollar an acre more or some larger amount. Was that it?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Consideration was given to that, of course, before these amendments were agreed to. But these amendments are the result of consideration given by the government. That is, we think this is the extent to which we should go at this time in any case in making amendments to this particular bill. That was done after discussing all the representations for higher amounts and every other representation that has been made. As for the length to which the government would have been prepared to go, I did not have the opportunity of testing them out fully on it because the provinces backed out of the arrangement we thought we had made a year ago last June, but I think we would have been permitted to go that far in amending the bill if there had been any point in doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by "that far"?


James Garfield Gardiner: In making it possible to have taken in these areas that are around the edges of what is already in, by the provinces paying a small amount into the fund. What was the other question?
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


John George Diefenbaker: The other question
referred to assistance in procuring seed grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: It involves the same principle. This government has never intentionally provided seed grain to any of the western provinces or to any other province. We have had applications since I have been in the Department of Agriculture from I think every province in Canada for assistance in connection with the provision of seed, and we have always taken the position that that is a provincial responsibility. It is true that back in the thirties we assisted the provinces in getting lines of credit so that they could provide the seed, but the seed has always been provided by the provinces. We did get into some controversy when the credit was not being met by some provinces as to whether we should pay, and in some instances we probably did have to pay, but it was not intentional. There was no intentional action taken at any time by this government to provide seed. The action has always been taken by the provinces. We take the position that the direct relationship is farmer to municipality and municipality to the province. In connection with seed, up to now we have never gone by that in any of the provinces of Canada.
The other matter of providing assistance in other directions is looked at in this way. We have taken the position that the assistance which we give under prairie farm assistance is our share. This year it runs to some $17 million. The provinces have set up a plan to take care of providing seed, feed and other supplies to farmers. They tell me that they are paying, I think, half of the amount of the freight to those who are making demands in other directions. The provinces have said it is impossible to give assistance to the full amount that is being asked. We have replied that we think we are paying our share through P.F.A.A. Therefore I doubt very much whether when they are all through the provinces will have paid $17 million out in the undertaking. When they are all through they will still be quite short of paying out $17 million. In Saskatchewan about $3, and in Alberta it would probably be about $2, will be put up by the federal government for every $1 that is put up by the farmer. Therefore we think that of this amount we shall pay $3 for every $1 that the farmer puts up. For that reason we shall probably be putting up about two-thirds of the $17 million. I doubt very much whether the provinces will get anywhere near that amount in the assistance that they are giving. We are simply suggesting that there is a possibility of their giving more assistance, and they have not denied it at any time.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
They discussed the question with us. We have turned it back to them with the suggestion that if they think any more is required the provinces ought to be able to pay it in view of the fact that the fund is putting up this $17 million. And that is the way the discussion has ended.


Mr. Knight:: The minister referred to various meetings with farmers in the province in which he found the farmers in general agreement with him on this subject. I was going to suggest that perhaps his stand on this matter was not as definite at some of these meetings as it is in the house where he has responsibility. However, I did not rise to speak politically. I merely rose to back up the argument of my colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia, who has said the things that I myself would have said if I had been as well qualified to say them, because this particular hon. member has an intimate knowledge of the subject. It is fitting, too, that I should follow, at least for a moment, the path of the hon. member for Lake Centre, because geographically I start where he leaves off. His constituency and mine join at the town of Hanley, which this year is in the middle of an area which is affected by the various disadvantages which have affected farmers this year.
I should like to back up the plea of these hon. members. From that point which I have mentioned the township line runs east and west. From Hanley we go straight up my constituency towards Saskatoon city through a part of the farm land which is so very seriously affected this year. It has been just one thing after another. No doubt the minister knows about the early frost in June which cut the wheat completely down to the ground. That might have been all right if it had been followed by rain which would have caused stooling out.
As the minister well knows, the crop in 1915 was one of the best crops we have had in the province of Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, this year, while it started out somewhat similarly, it did not follow the path that the weather followed in 1915. The rain did not come in the same quantities and so we had the condition that now obtains.
The next particular thing was the grasshopper. I remember driving from my town to the town of Dundurn once this summer and stopping in the car to let some of my family who were in it watch these grasshoppers cross the road by the million. I looked over the stations in both Dundurn and Hanley where the farmers were working night and day mixing the grasshopper poison and scattering it about the fields.

The districts up along the Beaver creek where the land is sandy are a particular problem. Whether or not people should make an attempt to farm that land is not my particular business here, but my plea is for some assistance to the people who are trying to eke out a living in that particular part of the country. This year these people will be almost wholly dependent upon the grants which they receive of $2.50 an acre if their yield is below four bushels of wheat to the acre and $1.50 per acre if the crops are from four to eight bushels.
I should like to join with my colleague who pleaded for more generous assistance, both in regard to the amount of money paid and in regard to bringing this grant to a more nearly individual basis.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to something that might solve part of this problem for that particular part of the country, namely, co-operative irrigation schemes which are being tried there, and which I think should have assistance both from the federal government and from the provincial government. I refer to projects where water is being pumped out of a branch of the south Saskatchewan river onto this flat land adjacent to the country east of Dundurn. I think that irrigation project could form a good testing ground for the later and larger irrigation scheme to which we have so long looked forward.


Mr. Fair:: It is not my intention to take up many minutes of the time of the committee because what I wanted to say has been very well said by the hon. member for Acadia. I want to endorse his remarks wholeheartedly. A statement was made by the Minister of Agriculture on which I should like to get some more information, namely, the amendment that has been discussed by the provinces with him, and which he says they have recently refused to agree to. If the minister has a copy of that amendment perhaps he could read it to us and also tell us who have refused to agree with it. I feel that the request which I made to the committee the other day, and also the request which was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, are reasonable and would relieve much of the dissatisfaction that exists at the present time.
On many occasions the minister has agreed to amendments being made to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act since it was first introduced in 1939. To a very large extent these amendments have done away with dissatisfaction with the act. There is one matter that has not been mentioned here today that I think should be mentioned, namely, the amount per acre below four bushels and

between four and eight bushels. At the present time we are receiving the same rate as when the act was brought into force. With present production costs the amount should be increased considerably because there is no relationship whatever between production costs today and those of ten years ago.
Because we have been asking for a settlement on an individual basis, and because we have agreed in the past to a reduction of the area, the minister may be able to convince his colleagues and also treasury board-I always have difficulty in remembering the name of that organization, because lately I have been thinking of them in different terms, which might not be parliamentary-that we should have what we have been asking for, and what we asked for in committee.
If the minister wishes to use the amendment I moved, members in this group would have no objection whatever. He would have our wholehearted support.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister replied to the two matters I brought to his attention. In regard to the emergency situation in Saskatchewan, apparently there is to be no increase in the amount per acre allowed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, nor any change in the policy heretofore existing whereby responsibilities in connection with seed wheat and seed grain rest upon the provinces.
I say no more than this, that the situation in Saskatchewan is serious. The number of acres subject to drought conditions approaches the darkest days of the thirties. While he was speaking I received from a farmer in that area a letter in which in part he says:
As you know, our crop year is practically a total loss. Three years before this it was poor, also. We cannot see how to carry on. I have to buy all my feed and some seed. I cannot do it on a bonus of $500.
Apparently that is the sum represented by $2.50 per acre. He continues:
I want to suggest that you point out to the members in the House of Commons how inadequate a bonus of $500-
That is, at $2.50 an acre-
-is, now that the prices of things we have to buy are three times what they were when P.F.A.A. came into existence.
This letter is from Hawarden, Saskatchewan, dated November 28, and indicates, in summary, the feelings and fears of the farmers in my province, particularly in the southern part.
They are not unmindful of what parliament has done for them over the years; they realize what was done. However, their situation today is so serious that I do hope the minister will give reconsideration to the whole
Prairie Farm Assistance Act question of increasing the amount of the payment this year, under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as an emergency measure, anc also doing something to co-operate with the province.
I am not now arguing as between dominion and provincial responsibilities. All I do is say what hon. members from all parts of Saskatchewan will say if they speak on the subject, particularly those members from the central and southern parts. They will say as I do that the situation is serious, that fear haunts the homes of the people there, and they are asking that something be done, whether it be by the dominion government or the provincial government.


George Matheson Murray: May I offer a suggestion which may be of some value. Adjoining the boundary of British Columbia are many millions of acres of fertile and well-watered land not now occupied. It occurs to me that if there is a dustbowl in parts of Saskatchewan, where the farmers cannot grow more than five or six bushels to the acre, the minister might very well consider moving whole settlements of them up into northern British Columbia, where the land is available, where people can grow 50 or 60 bushels to the acre.
There is only one drawback, namely, that of transportation. I do say, however, it would be better to spend $17 million a year to provide highways and railways to the new, well-watered and fertile valleys of the Peace river country of British Columbia than $17 million a year handing out doles to farmers in drought areas in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made from the opposite side of the house that possibly some members on the government side from Saskatchewan had been subjected to coercion in agreeing to the amendment contained in the bill now before us. Let me say on my own account that there was no coercion whatsoever. Indeed, I was one of the members from Saskatchewan who pressed upon the minister that this amendment be made.
I cannot agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia in suggesting that the one-section provision is the answer. A good reply to that was advanced by the minister, and I do not think I need add to it to any great extent.
I can understand that the hon. member for Assiniboia may be in a position where all his farmers come under the provisions of this legislation, and that therefore he is keenly interested from that standpoint. I would point out to him however that we are not all in that position. For instance, I happen to

Prairie Farm Assistance Act be in a position quite similar to that of the minister, so that I have to look at both sides of the question.
Part of my constituency must of necessity require the benefits of this legislation. That is necessary if they are to continue farming. But there is another section in my constituency who would rather have the P.F.A.A. passed off into the limbo of forgotten things. When hon. members press for the individual basis I would urge them to consider that there is another side to the picture. There are other people who are not very keen about this, and if this were pressed right through to the last ditch it might end up by their losing what they have.


Hazen Robert Argue: You would not oppose it, though, would you?


John Hornby Harrison: The one section, do you mean?


Hazen Robert Argue: You would not oppose it?


John Hornby Harrison: I would in this respect, that I believe the minister is correct when he says that the province has some responsibility in the matter. The party opposite has been advertised and is well known in Saskatchewan particularly as a humanitarian party. If they believe in helping the individual- and that is humanitarianism-then I suggest they should put their system into practice. They would do well to urge some co-operation by way of effecting an agreement with the federal Minister of Agriculture, as he pointed out this afternoon. They would do well to look into such an agreement whereby individuals might be taken care of. That, it seems to me, is a much better system than the one of forcing the whole responsibility on the dominion government. As I say, it is not the responsibility of this government.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member has said that if certain members pursued the P.F.A.A. too far there might be certain farmers in his constituency who would oppose its extension.


John Hornby Harrison: Not farmers in my constituency but members in this house as a whole.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have asked the hon. member if he would oppose it.


John Hornby Harrison: Oppose what?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would you oppose the extension of the P.F.A.A.?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Sluder:: Mr. Chairman, those of us who are interested in the crop failure situation will be glad that the government has introduced these amendments to the Prairie Farm
Assistance Act. These amendments have been discussed in committee. As I understand it, the intention of this bill is to iron out the inequalities that have existed in this crop failure plan in the years gone by. An effort is being made to benefit the greatest number of farmers without a system of individual payments.
As I understand it, if we had a system of individual payments, under our constitution, that would have to be the responsibility of the provinces. As it is, and as has been pointed out by the minister, the dominion government now makes a contribution toward assisting the provinces in fulfilling what might be their responsibilities in connection with crop failures in the various parts of the country. This amendment will make it possible to give assistance to more farmers who have little or no crops while fewer farmers who have crops will receive smaller payments than they have formerly received. I believe everyone will be in favour of having that situation continue. Almost 100 per cent of the farmers will come under this act after this particular amendment has been agreed to, and, if there is any way to bring in even more, there will be nothing in the world to stop this House of Commons from approving additional amendments next year or at some other time.
The hon. member for Assiniboia seems to be worrying about where the member for Maple Creek stands on this question. There should be no doubt about that whatsoever. I cannot remember a single meeting during my election campaign at which I did not state that there would not be a system of individual payments. The peculiar thing is, that I am here while the individual who said he was in favour of individual payments is not here. As has been pointed out, we want something with which all the people of Canada will agree. Why bring forward something that will create difficulty in other parts of the dominion, because after all, the whole dominion is contributing to these payments? Why bring up something with which all the people cannot agree, something that perhaps will take away some of these benefits?
I think the hon. member for Assiniboia will be doing the people in his constituency a favour if he considers all the aspects of this situation, instead of introducing just one thing that may bring in an additional vote for him. When I say an additional vote I am referring to the fact that he has placed on record the details of the vote in committee. I have no objection to that being done; it may be an improper thing to do, I do not know. If it is, I can assure the house that we are used to improper things being done in Saskatchewan as far as politics are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I would point out that the report of the agriculture committee has been placed before this house and therefore it was entirely in order to quote from that report.


Irvin William Studer: That is fine. I said I had no objection to anything being done and we will continue on that basis. I do not think anyone from the drought area can help agreeing with what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, and what some of our C.C.F. friends have neglected to say, with regard to placing before this House of Commons full details of the dire needs of the people in these areas who have had successive crop failures.
I say again what I said some time ago, that some of these people are ready to move away when there is some place to which they can go. The hon. member for Cariboo referred to the productive lands in the Peace river area of British Columbia. I cannot recall any particular invitation having been extended to these people in Saskatchewan by the government of British Columbia, but if our people are invited to go there, I am sure some of them will consider that invitation.
Some of these people have suffered four, five, six or even more complete crop failures. With the cost of production as it is and comparing the situation with what existed in 1939 I think we can easily visualize the position of these people. They are looking to the dominion government for some consideration. They do not ask for anything when there has been only one crop failure; if I had a little crop last year and no crop this year, I know I can carry on. But where there has been a succession of complete crop failures I think the dominion government should come to the rescue. Saskatchewan is a "next year" country. Next year if conditions are right and these people can seed normal crops, who knows what contribution they will be able to make toward the welfare of our country, as has been amply proven in the past. I again ask the government to give every consideration to these people in the drought-stricken area.


Robert Fair: Would the minister be good enough to place on the record the amendment which he said was suggested last year and to which certain people in the provinces refused to agree to this year, and at the same time tell us who those people are?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said when I was speaking, it really never got to the point where it was an amendment before the house and therefore I cannot put on record any amendment as such. The meaning of the proposal has been put on Hansard at least
Prairie Farm Assistance Act four or five times previous to last session. I think it has been put on the record every session that this question has been discussed since 1939. Every municipal association in western Canada to which I was writing has been given the details of this.
The proposal is that the provinces ought to pay at least a share into the fund which is created, first, by the farmers paying in and, second, by the dominion government paying in. Taking the whole area, the dominion government pays about $3 for every dollar paid by the farmers; in Saskatchewan they pay about $4 for each dollar; in Alberta, about $2 for each dollar; while in Manitoba the farmers pay considerably more than the dominion government. We have said that we think the provincial treasuries should subscribe something. We have told them that if they come along and ask us to take in the individual areas about which people are complaining all the time-that is an individual here and an individual there-if they will come along and suggest that those individuals should be brought under the act and will undertake to pay their proportion of the money involved, then we shall be quite prepared to administer the fund or pay into the fund and let them administer it so far as it affects those people.
That is what we have been saying for ten years and not one province has accepted it. no matter what government has been in power. It finally reached a point a year ago where we thought they had accepted it, but that acceptance was to be conveyed to me in the form of a letter from the governments when their representatives had explained it after going home. I do not know whether or not they explained that, but after waiting for six or seven months I wrote to the governments, explained the matter to them, indicated what had been discussed and agreed to, and asked them whether they had any objection to this amendment being put in the act and whether they would comply with it if it were put in. I got the answer from all three of the prairie governments, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, that they did not want the amendment. These are the facts with regard to it, and I am simply suggesting if we want to take care, by means of this legislation, of all the people who are entitled to be taken care of because of drought conditions in the west, and desire at the same time that the provinces should shoulder their share, then we might do better to bring our pressure to bear upon the provincial governments, and get them to accept the idea contained in the amendment. I do not think it would cost them much money to pay them all, just as my friends say it would not cost

Prairie Farm Assistance Act us much money, but it would at least acknowledge a principle which is to the effect that, where responsibility in the first instance rests upon the province, they should at least pay a part of the cost.


Mr. Wright:: The minister stated there was a meeting of the officials of the provinces with the officials of his department concerning the amendment. Who are the officials involved in the conference?


James Garfield Gardiner: The chief representative of the municipalities is now a member of this house. He was chairman of the committee on agriculture when this question was discussed the other day.


Percy Ellis Wright: He was not there as a representative of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: He was there as the representative of the municipal organization of the three provinces.	Mr. Campbell, now
premier of Manitoba, was there. Mr. Nollet, minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan, was there, and I believe also his deputy minister. There were similar representatives from Alberta. I am not able to name the individuals, but I can get that information from the record. It was representation at the same level from the province of Alberta, and I was there representing the dominion government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the clause carries I should like to say one word. I want to disagree with the minister when he suggests that provincial governments should go into a crop failure insurance scheme. One of the things we have seen over the years in Canada is that every provincial government has more responsibilities than it has funds with which to adequately discharge them. The federal government has ample funds and should be increasing its responsibility rather than asking the provinces to do so. Therefore I would oppose any move by the government to try to drag the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan or the province of Manitoba into a crop insurance scheme. I think it is time that the federal government accepted greater responsibility by way of increasing benefits under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act just the same as I think it should accept greater responsibility in other matters.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West) for the second reading of Bill No. 62, respecting forest conservation.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I had just been speaking of the nature of the forest fires we have been experiencing in this country, and I was pointing out the different types of fires that are encountered. The largest percentage of fires is caused by carelessness of some kind. That carelessness is not something which simply affects the people who may be immediately in contact with whoever has been careless; the consequences may be very far-reaching.
While we are dealing with the bill before us at the present time, I should like to take this occasion to make the suggestion that consideration should be given to an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide adequate penalties for those who carelessly start these fires. At the present time section 513 of the Criminal Code provides penalties for those who wilfully set fire to forests or to other areas, but I believe the penalties connected with this type of carelessness should go beyond wilfully setting fire to forest areas. In the case of people carrying firearms penalties are provided for those who handle weapons recklessly or in such a way that damage may be caused as the natural or reasonable result. As to forest fires, the extent of the damage that may be caused in this way, and the actual threat to life as well, is so great that in examining the whole problem I think consideration should be given to a provision under which people could be adequately punished where there was actual reckless disregard of the safety of the forests, and consequently the safety of other people and of immensely important property.
I mention fires because this is a particular field in which there can be effective co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments. I doubt if there is any single problem connected with our forests today in which there is such a wide divergence between the different provinces as to the facilities available for fire protection under the control of the provincial departments. Under such agreements as may be worked out within the terms of the bill, there are possibilities that I should like to place before the minister which I think may have far-reaching results in dealing with this great problem.

At the present time some provinces have extensive arrangements for constant supervision of the forest areas by means of air patrol. Some have no such arrangements at all. The fire hazard varies, of course, in different provinces according to the type and concentration of the forest areas, but in every province there are areas which require supervision. The cost of maintaining and servicing an adequate air fleet for this purpose is undoubtedly too great for some provinces; and if there is to be provision for air patrol worked out by arrangement between the dominion government and the provinces, then I suggest that consideration be given the possibility of a general plan of air supervision which might be provided in co-operation with the Royal Canadian Air Force. The type of flying that would be done undoubtedly would provide excellent training for many pilots over those areas where they might be called upon to fly under service conditions. At the present time the Royal Canadian Air Force is doing mapping in some of the northern parts of the country. That work, and the type of skill required, would be somewhat similar to air patrols such as I have mentioned, and I believe consideration might well be given to having this type of work done under arrangement with the provinces by one organization that would be brought into service in this way.
Two types of air service are required to do an effective job. One is the constant watch for the outbreak of fire; the other is the actual fighting of the fire once it is discovered. Once a fire has been discovered it is of the utmost importance that aircraft be available, heavy enough to carry to the area as quickly as possible fire-fighting equipment such as pumps and many other items, together with men to fight the blaze. In the discussion of this subject I think consideration might well be given to the organization of two separate groups, one of which would carry out patrols for the purpose of spotting fires as soon as they occurred, the other an organization which for want of a better word might be called air commandos, who would be ready to go into any area and be dropped by parachute with pumps and various other firefighting equipment which would enable them to deal with a fire at the earliest possible moment.
I mentioned the different causes of forest fires for a particular reason, in addition to my desire to emphasize the carelessness that causes many of them. I think many hon. members will be surprised to learn the high percentage of fires caused by lightning. Almost invariably those fires start on high, inaccessible ground, which is where lightning usually strikes. Often these fires will start
Canada Forestry Act
in old, dry stumps on top of a hill, which may be some considerable distance from the nearest place where water may be pumped by hose. It may take a considerable time to reach that point, and in the time it takes men to get there the fire may gain considerable headway, particularly if the forest is dry and a wind is blowing. This suggests the use of equipment with which it would be difficult for any single province to carry out the necessary experiments at the present time. I believe there would be a great chance of stopping many fires before they spread too far if we had an adequate number of helicopters well placed across the country, so that when a fire was spotted on inaccessible high ground a helicopter could go in and drop men, or perhaps put out the fire itself by the use of chemical bombs. Successful experiments already have been carried out along this line, which have demonstrated that a great deal can be done in this way. The employment of modern methods like these, however, require a much larger airborne fire-fighting force than can be maintained by any single province, and I should think this would be one of the most useful fields of discussion when dealing with this problem on a broad basis.
Another field for co-operation, in which the association between the dominion and provincial governments can be very useful, is in the inventory of forest areas by aerial photography. At the present time the province of Ontario has almost completed such an inventory of its total forest area through a system of photography similar to that carried out in mapping operations. Together with the necessary ground examination, this makes it possible to get an exact inventory of the amount of timber of every kind available for development. At the present time there is an agreement between the federal department and the department of lands and forests in Ontario under which the provincial government is doing the actual air photography and those photographs are being turned over to the dominion government, which is producing them in the form of maps that will provide all the essential information from which a complete inventory can be made. That, I should think, would be extremely useful in every province of Canada.
The other field in which co-operation can be most effective is that of research. Tremendous damage has been done our forests through insect infestation on a very large scale. It may be a question as to whether these insect epidemics have not caused as much damage as fire itself. Throughout the Gaspe peninsula today, for instance, you can see dead birch trees which obviously have

Canada Forestry Act
been killed by insect infestation. Throughout great stretches of Ontario you can see dead spruce which have been killed by spruce bud-worm infestation. In other parts of Canada other types of trees have been killed by other insects, such as the sawfly. There is a great opportunity for research in that field.
As a layman, I cannot help wondering whether some of these things are not the result of the unbalance that man creates in nature. I cannot help wondering whether nature does not step in when one type of tree is taken out and other types are left standing; because you generally see these epidemics start in areas in which particular types have been heavily cut. It may well be that this is simply an expression of nature's attempt to restore the balance of trees which originally grew in those areas.
In any event, whatever the background is, these epidemics are recurring ones. The recent spruce budworm epidemic was not the first we have had. We have had serious epidemics in recurring periods for many years. There have been other epidemics as well. If through the research that is being carried out, and which the minister indicates is to be extended by co-operation with the provincial department, these epidemics can be stopped, many millions of dollars' worth of valuable timber will be saved; but what is more, the basis of employment of many thousands of men will also be preserved as a result of that research.
It will not be the role of the department to deal directly with such matters as types of cutting and things of that kind because those are essentially under the provincial governments. Nevertheless, the matter will come up for discussion because the type of cutting and the way in which the slash is left will have a bearing on fire protection and on the other things that will undoubtedly come under the joint supervision of the various governments.
In dealing with this question it is essential that real education in regard to the forest problem be given to our people generally throughout the whole country. Much of what is said publicly is often based upon some particular interest. I can recall some of the strongest statements made upon forest conservation by those who had a direct interest in some particular type of forest exploitation. I know that some of the most appealing statements in regard to preventing some particular type of cutting in favour of another type of cutting have been put forward by the worst timber pirates we had in this country. I mention this fact in connection with this measure because it is extraordinary the attention that is sometimes paid

to statements which are made by those who have a particular axe to grind. I know that those who live in the forest areas have had some experience in this respect.
On the other hand, there are those who are earnestly trying to deal with this problem. The minister has mentioned the important contributions which have been made to an understanding of this vital question, including the report prepared by General Kennedy dealing with this subject in the province of Ontario and the report prepared by Chief Justice Sloan in British Columbia, dealing with the problems in that province. Each of those reports applies fairly generally to the whole problem throughout Canada. By co-operation, many of the recommendations that are put forward in those reports can be carried out across Canada under agencies that might be set up through the joint action of these governments.
I should just like to repeat that I believe one of the greatest opportunities presented by this bill is that of working out a system of adequate air supervision of our forest areas and the setting up of a highly-organized, mobile force of air commandos who will be able to go into any area that is threatened, without any regard to provincial boundaries and who, upon the report by the wireless of the district of a fire that requires attention of this kind, will be able to bring men from strategic points in that area and deal with it before it has spread out and become a menace to the standing timber which is of immense value to our economic future, or before it threatens or in fact destroys whole communities, as they have been destroyed in the past.
I should think this bill would commend itself to every hon. member. Employed in a spirit of co-operation with the provincial governments across Canada, this bill may be the beginning of a solution to a problem which has been causing great concern to everyone. If an effective method of dealing with fire and an effective method of dealing with these epidemics can be worked out, then we can really hope for the ideal of a perpetual supply of forest products for the industries that are based on that great source of raw material.


Angus MacInnis: When we were debating this measure in the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, as was quite proper, nearly all of the members from British Columbia took part in the debate. I did not do so at that time, partly because so many spoke and partly because I knew there would be another opportunity. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, this is a measure which is welcomed by every member of this house; and the greater the understanding that hon. members have of what

forests mean to Canada and of what the liquidation of those forests means, no matter how that liquidation may take place, the more they will welcome the measure.
If I may say so without having the minister think that I am being critical, this is indeed a measure that is long overdue. I am not saying this to criticize the minister now for bringing in the measure or to suggest that he or the government were delinquent in their duty in not bringing it in before. If there is blame, I imagine it is blame we must all share.
Perhaps the people of no other country in the world inherited so vast a forest wealth as the first people who came to this country. In every province from the Atlantic to the Pacific there was a great deal of forest land. Perhaps the magnitude of our forests is some excuse for our disregard of its protection. When our ancestors came to this country and settled in the Atlantic provinces, and in the two central provinces, the forest was indeed considered an enemy. It was something that had to be subdued or destroyed before they could begin to make their clearings on which they expected to produce the food necessary for their existence. The unfortunate part of it is that this attitude remained long after the time when there was sufficient land available for the growing of food.
As I said, every province had its forest wealth. Every province, too, has large areas that are unsuitable for producing anything but forests. This is even true of my own native province of Prince Edward Island, where perhaps every acre can be cultivated. Yet, even in that province, large areas of land are so poor that they should never have been cleared of trees. Many of these sections are now reverting to forests because the land has been left fallow. In my opinion one of the first things that should be undertaken under this measure is a survey to ascertain the land that is suitable for the growing or production of nothing else but forest of some kind.
All provinces have an interest in forest conservation. But my own province of British Columbia has the greatest interest in conservation, as I shall show in a moment. In that province a very small amount of the land area is suitable for agricultural production. A few years ago I saw a report of a speech by the chief forester of British Columbia. He referred to forest surveys that were made during the past thirty-five or forty years. The first survey was about 1910, and the forest cut at the time was about one billion board feet, and it was estimated that we had a forest reserve sufficient to last us for three hundred years. In another ten or fifteen
Canada Forestry Act
years another survey was made and at that time we were cutting about two billion board feet a year, and the estimated duration of the forest reserve had dropped in the interval to about a hundred and fifty years. Shortly after that we had another survey made and the annual cut had risen to about three billion board feet and the reserve had dropped to between thirty and fifty years. That indicates the terrific pace at which the forests of British Columbia have been, and up to the present time are being, liquidated. That is one of the things that I hope this measure will put an end to.
I do not exactly know how they measure it, but the total land area in British Columbia is said to be about 234 million acres. In figures that I received from the department of lands and forests the land has been classified as follows: About 75 million acres, or one-third of the total area, is good forest land. About another 82 million acres, approximately another third, is scrub forest land. Then there is another third, about 72 million acres, which is mountain top, barren, swamp and water. What I should like hon. members to note is that out of that total area of 234 million acres only 4-7 million acres is agricultural land, about 2 per cent of the total. It is no wonder then that the people of British Columbia are what one might call forest conscious. We realize the importance of the forests to us and how essential our forests are to the wellbeing of our people.
However, despite the importance of our forests to our people, up until recent years we have squandered them with reckless abandon. In that regard I do not suppose we have been any more prodigal with our forest reserves than the other provinces. But there is this difference: after our forest is taken away we are not as fortunate as some other provinces. With us there is no arable land left that can be used for the growing of food.
Since Chief Justice Sloan made the report referred to this morning by the minister, a start has been made to change from this rapid liquidation and substitute for it a plan of forest control. How effective it will be I do not know. One of the difficulties suggested to me by people who ought to know is the large amount of money required for the various aspects of conservation. So far as the provincial government is concerned, the revenue they receive from forests is direct and it shows up, as the saying is, like a sore thumb. But the federal government gets several times as much revenue out of the forests of British Columbia in an indirect way, such as income and corporation taxes. I am bound to say, however, that during the last few years the provincial government, even by direct means, should have got more

Canada Forestry Act
of the forest wealth than they did. These figures before me, and they are authentic, show an increase in the value of forest products from $88 million in 1939 to $364 million in 1948. I am satisfied that if the provincial government had gone about it they could have obtained a larger amount of money directly for forest conservation than they did obtain, and particularly in the last few years.
I would hope that through this measure British Columbia would receive through the federal government a portion of the large amount of revenue which comes from the exploitation of the forest wealth of that province. I think I need say nothing further. When I first thought of speaking I had thought I would make a more extended speech. But much of what I intended to say has been said by members who have preceded me, and some of it by the minister himself. I would conclude by saying that I hope the minister now in charge of the bill, or whatever minister may be in charge of it, will take seriously this matter of forest conservation. I hope he will realize that we have not much time, and that the process of rehabilitation, even when carried out with energy, is going to be a long, tedious and expensive task.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) say that the bill should commend itself to every member in the house. I would say it does much more than that; it commends itself to everyone outside the house who knows anything about our forests and tlfeir requirements.
Since the bill was introduced I have received many letters from the lakehead, especially from Fort William, commending the minister upon having introduced the bill. While one letter did say that it should have been brought in twenty-five years ago, the minister is not responsible for that because he was not here at that time. He is here now, and he has measured up to his job.
Forestry graduates in Fort William have made some suggestions which, I believe, should receive the consideration of the minister. At the lakehead we have three large pulp and paper mills east of Port Arthur, two in Port Arthur and two in Fort William, one of which is the largest paper mill in the world.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Oh no.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That may be going a long way, but it happens to be true. We believe that suggestions from that area should be heeded. The chief of these suggestions is that we should have an experimental station
(Mr. Maclnnls.l
in the area of the lakehead, and a committee to gather data which could be sent on to the minister. They commend the minister for the details of the bill. We will back him to the limit, and give him all the details we can. However, the sooner this bill is passed, the better.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few moments to draw your attention to the program of reforestation already carried out, which I do not believe has received proper recognition by the house.
Last spring we welcomed Newfoundland to the Dominion of Canada. In the reading room of the House of Commons we see on the the walls the design of a tree which represents the former nine provinces, and the Yukon. I submit another tree should be planted in that forest that is Canada, so that Newfoundland may have the recognition that is her due.
May I offer my congratulations to the minister upon the introduction of the bill. While it may be late, it is not too late. It has been estimated that the fire and insect loss to forests in Canada runs to something like 800 million cubic feet a year. It has also been estimated that the wastage from logging and sawmill industry operations runs to something over 900 million cubic feet a year, which is greater than the fire and insect loss.
Something should be done to control the wastage brought about by these industries. I cannot add much to the debate, because it seems to me practically everything has been said. The program of reforestation is vital to the agricultural areas of western Canada. Experiments have been carried out in the United States where they placed a line of timber across the dustbowl, as a result of which it was found that the lands in that area have not only been brought back into production but the flood hazards of the Mississippi have been lessened.
I believe we would do well to use the Scandinavian countries and Germany as a model in any reforestation program we might undertake. In addition to the wastage of valuable timber land each year, we must also consider the wildlife in those forests. The trapping industry in Canada is something over $20 million a year, and hunting and trapping licences bring in a revenue of about $4 million, with the additional $100 million from tourist traffic.
With all these in mind I submit the following items should be considered:

Surveys should be carried out to increase our knowledge of the forest inventory. This could be done both on the ground and by aircraft.
Sustained yield forest management should be applied.
Further efforts should be made to control loss by fire, insects and disease.
Forest operators should be rigidly controlled and allowed to cut only mature trees.
An extensive reforestation program should be enforced and attempts made to cut down sawmill waste.
An educational program should be instituted to encourage a greater feeling of responsibility on the part of the public.
This is all I have to say at the present time, but I do want to congratulate the minister and say that I hope this is only a beginning of greater co-operation in this respect between the dominion and provincial governments.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that I think this bill is timely; in fact I think that someone should have had the foresight to have introduced a bill of this nature into this house some thirty years ago. Thirty years ago last February I started some timber operations of my own. Shortly afterward the industry ran into a slump and certain areas were not cut to the extent that we ordinarily would have cut. Many of the trees were considered to be too small to cut. I happened to get the deed to a small area and it might be interesting to hon. members to know that since that time I have taken off two crops of timber. We kept out the fire and we did not cut too small and therefore were able to do that.
Under the regulations governing timber permits in Ontario you cannot cut under thirteen inches at the stump, six inches at the top and a two-log tree. I think those are good regulations and if they are carried out my experience is that you will be able to crop each timber berth about every 25 years.
Forest protection and conservation is not just a matter of keeping out fire or planting new trees. Many other things enter into this matter, such as water conservation. The public should be educated to a greater extent in fire prevention, timber conservation and so on. A reforestation plan is being carried out in my own area and a number of the operators have been planting trees during the past few years. The provincial government has made a practice of plowing up the ground before planting new trees, but my experience has been that the trees grow better when planted in underbrush or where there are
Canada Forestry Act
smaller trees. Some means should be devised under this legislation, probably next year or the year after, for taking over certain areas that have been cut and replanting them rather than clearing up fields for replanting.
It is necessary that we retain our forests if we are to conserve our water. The levels of lake Michigan, lake Huron and Georgian bay are down some 20 feet. Some people blame this on the Chicago water steal, but in my opinion the water just is not coming from the inland lakes. In my country the inland lakes are not filling up as they used to, and the levels of the streams are getting lower each year. The great concrete dams that were built, I suppose by the Department of Public Works, a number of years ago are not filling up. I am reminded of the farmer who died and left his son with a good farm and large buildings. But the son did not take care of the farm and soon he had no grain to put in his barns. That is what has happened to these dams that were built many years ago. I know of many small streams in which speckled trout used to be found but today they dry up in the summer. This is especially true in those areas which have been cut over, where too small trees have been cut or wheffe fire has prevailed.
The minister stated that there are five laboratories in operation, but apparently they have been lax in their operations or perhaps they did not have sufficient equipment. Somfe 20 years ago all the tamarack in this country died and no one knew why, and no one knows yet why that happened. In the last two or three years our balsam trees have been dying. As you drive along the highway you will notice them all red. Neither the dominion nor the provincial laboratories have been able to tell us whether this is due to a grub or to a disease.
Then we have the sawfly menace, the bud-worm menace and the pinworm menace, and so far we have received very few facts about these dangers to our timber. The pinworm bores a hole just about the size of a pin, hence its name, but it operates in sawn lumber as well as in trees. In an effort to counteract this the lumbermen use a poisonous dip but this affects the hands of the workers, especially if they have become scratched. I do not know the best way to handle this, but I think the dominion government should work with the provinces and develop a program of reforestation and research.
This legislation is a step in the right direction and if properly followed up can prove to be a major step, not only in the conservation but in the development of the resources

Canada Forestry Act
of this country. In addition to what is provided by this legislation, efforts should be extended by all governments to align public opinion behind a forestry conservation program. The agricultural and hydro-power development industries of this nation have a vital stake in the forests of the country. Although only indirectly related to forestry, these industries are directly affected by any disturbance of the natural balance of the soil vegetation and water levels. The interdependence of a sound forest conservation program and the progress of electric power development in this country in itself justifies the provisions of this legislation.
In addition to conservation 1 should like to see the government next year-if not next year, as soon as possible-by means of the research facilities which it now possesses extend greatly the research in the field of greater utilization of the so-called weed species. There exists today a big field for the greater utilization of logging and saw mill waste. In the ordinary saw mill operation sawdust represents six to eight per cent of the timber handled. Then the timber blocks and other waste must be taken care of. Many mills in Ontario, and I think this applies to British Columbia and some parts of Quebec, burn all the slabs produced. The use of electricity and gas has reduced the use of slabs for home use, and today they are being either buried or burned.
At the present time I believe there is a shortage of trees for planting on waste farm lands in some areas of Canada. I know this to be a fact in Ontario because in planting trees myself each year I have not been able to secure enough from the forestry department of the province to plant the number of trees I would have liked to. I have been getting quite a few, however, and probably they are developing more, although I do not know. I suggest to the minister that some plan of that sort should be worked out in conjunction with the provinces, or by the dominion alone. As public opinion becomes more conservation conscious, it is only natural to expect the demand for young trees will increase, and I suggest early action be taken to assure an adequate supply of trees for reforestation.
Aside from secondary incomes derived from the forests by means of trapping, tourist trade and water power, this industry yields in excess of a billion dollars annually. Unfortunately the amount of money put back into the industry to conserve these resources has been very little. I should like this legislation to be a forerunner of action that will result in $50 million a year being put back into the industry by the federal and provincial governments, and the industries directly and

indirectly concerned. That is all I have to say on the bill at the present time. I am very much in favour of it.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a moment. It has been said that this legislation is twenty-five or thirty years overdue. I suggest the knowledge that has been given to us in the house today in connection with this measure is four thousand years too late. If the inhabitants of the world four thousand years ago had known the extent to which wood could be utilized for the maintenance and supply of so many things we require, we would not have very much difficulty in the world today so far as our economics, our clothing, our food and our shelter are concerned. The section of the bill that intrigues me is that part which provides that the governor in council may establish and maintain laboratories for the better utilization of forest products. I want to bring to the attention of the minister and his technicians, perhaps more to them than anyone else, a statement which I found a few days ago in a book entitled "The Coming Age of Wood". It reads:
Wood is inexhaustible. The forest is not a mine that eventually will be depleted, but a crop land. Provided-
The emphasis is on the proviso.
-trees are harvested as a crop and the forest is sustained by proper management, wood will forever yield all the material the human race can conceivably require.
The author undertakes to prove the proposition which he enunciates in the first chapter. He certainly does so to my satisfaction, and I believe to the satisfaction of any person who may care to investigate the book.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house in discussing this subject. I think everyone approves of the bill and is in accord with its principles. Coming as I do from the province of New Brunswick, we are naturally very much interested in lumbering and forestry conservation. Lumbering is one of our most important industries, and when it is not in a prosperous condition the people of New Brunswick are not prosperous. The enemies of forestry conservation have been mentioned, and I think probably man could be named as the first. I think he has done more to destroy the forests of Canada, as he has in other lands, than all the bud-worms and other pests that we could mention. Nevertheless I am sure he is slowly learning the necessity of conserving this great gift.
Some forty-five or fifty years ago it was realized in our educational institutions, and particularly in the university of New Brunswick, that it was necessary that people should

receive more education so far as forestry is concerned. At the university of New Brunswick in the city of Fredericton, we established the first forestry school in Canada. That school has prospered for the last forty-five years. Graduates from the university of New Brunswick have gone to all parts of Canada, the United States and many parts of Europe to assist in the work of reforestation and the spreading of a general knowledge of forestry.
One of the members from British Columbia spoke a few minutes ago about the chief forester of that province. The first chief forester of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Caverhill, was a graduate of the university of New Brunswick. The present chief forester of British Columbia, Mr. Orchard, is also a graduate of the same university. I say these things to indicate the work that has been done. I might also say that the firm of Price Brothers of the province of Quebec, a large lumber concern, for the past number of years has been giving scholarships at the forestry school and sending students to that university. Just last year five scholarships were given in Great Britain for forestry training, and the students were sent to the university of New Brunswick.
I quite agree with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said this afternoon, that it is most difficult for the smaller provinces to properly protect their forests from fires. I think the suggestion he made that we might use aeroplanes and helicopters is a good one. In many parts of the province of New Brunswick we have now established fire towers, and they have been of great benefit in spotting fires and directing fire fighters to the vicinity in a short time. I also think further education is needed. I was greatly interested a short time ago to read in the February number of a publication issued by the Canadian Forestry Association an article suggesting that more Canadian films should be used to educate our people in forest conservation and similar matters. The article reads:
Motion pictures as an aid to forestry education are an important medium employed by the Canadian Forestry Association. During 1948, Canadian Forestry Association's own motion picture and lecture tours, its film libraries and co-operative tours recorded an attendance in all Canadian provinces of 400,000 men, women and youths, French and English.
They go on to say:
It is regrettable to report that all the major motion pictures, in the 1948 program, dealing with forest management, forest protection, soil erosion, water and wild life were purchased by Canadian Forestry Association in the United States and adapted (and translated for Quebec) in Canada.
The principal producer of forest conservation films on this continent is the United States department of agriculture.
Canada Forestry Act
This article goes on to suggest that the Canadian film board might very properly take a prominent part in the production of such films. I offer that to the minister as a suggestion which I believe should be given careful consideration.
I was interested in the remarks of the last speaker and also those of the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) with respect to the use of lumber by-products such as sawdust, slabs and so on. I should like to direct attention to the efforts in this connection of a former member of this house, Mr. J. L. O'Brien, in Northumberland county, New Brunswick. Mr. O'Brien has installed equipment and developed a process at his plant on the Miramichi river by means of which not only the sawdust but the slabs and even the bark are used. In other words he is using one hundred per cent of the log. This is more or less of an experiment, on which Mr. O'Brien is spending a good deal of his own money, but he believes it will be successful. If such a method can be developed by him I am sure it can be used in the industry right across Canada. It is interesting to note that in the past only fifty per cent of a log has been used, with the slabs, the sawdust and the waste making up the other fifty per cent. That is a tremendous loss, which I hope may be eliminated as a result of the work of the organizations being set up under this legislation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to say a word on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to conclude before six o'clock. Strangely enough the largest logging camp in the British empire happens to be in my riding, which is a rural constituency. The largest cedar mill is also there. But that is not what I rose to say.


Mr. Sluarl (Charlotte):: Why do you say it,
then?


George Alexander Cruickshank: When an hon. member from the maritimes, who is afraid to say anything unless he is going to gain something out of it, is prepared to stand in his place and talk as I am talking, I will sit down for him, but not until then. I believe the Frime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will agree when I say that the man who has done most for forest conservation in British Columbia is Hon. T. D. Pattullo, a former minister of mines and for twenty years premier of that province, who I am proud to say is celebrating his golden wedding anniversary today.
I do not always agree with my socialist friends, as I probably shall not agree with them tonight. I do not always agree with

Canada Forestry Act
some of the leaders in the lumber industry, but I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that though we admit we are twenty-five or thirty years late we believe we in British Columbia lead in forest conservation; and for once I want to speak for private industry. No one in Canada is doing more for forest conservation today than Mr. H. R. MacMillan, of British Columbia, who is doing it with his own money.
I want to congratulate the minister on this bill, which I think is excellent. I believe the idea is right. After all-and I hope some of my fish friends from the maritimes will listen to this-our forests are one of the greatest assets of the country. During the war fifty-five per cent of the lumber that England required so badly came from British Columbia; put that in your pipe and smoke it. I do not mind these interruptions from someone who knows what he is talking about, but I did want to get this off my chest. British Columbia is very proud of what it is doing now. We welcome any assistance we may obtain from the federal government, and again I want to pay my respects to the former premier of that province, who had so much to do with forest conservation.


Mr. Herridge:: I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: If I may make a suggestion, in committee on the first section there is usually a general discussion. The discussion on the motion for second reading has been going on for some time, and I wondered if the hon. gentleman would permit us to get into committee and make his remarks on the first section of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, if it is understood that I may speak generally.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 1-Short title.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I take the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to speak at this point on this bill because I represent a large number of people who have been particularly interested and concerned with forest conservation for a considerable period of years; in fact I represent a number of people who

have led the way in British Columbia in advocating forest conservation principles. I am also rather anxious to make a few remarks and present a few of my ideas to the committee on this bill because I myself have been particularly interested-I should say that it has been a hobby of mine since 1909-in the preservation of a tract of timber and its operation on a permanent yield basis.
I have read this bill carefully and I am pleased to note that it contains some substance and provides the machinery for this government to do something effective in the future in the field of forest conservation. In passing I must say that I listened with great interest this morning to the minister's statement on the second reading of this bill and was pleased indeed to hear in that statement of the intentions of the government and of its plans in connection with this bill.
Some people are considered to be patriots because they wave the flag and make a show by outward and visible demonstration of their loyalty to a country. But in my opinion a person who makes every effort to see that the actual resources of a country are preserved, in forests, in soil and in water, is fulfilling one of the first requirements of being a patriot and a true citizen.
Since the resolution was first introduced I find that support for this bill is widespread. I have had a number of letters from constituents who are interested in the forest industry and who have expressed great pleasure at seeing this bill come before the house. In reading the press and various magazines I have also noticed that there is a great deal of outspoken support for the government's purpose as expressed in this bill.
In dealing with this question of the conservation of our forests, we have three important questions to ask:	What is our present
position, what is our objective, and how can we attain that objective? Before making a few personal suggestions as a result of experience in British Columbia, I am first of all going to deal briefly with the situation as it is in that province, because naturally I am better informed on conditions there than on conditions elsewhere; and having been a member of the provincial legislature of British Columbia for some years, I have followed with great interest the work and have had quite a close association with some of the forestry officials of that province.
In order to proceed with my argument I find myself repeating three sets of figures that were given by a previous member, but I do so in order to give a true picture while speaking at this time. We find that the total

land area of British Columbia is 234,403,000 acres. The land area capable of producing commercial timber is about 75 million acres, although included in that figure is some land that might only produce marginal timber. The area of land which is incapable of producing commercial timber is 154,678,000 acres; agricultural land, 4,702,000 acres. That means that we have 32 per cent of the total area which is capable of producing timber of some type; 66 per cent is incapable of producing commercial timber and 2 per cent of the land area of British Columbia is suitable for agricultural purposes. From those figures hon. members can clearly understand the great importance of the forest industry to British Columbia.
From the latest figures I have been able to obtain, it is estimated that there is at present 280 billion feet of accessible timber in British Columbia. When I say "accessible", that is a rather relative term because it changed with the introduction of machinery. By that I mean timber that can be taken out with modern equipment at a profit at this time. Timber which is now accessible was considered strictly inaccessible when I was a boy when it had to be hauled by horses for a long distance.
The main causes of forest depletion are logging, destruction by fire, insect pests, diseases and what we term windthrows. I am interested to note that according to the latest figures I can get for British Columbia the depletion by logging in that province averages 3J billion board feet per year. That is the consumption of our timber resources on account of logging. The depletion by fire averages 300 million board feet per year. The depletion from insects and disease averages over 400 million board feet per year. The total annual depletion of our accessible forest wealth in British Columbia at the present time is nearly 4J billion board feet. That is an impressive figure.
Chief Justice Sloan, in his report relating to the forest resources of British Columbia, published in 1945-to anyone who is interested in a careful study of forest resources, I would recommend the reading of that report- estimated on the basis of the present rate of depletion that the coast stands of timber would last as follows:
years
Douglas fir	 31
Hemlock	 92
Western red	cedar	 85
Spruce	 87
Silver fir or	balsam	 176
White pine	 35
Canada Forestry Act
Interior stands were estimated to last as
follows:
years
Douglas fir	 72
Western hemlock	 225
Western red cedar	 84
Spruce	 101
Silver fir or balsam	1,184
We are quite safe in that direction, so far as silver fir is concerned.
years
Lodge pole pine	 167
Larch	 46
White pine	 37
Yellow pine	 30
From these figures, Mr. Chairman, you can see that the interior of British Columbia represents a much better picture than does the coast area.
These figures that I have given illustrate the British Columbia situation clearly and I think they are indicative generally of the position with respect to our forests in Canada as a whole.
For a few moments I want to deal with the question of utilization. As we understand it, logging waste is the proportion of the tree that has marketable value which is left in the woods, such as sound logs, butts, breakages and unused tops. From a study made in 1932 by J. H. Jenkins and F. W. Guernsey, it was found that nearly 20 per cent of merchantable timber was left in the woods of British Columbia as logging waste. This alone means that 750 million feet of merchantable timber is wasted in the woods each year in British Columbia. I therefore suggest that there is a great opportunity here for the federal and provincial governments to carry out experiments similar to what was termed the Ladysmith experiment conducted by the Comox Logging and Railway Company, the Powell River Company and the British Columbia provincial forest service. In my opinion the solution to this question will mean the establishment of new grades for recovered material and concessions to logging operators and lumber companies so far as royalty and stumpage are concerned.
I want to deal very briefly with saw mill waste. The fact that about 20 per cent of the wood volume per acre is now being wasted during logging operations must lead us to consider what happens to 80 per cent of a tree that arrives in a mill. A study of fourteen different coast mills by the same company, J. H. Jenkins, in 1928 revealed the fact that about 30 per cent of Douglas fir logs and 33 per cent of hemlock logs were lost in the slabs, edgings and sawdust. They lost approximately 30 per cent in the manufacturing plus 20 per cent in logging. That means about 50 per cent of the volume of the

Canada Forestry Act
trees cut in British Columbia are lost in logging and manufacturing. By the time they arrive at the mill there is a further loss owing to the uneconomic utilization of logs through poor equipment. There is quite a place, Mr. Chairman, for a study by the federal government or by co-operation between the two governments, of the use of proper equipment in the cutting of timber in this country. Then again there is a further loss through the lack of markets for low grades and from the lack of use of, shall I say, by-products left in the bush.
What I mean by the lack of markets because of the failure to utilize low grades I could illustrate in this way. When the trimmer saws are operating in the saw mills you very often see two by fours, two by sixes or other dimensions of timber cut from a log having a slight wane on one corner, which prevents it being used for house building, and as a result of this wane one often sees two feet, four feet or six feet of this dimension timber trimmed and wasted.
If we were utilizing our timber properly as they are in Great Britain and Scandinavia that two by four or two by six or any dimension of that type could be used in such buildings as garages, or outside structures where you do not intend to use any interior sheeting.
Then, Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable loss of timber in the use of high-grade logs for dimension timber, and so on, owing to the variations in the market and the lack of experience. I have visited a number of small mills and portable mills and have found, for instance, No. 1 cedar logs being cut up for two-inch and three-inch cedar planks or No. 1 Douglas fir logs being cut into shiplap and material of that type, when those fir logs should be used entirely for fir flooring, furniture materials and high-grade lumber. Therefore I wish to make a few suggestions to the minister for his consideration to promote the greater utilization of logs. I suggest it would be an excellent thing for the government to investigate the possibilities for more efficient types of saw mill equipment to overcome the present loss of timber caused by the inserted tooth saw. We have the inserted tooth saw and the solid saw. The reason the inserted tooth saw is used is that it is much easier for the average man to use. It does not require a skilled man to sharpen the saws, skilled mechanics and so on. The inserted tooth saw causes an excessive amount of waste in sawdust when sawing. Also inefficient carriages and wasteful edging cause losses. There is no question about it. Anyone who has followed the lumber industry in this country throughout the years, particularly the smaller mills and the portable mills, will realize how little advancement we
[Mr. Herridge.l
have made in efficient sawing equipment, especially when we compare it with the advances that have been made in other directions so far as machinery is concerned. I would suggest to the minister that there is a great opportunity there for a study of saw mill equipment, particularly as it applies to small mills and portable mills. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that further study of the utilization of saw mill waste for the manufacture of furniture, household equipment and box materials could be given serious consideration.
Anyone who has been associated with the lumber industry will realize that possibly the greatest amount of waste occurs in the smaller mills or in the portable mills where the owners are unable to use that waste because of being some distance from the local market and because of the lack of capital to purchase these things that are required to utilize the waste, the machinery and so on. That is a subject which could well be studied.
I have not seen the machines but I have been told that in Scandinavia, in parts of Germany, and in other parts of Europe there are in use, or were in use previous to the last war, some very efficient saw mill equipment operated on the band saw principle which can be operated with very low power. In the lumber industry power cost is one of the chief obstacles to the small mill operator. The small chap who has a small timber holding or who buys his logs from wood lots on the farms, or has small timber holdings which he operates, finds that power is one of the bugbears. I suggest that the minister's department could give serious consideration to investigating these types of saw mills, which are of the band saw type. I have been told by a lumber operator that in Sweden they have a type of band saw which is utilized in this way. The farmer takes a two-foot log, puts it on the carriage and heads it into a series of small band saws. He then goes and milks the cows, does his chores, goes to bed, and gets up in the morning and the machinery is so timed that he would have a couple of dozen inch planks ready for farm use. I think that should receive some attention from the minister's department because it would be a great help to farmers in this country, and particularly to small lumber operators, to be able to cut lumber with low powered engines.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the department give consideration to the development of the co-operative purchase of machinery between small mills. The trouble is that waste occurs because there are, as in my own district, dozens of small operators wasting a high percentage of the log after it reaches the mill, in addition to the woods waste, because they have not the capital to purchase this machinery. I suggest that some consideration should

be given to the co-operative purchase of processing plants, and to getting firms interested in the building of centralized processing plants in which the waste from a number of portable mills could be taken and processed. I suggest that the minister's department could very well investigate the possibilities of markets for by-products. Our timber has been so plentiful until recent years that I am of the opinion not sufficient serious consideration has been given to the question of by-products from the lumber industry. Consideration of assistance should be given toward the cost of transportation of these products to markets. In some districts particularly that might mean the introduction of special rates by the railroads or shipping companies, as a result of government intervention. That may seem a sort of unusual suggestion, but I can illustrate. In my district, if we had a special rate for say cord-wood going from the Arrow lakes to the city of Trail at a lower rate than the present rate it would be a great help. At the present time you can barely ship wood to cover the cost. If there was a lower rate in effect for that wood, that is a rate of say $10 a car less, small operators would be induced to use up a great deal of timber which is now left in the bush to rot. I advance that as another suggestion to the minister's department.
Then there is the question of consideration of tax concessions to promote the greater utilization of timber in the woods and at the saw mill by both the federal and provincial governments. While on the surface this may appear to mean a temporary loss of revenue to the federal or provincial government, I maintain that if we are able to utilize our natural resources to much greater advantage it is in the end a total gain to the community.
I wish now to discuss several aspects of forest protection. I have been interested in the subject for many years. In my time I have done a good deal of fire fighting, and I could tell some most interesting stories as a result of my experiences. However, I shall not do that but shall confine my remarks to the subject at hand because, Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that I live in great fear of you.
There has been a great improvement in this respect in British Columbia in recent years owing to the increase in the use of aircraft, lookouts and suppression crews in fire fighting. I say that the government of British Columbia and the forest service of that province deserve a great deal of credit. I have seen that service develop throughout the years to a point where it has now become particularly efficient.
I believe it was before lunch that the leader of the opposition suggested that there could be co-operation between the Royal
Canada Forestry Act
Canadian Air Force and the forest services of the various provinces with a view to having the R.C.A.F. patrol for forestry purposes. That may be possible in some sections of Canada, but I do not think it is possible in British Columbia because it requires the use of a light type of aircraft to travel between the high mountains. It would involve great risk to fly a heavy plane low between mountain peaks, and ranges.
In that connection I suggest there is room for further research as to the types of equipment used in fire fighting. A suggestion was made by a previous speaker which I wish to endorse. He pointed out that the lack of roads and trails into our forest areas had up to the present time constituted one of the biggest handicaps in the matter of successful fire fighting owing to the time taken to reach the point where the fire is actually burning. I do believe something should be done between the federal government and the provinces to extend the roads into forest areas, and where roads are not possible trails so that pack horses could be used.
I further suggest the possibility of a greater use of chemicals in the early stages of fighting forest fires. There is the possibility that that subject might be further investigated, because chemicals are light, can be packed easily and can reach almost inaccessible places. That question should receive further consideration.
I will deal only briefly with the question of the control of insect pests and disease. A great deal of excellent work has been accomplished by the science service of the Department of Agriculture in this connection. I should like to express my appreciation of the work that branch has been doing, because I have come in contact with some of the science service men and the work they have been doing. My suggestion to the minister would be that more funds are required to carry on the necessary work.
Secondly, there should be co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, universities and industry to a much higher degree. More publicity should be given in our universities and schools with respect to this aspect of forest conservation.
I come now to the subject of forest management and silviculture. While federal and provincial officials have given attention to the question of forest management, reproduction, regeneration and the rate of growth, a great deal more will have to be done in this connection before a sound and effective policy is developed.
In that connection, and in order to be as brief as possible, I should like to quote from

Canada Forestry Act
the recommendations of the royal commission on forestry in British Columbia in 1945, headed by Chief Justice Sloan:
The future existence of our forest industries depends upon the intelligent management of our forest land to insure its continued productivity. No industry that continues to deplete the source of its own raw material can hope to survive without providing for the future replenishment of that material.
If our forest heritage is to be preserved instead of destroyed we must think of forest production in terms of renewable crops, not only for the growing of wood, but for the perpetuation of all those manifold benefits which the forest has bestowed upon mankind.
Our basic fundamental and vital forest problem is to see to it that our forests are perpetuated for the use, profit and pleasure of our future generations. If we fail in this objective then the economic future of British Columbia will present a very dark and dismal picture. Fortunately it is not too late to plan now for the future, but the sands are running out and the time is now upon us when the present policy of unmanaged liquidation of our forest wealth must give way to the imperative concept of a planned forest policy designed to maintain our forests upon the principle of sustained yield production. Our forest land must be regarded as a source of renewable crops and not as a mine to be exploited1 and abandoned.
I quote again from the report of the same commission:
In 1910 a royal commission was appointed to inquire into forestry matters in British Columbia and an important recommendation was contained in the report of the commission relative to the forest revenue. It reads as follows:
"Your commissioners regard the income from royalty on timber as differing essentially from any other form of revenue in the province. Such receipts should be regarded as capital-not as current revenue. We have no hesitation in recommending that the amount so received, large as it may appear, should be expended by the government for the protection, conservation, and restoration of our timber resources. With our present knowledge regarding re-afforestation to treat these receipts as other than capital would be utterly unsound in principle and might produce disastrous results in the ultimate impairment of the public estate."
It is regrettable to have to record that for thirty-five years this recommendation has been consistently ignored and disregarded by succeeding governments.
That recommendation was made thirty-five years ago, but until quite recently even the government of British Columbia took no action in that respect. Thirty-five years of neglect! I emphasize this point, because federal and provincial governments draw a large revenue from the forests. A greater percentage of that revenue must be returned for the conservation and protection of our forests, on the part of both the federal government and the provincial governments concerned.
The public estate has suffered impairment during the last thirty-five years from the lack of funds essential to forest management. The public interest requires that this state of affairs should no longer continue.

Ample money must be voted under this act if it is going to have any effective results. I find that in Canada in 1946 there was a total expenditure of $30 million on forest management, research and forest problems. The federal governmnt spent $2 [DOT] 6 million, the provincial governments $10-7 million, and private industry $16-4 million. That makes a total of $30 million. The Canadian Forestry Association recommends that by 1955 we should have a total annual expenditure on forest management in Canada, divided between federal and provincial governments, and private industry, of $100 million.
I should like now to make brief reference to the research carried on by the Vancouver forest products laboratory of the dominion forest service. I recognize the excellent work being done by that laboratory, with its timber mechanics division, its division to investigate utilization and seasoning, wood preservation and timber pathology division and the wood chemistry division. I understand that now they are experimenting with the production of gas from wood and have had some very interesting results, although I am told that at the present time it cannot be produced at an economical price. I give all credit to the men working at the Vancouver forest laboratory, but I should like to criticize the government to the extent of saying that too few people in Canada know just what that laboratory and the other laboratories investigating forest products are doing. I understand that their findings are published in certain trade and lumbermen's journals and a few other publications, but there are hundreds of people operating small mills, logging operations or engaged in educational work who know nothing about the excellent work being done. I suggest that greater publicity should be given to the work of these scientists who are working on our behalf.
If we are going to have a sound, effective policy there should be a widespread educational program. When you discuss these matters with Scandinavians or Europeans or people of the British isles you discover that behind the law is a great consciousness on the part of the people of the necessity for conservation. The spirit of conservation prevails. If we are going to get the co-operation of the Canadian people for the maintenance of government-sponsored forests across this country we must start to educate in the elementary schools and proceed right through to the universities, not forgetting many types of adult organizations.
In addition to forest management and forest conservation, we require an over-all conservation policy because forest conservation

is only one facet of a national conservation program. I suggest that there is great need for an interdepartmental committee on conservation to be made up of forest engineers, agricultural scientists, meteorologists, members of the hydrographic service and other related departments such as the national film board. Conservation should be approached as a whole, not in tidbits.
I recommend to the government that they work in close co-operation with the Canadian Forestry Association, the Canadian Association of Forest Engineers, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other bodies and organizations of a technical or popular nature that are interested in the development of this program. I do not know to what extent this co-operation exists at the present time, but I believe it is necessary to involve the people in the day-to-day administration of their own affairs if they are going to be administered in a democratic, efficient and effective way.
In conclusion I stress the need for education, organization, co-operation and sufficient funds for the development of a satisfactory and complete conservation program in Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but comment that in the general approbation that has been given to this bill by members of all parties the words "progressive conservation" have been used a number of times, and I am reminded that the party of which I have the honour to be a member uses the word "progressive" in its title. Progressive conservation cannot be anything but a good thing for Canada and that is why this party agrees with it.
I was rather taken aback by a remark this afternoon made by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond who said that this bill was 4,000 years too late. I do not believe the Liberal party was in power at that time, but if they continue with their present progress they may be able to keep up that position in the years to come. At all events we cannot blame them for not having introduced this bill at the time the hon. member suggested.


William F. Carroll: I made no such statement, that the bill should have been introduced 4,000 years ago. What I did say was that certain of the information we were getting concerning this matter of forest conservation was not known to the people of this country 4,000 years ago.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I beg the hon. member's pardon. I thought the Liberal party was in power 4,000 years ago.


An hon. Member:: It just seems that long.
Canada Forestry Act


Gordon Francis Higgins: Be that as it may, good things will mature and if any party could bring such a bill as this one before us I am sure it would be the Liberal party, it having been in power since 1935.
No one can dispute the value of a bill such as this, but in considering this bill I think we should realize the great background of our pulp and paper industry. With all due respect to some of the hon. members to my left who seem to think that there is no need for such a bill, I would point out that the pulp and paper industry is responsible for the earning of some $800 million each year. That is a greater production than that of the mineral industry or our wheat and grain industry. Coming from the part of the dominion from which I come, I had always visualized wheat and grain production as being Canada, but when I saw the figures I began to realize that it is all wood, and I do not mean it is solid all through.
The pulp and paper industry is first in employment, first in the wages paid, first in value of production, first in the value of exports and first in capital expenditure. All in all, it is a wonderful industry. But that is only part of our woods industry. There is the logging, such as that carried on in the constituency of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. But speaking only of the pulp and paper industry we can realize the necessity for a bill such as this.
This is the first time that I have attempted to take the hon. member for Fort William to task and I certainly do not like to take a man of the cloth to task, but when he says that the largest pulp mill in the world is in his constituency I would remind him that the largest single pulp mill in the world is located in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. The greatest single day's production of newsprint in the world occurred at that plant not more than three or four weeks ago. We are very proud of that fact. Of course we have a lot of wood, cod, and everything else down there. If I remember correctly, I believe the hon. member for Wetaskiwin remarked today about the fact that in the reading room there was a symbolic tree and all the provinces had branches on the tree except the poor new province.


An hon. Member:: We will get one for you.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall not name the hon. member over there, but I believe it was suggested by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin that we should have a new tree. I suggest that when we have a new tree it should be a big tree and not altogether "Smallwood". I am not going much further into this matter, but I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond when he

Canada Forestry Act
says that trees are a crop. Trees very definitely are a crop, and they must be harvested and treated as a crop. That is why, as a person to whom wood means so much- and I do not mean "Smallwood" either-I say that we have to regard the trees of Newfoundland as a crop for harvesting, and the same thing applies all over the dominion.
For that reason the bill is going to have particular significance. My leader mentioned fire protection today. I do not know whether or not it is so, but possibly your newest province is in the lead in that it is wiser with regard to fire protection. We have found that one of the chief causes of fire is railroad engines, and as a result of that we converted our engines so that they could use oil. That is not going to be very popular in Cape Breton, or possibly in some other parts of the country, but it would appear to me that in territories where there is wood and there are also railroads, it should be compulsory for railway engines to use oil.
In your youngest province we are proud of the fact that we are not too far behind you so far as management is concerned. I should like to quote briefly from a reprint of a Financial Post editorial of July 2, 1949. It is written by John D. Gilmour, who apparently is recognized as an outstanding authority among Canadian foresters. First of all he said:
Except for Newfoundland and Quebec (which lead Canada In forestry matters) forest industry does not control fire protection.
I think that is correct. I should also like to read a few more paragraphs to be found further on in the editorial. They are:
Newfoundland, Canada's tenth and newest province, can show the best all-round record in forest management. Here most of the forest areas are held in perpetuity by the two pulp and paper companies. There has been a minimum of government interference. Unlike the alarming decline in the forests in other parts of Canada, Newfoundland now has considerably more timber than it had fifty years ago. This has been due to better fire protection, a better system of land tenure and proper control of cutting by the companies.
Both companies have a stake in Newfoundland forests, and have taken greater care to see that their raw material is managed to give a sustained annual yield. Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company was operating on a sustained yield basis before 1926. Bowater's Newfoundland pulp and paper mills in its recent expansion refused to permit its mill capacity to exceed anticipated pulp-wood supplies cut on a sustained yield basis.
The oldest permanent sample plots in Canada are in Newfoundland. I was one-
He refers to himself.
-who laid them out in 1921. They have been carefully studied and measured every five years since then. And they have produced a great deal of useful information already and will continue to do so.
[Mr. Higgins.1
That, Mr. Chairman, should be a lesson to the older provinces of Canada that the newest province, which depends so much on the pulp and paper industry, appears from what I have heard to be much further ahead than the rest of the provinces of Canada. I believe the bill envisages many great protective measures, and I refer particularly to section 6. I shall not read it because all hon. members have it. If this particular provision of the bill is enforced it appears to me the minister really has something, if he wants to push it, that will be of great benefit to the whole Dominion of Canada. I may appear to suffer from chronic "gimmies", but I want to ask the minister for something once again, inasmuch as we have our own little worries and troubles in Newfoundland. The minister envisions the establishment of research bureaux under this measure, and as there is none in the maritimes at the present time I would ask him to establish one of these new research bureaux in Newfoundland to service the maritime provinces.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman, I feel, as was said this afternoon, that this measure is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation introduced in the house for many years. As so many have said, that is particularly true because it is so long overdue. I am quite sure the minister will agree with me when I say that it is a great challenge to whatever minister is charged with the responsibility of administering Canada's forest policy. I think it is recognized that forestry is Canada's biggest business, but I often wonder whether the Minister of Finance really appreciates that fact. Many times representatives of the industry have come to Ottawa to discuss taxation policy with the Minister of Finance and his officials, but unfortunately they were never able to establish as good a case of poverty during the prosperous war years as the mines were able to. As a result the officials of the Department of Finance have never given the problem the attention which it certainly merits.
I should also like to say to the minister that I hope forestry will not be relegated to a minor branch of some kind within a service under the new departmental set-up that is being inaugurated. I think forestry well merits the recognition of having a branch assigned to it in order that the chief forester of Canada may be able to make his reports direct to the minister rather than through another departmental head who is probably not familiar with the intricate problems involved in forestry. The bill certainly gives ample powers to the minister, and I hope that the forestry department will look around in

Canada and try to accumulate a staff of first-class men, which I can assure him is very difficult to obtain.
I understand that within his department he has one economist working on the problems of forest economics. It is a study and field in which a great deal of pioneering can be done. I was particularly glad to learn from the minister that a man was employed in his department in that capacity. It is also most important that we have taxation studies. Timber is treated altogether differently from any other natural resource in Canada. Under the income tax set-up that has prevailed in the past, it has not been possible for a man to obtain capital gains without taxation if he should happen to own his own timber. The only way a man could make capital gains, if he owned timber over a long period of time, was to get out of the timber business, something that I am sure the minister will agree is most undesirable. In order to take capital gains and get the money that is necessary to replace the timber that he is cutting, it has been necessary for him to sell it inasmuch as that was the only way available to him to secure the capital gain.
There is another point that has never been recognized by the taxation department. I refer to the fact that in the timber business, entirely different from anything else, there is an uninsurable risk. There is the danger of fire to the capital timber which one owns, and also the danger of destruction by insects. I am quite sure that if the minister consults the taxation experts in the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue he will find that the timber people of this country have been given no consideration for that very definite expense which they must incur.
In this legislation we are giving the minister power to enter into agreements with the provinces. He can go to a province and say, "We are interested in your problems of fire and insect protection". I would not want to put this on a coercion basis, but if we are going to contribute to the cost of this work by the provinces I believe we should be consulted, let us say, as to their methods of taxation. Certainly there is no use in the timber people applying to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue for some lightening of the taxation load, only to have the provincial governments come along and take up whatever slack or relief has been afforded. I believe the taxation of timber and saw mills in Canada should be done on the basis of consultation between the federal and provincial governments.
Canada Forestry Act
Men with a knowledge of forestry and its economics are very scarce in Canada. Most of them have received university training. The only way they can follow their profession is to accept employment with the large companies. Those large companies usually have their own policies, and to a certain degree they can dictate to the foresters what they shall say in regard to reforestation and other economic problems. It must be recognized, of course, that any company employing foresters must exercise reasonable control over them, to see that they do not speak their mind too bluntly on matters having to do with the provincial administration of forests. In discussing this problem with foresters all over the country it has occurred to me that very few of them are free agents. Many would like to get up and speak their minds, but sometimes it is not altogether in the interests of their employers that they should be quite so blunt or brutal as the situation may require. If within the federal forestry structure we could employ some of these really capable men, they would be able to give us first-class, unbiased advice. The federal government, of course, is not primarily interested in royalty revenue; to a great degree its revenue comes in the way of income tax, but I am sure foresters employed by the federal government could give us much better opinions on these problems than it is possible for us to get at the present time.
We often speak of reforestation. I believe one of the most effective ways of seeing that reforestation was carried out in Canada would be to amend the Criminal Code. It should be a criminal offence if, when a man logs a square mile of timber, he does not make arrangements to re-seed it with trees or follow other methods to ensure that a second crop of timber will grow there. I know that sounds like very harsh treatment, but my logging experience has led me to believe that the practices we have followed in the past have resulted in the many thousands of square miles of denuded timber limits we see right across this country.
As far as the utilization of forest products is concerned, I thought the hon. member for Kootenay West offered an excellent suggestion when he said one reason the small operators particularly cannot utilize all the timber products was because they lacked capital. I see we have now moved into the field of loaning large sums of money to the coal industry. I have no doubt that is a very worthy project, but I believe something also could be done for the timber industry. This might be something the forest economists in the minister's department would

Canada Forestry Act
look into. At the present time a pulp mill which will utilize forest waste costs a minimum of $10 million. I would hope that the research branch of the department might explore the possibility of erecting some sort of small plant which would convert the final and complete pulp product, which I believe would be a wonderful contribution. If for the expenditure of $25,000 or $50,000 a process could be worked out which would enable the small operators to utilize the waste which at present they either throw into the water or burn, it would be a wonderful thing.
Another very important matter the research department might well look into is the removal of bark from trees. I was very interested the other day to learn that one of the minister's scientists had discovered a method of doing that, by injecting some liquid into a tree which would cause it to shed its bark within six months. That is a worth-while and useful project, and I would hope that further experiments might be carried out in that regard.
As far as conservation is concerned, I think we all agree that insect and fire control are of paramount importance in this field. So often, of course, people who are not familiar with timber matters assume that we should limit our cutting of mature forests. Personally I think that is a wrong policy. Economically I believe our mature timber in British Columbia, for instance, is perhaps worth more today than it ever will be again. I can see the vast possibilities that lie ahead in the field of metallurgy; and I think probably we should cut our mature timber as we require it. One fact often forgotten is that when a forest is mature it is no longer growing, in which case if you cut it and make sure another crop is planted you are certainly increasing the forest production of Canada.
In conclusion I should like to congratulate the minister on this bill, which gives him a great opportunity to do something really worth-while for Canada; and I am sure he will live up to the challenge.


Mr. Ferrie:: I could speak on this matter for hours, I believe, but I am going to say only a few words. Pretty well half of my constituency is forest; and the great destroyer of our forests is fire. I suggest to the minister that just as soon as a fire is put out a bulldozer should move in and replanting should commence; otherwise grass grows and another tree comes up that does not belong there at all, so we do not have the forest we want. The idea is that we should replant as quickly as possible. The same thing would apply when some insect pest comes along and

kills a great many of our trees. Let the bulldozer move in and push those trees out of the way. They are no use to anyone; they are simply firewood, and a nuisance. The best thing to do is go ahead and replant in such a way that our soil and water will be conserved. Nature has a wonderful way of doing things that man cannot match.
I want to tell the minister I am very pleased that he is coming in with this bill. It is something that is badly needed; the provinces cannot handle it, while the dominion can. We want reforestation, particularly in those lands that have been burnt over and are no good for anything else. The grass is growing there now, and that grass should be bulldozed off and the area replanted with trees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4

Forest products laboratories.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say what arrangements will be made to see to it that the information obtained as a result of this research is made available to all the people in the business, the big operators and the little ones, right down the line?


Colin William George Gibson: The government already, of course, is operating some forest products laboratories and the information is being as widely distributed as possible through the trade journals. Problems arise in the forest products industries, and these industries often apply to the laboratories asking to have some problem examined and some investigations made. Our laboratories undertake that work and do what they can to find a solution.
Several of the members have spoken about the need for research concerning the use of waste products. The laboratories have been doing that research. They have been finding uses for sawdust, for bark, and using tannin from the bark of the trees out on the Pacific coast, finding ways of preserving the stumps of logs so that fungus will not get in, and destroy probably a foot of the log. The research laboratories are doing a great deal of that work and they are passing out as much information as possible to the industries concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has any work been done with respect to developing more efficient machinery for smaller mills and making investigations as to the type of machinery in use in some of the European countries?


Colin William George Gibson: No. I do not think our research laboratories have been doing any work on producing machinery for smaller mills. I can make further inquiries

and let my hon. friend know. But certainly I have not seen it myself, and I do not think that so far that has been attempted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Agreements with provinces.
Mr. Fleming:: I am particularly concerned about subsection (c), under which the minister would derive power toenter into agreements with any persons providing for economic studies of forest resources or forest industries, forest research and demonstrations and the operation of forest products laboratories.
There are some associations that have been doing a great public service; they are associations not of a public, but of a private nature, but they have nevertheless performed a useful public service and have contributed much in the way of educating the public to the value of our forest resources and the need for conserving them. I should like to ask the minister if such associations are to be regarded as coming within the scope of the expression "persons" in this clause, so that the minister would have power to enter into agreements with them, in that way taking more direct advantage of the work that such associations are doing and particularly of their educational work which could be assisted through the medium of such agreements. I hope the minister will be in a position to give assurance that such organizations are to be regarded as persons within the scope of this clause, and that it is his intention to enter into agreements with such associations just as far as possible.


Colin William George Gibson: In this section "persons" would include associations, as my hon. friend suggests, and corporations; so that we can work out plans together with various individuals, organizations or corporations, in which joint efforts will be useful. For example, there is a case that I know of in which one individual had a large forest plantation that he had developed himself. We arranged to have the right to go in and do some cutting there and also to make measurements throughout this timbered area so that we would be able to make a record and keep track of the growth and development of that forest. That was done by agreement with an individual in that case. We have done it also with certain corporations, and it is planned to continue on that basis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the minister for his answer. Is it contemplated that in such agreements the government may be contributing to educational campaigns to be carried on through such associations? The campaigns of course would be subject to the approval of the minister.
45781-159}
Canada Forestry Act


Colin William George Gibson: That could be done. I think that probably the educational campaign would be worked out in conjunction with the provinces, as I feel that the greatest benefit could be derived by a joint campaign of the dominion and the provinces.. But there is nothing to prevent an agreement being made with associations, such as the forestry associations, to expand the amount of publicity that is being given to this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I imagine there are many more square miles of forest area under provincial control than there are under federal control. It therefore becomes extremely important to the efficient implementation of this act that there be satisfactory agreements with the provinces so that the purposes of this act may be carried out. Can the minister tell us, from any advance discussions he may have had, what the chances are of a fairly universal set of agreements?


Colin William George Gibson: In my opening remarks today I said that we had had a brief submitted by eight of the provinces- that was before Newfoundland became a province-suggesting that we should adopt a joint forest policy. Already I have even had feelers from some of the provinces suggesting that we start negotiations under the terms of this bill when the bill is passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Mr. Fraser:: In the suggestions from the provinces with regard to fire protection, has any definite plan been put forward? What I am getting at is this. If a fire broke out in Ontario, for instance, would the dominion government have its own equipment or would that all be provincial equipment?


Colin William George Gibson: That would be-arranged under agreement with the province so that a joint protective system can be worked out in each province.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister means a joint program. The dominion government would not have any equipment at all? It would all be provincial?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say that until an agreement is entered into. That must be worked out with the provinces.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It could be different in each province?


Colin William George Gibson: It could "Ee different; it might be the same in many of the provinces and different in some provinces, but that has to be worked out separately and we have not had any discussions with the provinces up to the present time as to the form of any agreement.
25C0

Canada Forestry Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What I am getting at is this. The dominion government is in better shape to supply a plane-carrying service for firefighting equipment. Having regard to the fires we had in Ontario and Quebec last year, I know that one of the difficulties was that of getting equipment in to those different spots. I think the dominion government could do a wonderful service in that regard if it had helicopters that could carry the equipment and drop it in a small space.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question about saw mill equipment. I have just had a note sent to me from one of my officials stating that studies in saw mill equipment and technical work will be got under way in the coming spring. Preliminary investigative work leading up to this study has already been completed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to thank the minister for his answer. We shall get some interesting information from those studies. While I am on my feet I wish to mention my firm belief in the necessity of building up a national forest protection consciousness as a result of education in the schools. To illustrate, Mr. Chairman, in my own district of Kootenay West years ago before the children were taught these subjects in the schools, before they had lecturers from the Canadian forestry association coming around, there was little thought of the forests with respect to fire; there was little regard for reporting of fires caused by lightning. Today in the interior of British Columbia as soon as lightning causes a fire any child who is old enough lo appreciate it, when he sees the fire, is so conscious of forestry protection that he will go to the nearest telephone or to a person's home and make every possible effort to notify the proper officials so that the department can take action.
As against that we have a large number of tourists who come from the United States cities and our own cities. It is amazing to notice the lack of forest protection consciousness among both the adults and children. They throw cigarettes around in the moss without any realization of the danger. In many instances fires are started in our district-in most instances as far as human agencies are concerned-by people who have lived in the cities and are out camping or fishing or enjoying themselves in the woods and who start fires because they do not understand the necessity for forest protection. I wish to emphasize the necessity of bringing
{Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West).]
that home particularly to the children who are brought up in the cities of this country by education on the need for forest protection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Expenditures.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister indicate the amount that is expected to be spent per year under this act? Can he also tell us what is anticipated by the last part of the section, which reads:
. . . or out of moneys received through donation, bequest or otherwise.


Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say what money will be appropriated by parliament next year for the purpose of this legislation. I certainly hope we shall have a considerably larger amount voted than we have had in the past. The second part of the paragraph deals with moneys received through donations, bequests or otherwise, for the purposes of this act. It is hoped that if any bequests are made we shall be able to use that money for the benefit of forest protection.


Angus MacInnis: Is there an amount in the estimates for forest conservation under this legislation this year?


John Lambert Gibson: No, there is nothing in the present estimates for that beyond what we have been using for our own forest services.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 148, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1949, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary assistant is most anxious to make a comprehensive statement on this matter and I should not like to deny him that privilege. We ought to give it to him now.


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, so far as a comprehensive statement is concerned, I made a very comprehensive statement on November 4, when the resolution was presented to the house. At that time there was an extended debate which went far beyond the provisions of this bill, including, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will recall, even a discussion of railway pensions. At the moment I have nothing to add to what I said then.
This bill is a straight financial bill to implement the unanimous recommendation of the sessional committee on government-owned and operated railways which was made last spring. This bill actually provides for the financing of these capital expenditures. The second provision is for a revolving fund on which the railway can draw if current expenses should be greater than current revenue.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: There are one or two questions I want to ask the parliamentary assistant. Will he explain one or two points with regard to the practice in these advances? We are aware that there are large government advances to the national lines on which they pay interest. I should also like to know just what the practice is with regard to the advances for capital expenditures and other purposes on the one side and advances for deficit purposes on the other.


James Sinclair: Perhaps the hon. member will wait until we get into committee when we can have a better opportunity to answer questions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Shall I repeat my question?


James Sinclair: The hon. member for Greenwood asked the interest rate charged by the government on these two different types of advances?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, that is not exactly my question. I asked whether the railway was required to pay interest on all advances, and I divided them into two, advances for capital expenditures and things other than deficits, and then the advances for the purpose of making up the deficit.


James Sinclair: The interest rate on the advances for capital expenditures varies between one and two per cent according to the actual length of the loan. There is no interest charged on the advances for deficits or for current account.
Canadian National Railways


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
criticizing it at all. I am just interested in knowing what the reason is for that differentiation. Is it just because it is partly by guess and by God, as it were, that you do not want to load the railway up with interest on advances or deficits, and that you just pay them that amount year by year and forget them? Is that the reason, or is there some more scientific reason?


James Sinclair: The great difference is, of course, that the advances on capital expenditures are made until such time as the market is judged right for floating a loan at advantageous rates, and sufficient sums are accumulated on which to float an issue. For example, the last issue was seventy million dollars floated at 21 per cent. Obviously if the government did not charge some interest on that it would be to the railway's advantage to prolong indefinitely the floating of such a loan for capital expenditures, and so avoid the payment of interest. On the other hand advances, so far as deficits are concerned, are advances against a deficit which is eventually going to be paid by the people of Canada anyway. So there we would be just charging interest to ourselves.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just as a matter of interest, and for the record, what is the amount on which interest is being paid at the present time? If the parliamentary assistant has not the figure available I shall not press for it, but perhaps he has the figure showing the net deficit since, let us say, 1932, when the revamping took place. I have here a statement showing the figures from 1936 to 1946. During that period there are several years when it was operating at a profit and others when it was operating at a loss. I shall not hold up the committee, if the parliamentary assistant has not the figure readily available. I can get it later.


James Sinclair: Does the hon. member wish me to put on record the actual cash deficits each year?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just the
cumulative figure.


James Sinclair: We have not the cumulative figure, but we have the figures for each year. They are also to be found in the report of the sessional committee this spring.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For reasons with which we are all familiar, the national railways must take over branch lines from time to time. Is any adjustment made, or do they just have to take that and bear the burden, whatever it may be? Is there any attempt to make any sort of adjustment?

Canadian National Railways


James Sinclair: No. Once a branch line is taken over it becomes a part of the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways system.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not suppose any attempt is made-perhaps none could be made-to follow through after that time, so as to keep track of the results of that operation? I should imagine that would be almost an impossible accounting proposition.


James Sinclair: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no attempt to keep it separate.


James Sinclair: It is just part of the Canadian National Railways system.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are there any outstanding perpetual bonds at seven per cent or are they all taken up?


James Sinclair: I understand there are no seven per cent bonds now. There are about $10 million of perpetual bonds.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the rate of interest?


James Sinclair: Four per cent and five per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-When revenue of Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries insufficient to meet operating and income charges.
Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the matter I wish to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant is relevant to this section, judging from the marginal note describing it. An evening newspaper contains the following Canadian Press dispatch:
A federal court today ordered the civil aeronautics board to hold up action on the request of Trans-Canada Air Lines for a new route in the United States . . .
The court's action might mean many months' delay in putting into effect a portion of the new civil aviation agreement signed last June 4 by Canada and the United States.
This agreement was signed some months ago. Under it Canada received certain rights from the United States and the United States received certain rights from Canada. Canada has implemented what she promised to do. Apparently however the United States has failed to implement her portion of the agreement. Naturally that is going to affect the revenue of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Colonial Air Lines by means of a court action are trying to prevent Canada from reaping the benefits of the agreement we signed on June 4. Is the minister or the government prepared to take some action to see that the United States lives up to her part
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
of the agreement? I understand from the newspaper report that the transport board may be summoning Colonial Air Lines to appear before it some time in the future. I hope that will be done, because if one side of an agreement is not kept I do not think the other side should be kept.
I suggest that not only should the contract of Colonial Air Lines be cancelled, but if the United States is not going to carry out her agreement we should cancel her rights at Gander. This is something which should be cleared up tonight before we go any further with this matter affecting Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No, I would like to have an answer.


James Sinclair: As I said at the beginning, this is a purely financial bill implementing the recommendations of the sessional committee on government-owned railways which sat this spring and dealt with the budget of the Canadian National and Trans-Canada Air Lines. The hon. member's question might best be asked in that committee when he has before him the president of the Canadian National and of Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is not a question which the Minister of Finance or his assistant is competent to answer, or indeed should answer under this section.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If some action is not taken the deficit will be much greater. Is the government going to insist upon the United States carrying out its part of the agreement under the terms set out on June 4?


Angus MacInnis: What could be a better time to deal with this matter than when we are discussing a bill which provides the money to carry out the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines? Surely the parliamentary assistant is not serious when he says that the best time to open this discussion is on the estimates of Trans-Canada Air Lines. When will that be? Will it be next spring? The committee met last spring, but much business has taken place since that time.


James Sinclair: I would repeat that this bill is founded on the budget of the C.N.R. and associated railways which was presented to the committee this spring and was unanimously approved. That alone is the purpose of the bill. When the hon. member for Moose Jaw attempts to discuss matters of actual operation and running rights in the United States I suggest he is far from the authority of the Department of Finance, so far as implementing the recommendations of the sessional committee on the C.N.R. budget is concerned.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I maintain this deficit will be larger if something is not done in this particular case. I am not criticizing this government; I am criticizing the government of the United States, because in failing to carry out the terms of the agreement they are trifling with the friendship of a friendly nation. I suggest the United States is acting like the nation which time and again they criticize, and I should like to see this government take some concrete action to cause something to be done in the present instance. We are being kicked around, and I do not like it.


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

Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 175, to amend the Excise Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Stamp tax on cheques, etc.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister tell us what revenue is derived from the stamps on cheques? For years postage stamps have been used and only a few revenue stamps are used by the banks and financial institutions. Is there any way to check this? -


James Sinclair: The only way would be to check the actual cheques which have been cancelled and see which ones had excise stamps on them and which ones had postage stamps.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Apparently the Post Office Department is receiving considerable revenue which it should not have.


James Sinclair: Perhaps it is, if you regard it as a separate concern, but it is all public revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-When person deemed to have manufactured, or produced watch, etc.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Sections 5 and 7 are related for the purposes of the matter I should like to raise, which has to do with the imposition of an excise tax on the assembly of watches, clocks and certain kinds of jewelry. If I am correctly informed, this has become the subject of litigation as well as having been
Excise Tax Act
agitated by correspondence with and representations to the government. I understand that this litigation is pending and I am concerned as to whether this legislation will not cut right across the issues involved in the pending litigation which directly concerns the government.


James Sinclair: The hon. member has put his finger on an amendment which I propose to move a little later. It is quite true that a case involving sections 5 and 7 is now before the courts, but I would direct his attention to the fact that section 14 provides for the coming into force of sections 5 and 7. When that section is reached I propose to have a minister move an amendment which would change the present date of March 23, 1949, to November 10, the date when first reading was given to this bill. There would then be no retroactive effect which would have a bearing on the cases before the courts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I express my complete gratification at that announcement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has this amendment been made because hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of watch parts have been imported into Canada during the last few years?


James Sinclair: This section is necessary because we are replacing the old retail purchase tax which was on the finished product. If we are going back to the manufacturing level we must define what is manufacturing. There is no doubt that a firm which does the whole job of making a case and the works is manufacturing a watch, but there was doubt whether a firm which assembles works and cases, whether they be imported or not, is a manufacturer. In order that there be no doubt it is provided in sections 5 and 7 that the assembly of these parts will be regarded as manufacturing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Excise tax on wines.
James Sinclair: I have an amendment to this section as follows:
That section 6 of Bill No. 175, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act be amended by striking out the last two words in subparagraph (a) and substituting therefor the words "absolute alcohol by volume." Similarly, that in subparagraph (b), the words "of absolute alcohol by volume" be inserted immediately after the words "seven per cent."
We wanted the definition to be the same as that in the Food and Drugs Act and that is why the amendment was moved.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Excise Tax Act
On section 12-Schedule III amended.
Percy Ellis Wright: When this bill was in the resolution stage I moved an amendment suggesting that ice cream should be exempt from excise or sales tax. At that time the parliamentary assistant classed ice cream as a dessert and stated that it would be unfair to exempt it from tax when such things as jellies had to pay the excise or sales tax. Upon making inquiry I find that schedule III of the Excise Tax Act exempts the following, among other foodstuffs:
Bakers' cakes and pies including biscuits, cookies or other similar articles;
Flour including pastry, cake, biscuit and similar mixes;
Fruit, fresh, canned, frozen, dried or evaporated;
Jams, jellies, marmalades, and preserves;
Peanut butter.
If those things are not desserts then somebody has been fooling me for a long time. I submit that ice cream should be exempt. We are faced with surpluses of certain agricultural products for which we are anxious to obtain markets and one way in which surplus cream can be disposed of is in the manufacture of ice cream. I have certain figures which indicate the amount of cream going into ice cream production. The production of ice cream during the current year will require the equivalent of 450 million pounds of milk, whereas the annual average utilization of milk for this purpose during the period 1935-39 amounted to only 115 million pounds. To illustrate the importance of this trend, it might be pointed out that, on the basis of the 1935-39 per capita consumption of ice cream, this increase in utilization represents a milk equivalent of approximately 13 million pounds of butter or 26 million pounds of cheese. Under the circumstances it would appear logical to deduce that this development has made a substantial contribution to the diversion of milk away from products for which there is a contracting demand, thereby reducing the quantities of products which would otherwise be subject to the price support policy of the government.
During the past five or ten years there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of milk used for the production of ice cream, but this has reached a peak and levelled off. At the present time there is a slight reduction taking place in the use of milk for ice cream purposes. There is a surplus of cream and milk products in the country today for which the government will have to take some responsibility. We have some 73 million pounds of butter in cold storage, and 48 million to 50 million pounds of it are under the control of the government. We also have large quantities of powdered milk. There is

a market in Canada for these surpluses, and we are discouraging the use of them by continuing to place a sales tax or excise tax on a food product. It is not a luxury; it is something which every kid uses every day.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Young and old kids.


Percy Ellis Wright: Young and old, as my friend says. It is a wholesome food product. Someone has just reminded me that the parliamentary assistant was responsible in some measure for bringing in a substitute for some of our good butterfat, thus creating the circumstances under which we are accumulating surpluses. Now he refuses to recognize ice cream as a wholesome food product. He claims it is a dessert, something that is in the same class as jello or some of these other things which have very little food value. I urge the parliamentary assistant to give consideration to the placing of ice cream on the free list so far as sales tax or excise taxes are concerned. It is something which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has asked for; it is something which the cream producers of Canada have asked for; and it is something to which this government, if it believes in encouraging the production of wholesome dairy products, should give consideration.


James Sinclair: The hon. member for Melfort does not quite recall the substance of my argument. My argument was not that ice cream was a dessert so much as the fact that the bulk of ice cream is used as a confection. The figures I have from the national dairy council show that 40 per cent of all the ice cream sold is in the form of cones. Another substantial percentage is sold in the form of sundaes and all these other confections which may be purchased at soda fountains. There is a further use of ice cream, but at the present time it is the smallest one, its use in the home as a dessert. I pointed out at that time that many desserts are still subject to sales tax, and those are articles which are used entirely as desserts and not as a confection. It is for these reasons that the sales tax on ice cream has been continued. So far as the amount is concerned, it has been calculated that the actual sales tax paid on an ice cream cone is one-sixth of a cent.


Mr. Charlton:: If that be the case, it should be easy enough to arrange to take the tax off bricks of ice cream and let it remain on bulk.


James Sinclair: That would get back to the very difficult problem of having the retailer sort out what part of his sales are in that form and tax free and what part are over the counter and taxable. That is exactly what I tried to explain to the house we are now seeking to do in this new sales and excise tax structure, to have four easily recognizable groups all levied at the manufacturer's level

Excise Tax Act
in order to avoid the difficulty of collecting the tax at the retail level, and also the annoyance and inconvenience to the retailer himself.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have listened to the statement that the tax is only one-sixth of a cent on a cone. One-sixth of a cent is not very much, but one-sixth of a cent means a lot to the people who are selling ice cream. If they have to absorb the one-sixth of a cent, and are not making a profit in the sale of ice cream cones, they are going to push some other article instead of ice cream. That is what is happening. The margin has become so narrow for the people who are handling ice cream that they are substituting and pushing some other article. The result is that sales of ice cream are tapering off. We are losing a market for a valuable dairy product, and in another department of the government they are stepping in and paying a subsidy. Where the government is supporting the prices of dairy products, it seems to me it would be only good business for them to remove the sales tax on these products in order to provide a better market for them. That would be just sound business.


James Sinclair: I could not follow one part of the hon. member's argument. Did I understand him to say that milk sales, that is, all milk, butter, cheese and ice cream, are four times what they were in 1939?


Percy Ellis Wright: No. The amount of milk used in the production of ice cream in Canada is four times what it was in the 1935-39 period. That was the amount used last year in the making of ice cream, but it is now tapering off.


James Sinclair: I would think that was a pretty powerful argument to show that the tax on ice cream has not hindered the production and the sale. I think any other industry would have welcomed a 400 per cent increase in sales of their product over the same period.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Coming into force.
James Sinclair: This is the section on which the minister will move the amendment about which I spoke in answering the hon. member for Eglinton. The amendment is as follows:
That subclause (2) of clause 14 of bill 175 be amended by striking out the words "second day of May", and substituting therefor the words "tenth day of November."
That is the date when this change first became public knowledge by reason of the first reading of the bill.
457&1-160


Mr. Howe:: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On schedule I.
James Sinclair: There is one small amendment to the schedule reading:
That schedule I to the said act be amended by deleting the proviso to section 4.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I so move.


James Sinclair: We are deleting the proviso to section 4 which imposes a minimum tax of ten cents on each of these lighters. That was a part of the old act when there was a 25 per cent retail tax. With the tax now reduced to 10 per cent this ten cent minimum becomes quite an impost, so that provision at the end of section 4 of schedule I is to be removed by this amendment.


Mr. Fulton:: What is the reason for that?


James Sinclair: The old act had a 25 per cent retail tax plus the provision that no tax should be less than ten cents. Now with the greatly lower rate of tax, 10 per cent at the manufacturer's level, there are obviously many lighters whose price at the manufacturer's level will be less than a dollar, so the ten cent minimum means a much higher rate than ten per cent and so it would become a pretty heavy impost. Therefore we are removing it completely so that there is no longer any minimum.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: As to section 7 of schedule I, coin, disc or token operated slot machines and vending machines, etc., should those not be separated? The 10 per cent is all right for those that are used as vending machines, but as to the ones which are used as games of chance-I believe in some municipalities they are barred entirely-I think the government would be wise to put the tax on a little higher level.


James Sinclair: As I explained before, this is a matter of getting all our excise taxes down to one level, 10 per cent. It would not be helpful to take one out. I might point out there is one exception under section 3, toilet soaps. Before this budget the tax was 5 per cent, and with all the present reduction it was not thought appropriate to raise the tax on just one item. That is the one exception, but so far as coin operated machines are concerned they are a part of the general lowering of the 25 per cent rate down to a 10 per cent rate. If, as the hon. member says, various municipalities regard these machines as undesirable I presume they have the right to ban them. As far as this

Industrial Development Bank Act act is concerned, however, inclusion of the machines in this 10 per cent rate is part of the whole excise tax structure, which is now 10 per cent.
Schedule as amended agreed to.


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


James Joseph McCann: the second reading of Bill No. 210, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Proceedings in name of bank.
George Alexander Drew: Is the parliamentary assistant not going to make a statement in regard to this matter?


Mr. Belzile:: As everyone knows, Mr. Chairman, the Industrial Development Bank was incorporated by an act of the Senate and House of Commons in August, 1944. The purpose of this institution, in brief, was to extend financial assistance to small and medium sized industrial enterprises in Canada which might reasonably be expected to prove successful, but which because of their size or other special factors were unable to obtain necessary financing from other lenders on reasonable terms and conditions.
The bank was set up as a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada. Directors of the Bank of Canada are directors of the Industrial Development Bank. The governor of the Bank of Canada is president of the Industrial Development Bank. The share capital of the bank was fixed at $25 million, all subscribed by the Bank of Canada. The Industrial Development Bank may also issue debentures, not guaranteed by the government, up to a maximum of three times its capital and reserve, but no such securities have yet been issued.
At this point, a brief review of the bank's operations during the five years of its existence may be of some interest. In the period up to the end of the Industrial Development Bank's fiscal year on September 30, 1949, the bank had dealt with 1,960 applications for financial assistance. Of these, 613 were withdrawn by the applicants because they had obtained financing elsewhere or for other reasons, and 657 were refused by the bank
(Mr. Sinclair.)
as unjustifiable risks. The number of applications authorized was 690, for a total amount of $46,341,210. Of these credits a total of 437 were still on the books of the bank at September 30, 1949, for a total in current authorized credits of $32,154,946, of which $23,573,729 was actually outstanding at that date.
Of the credits which have been granted by the bank during its five years of operations, 120 had already been repaid in full, involving a total sum of $7,102,613. Including repayments on account, the bank had already been repaid $11,737,746 out of total disbursements amounting to $35,311,475 during this period.
As the annual reports made by the bank to the Minister of Finance show, the bank's loans and investments have been distributed geographically fairly well in the same pattern as total industrial development in Canada.
The last published annual report, as at September 30, 1948, shows that the bank had met its operating expenses out of its income in the four years of operations up to that date and in addition had built up a reserve for losses of $300,000 and a reserve fund of $783,612. Actual bad debts on loans and investments had been very small, amounting to only $34,340 up to that date. The annual report for the bank's fiscal year ending September 30, 1949, together with its audited statements, will not be available until about December 10 next, but it is understood that this good record has been maintained.
As mentioned earlier, the Industrial Development Bank's facilities were expected to be sought mainly by small and medium sized industrial enterprises. To ensure that the major part of the bank's resources would be available for the smaller undertakings, subsection (2) of section 15 of the act of incorporation was included. This subsection had the effect of limiting to $15 million the aggregate amount of financial assistance which the bank could extend in amounts exceeding $200,000 for any one enterprise.
Since 1944, there has been a very considerable increase in the costs involved in projects for industrial capital investment, which is the typical purpose for which Industrial Development Bank credits are made. In consequence, a project which on the basis of 1944 costs would have involved financing from the Industrial Development Bank of less than $200,000 may, under existing conditions, involve substantially more and therefore come within the limitations of subsection (2) of section 15 of the act.
At September 30, 1949, of the $32,154,946 in current authorized credits on the books of the bank, $19,519,801 was in individual credits for amounts not exceeding $200,000 and $12,635,145 was in credits for amounts in

excess of $200,000. Partial repayments on account had reduced the amount of net authorizations over $200,000 to $11,227,888. This type of application is one with which the bank continues to be asked to deal, and would fairly soon result in the $15 million limitation preventing the bank authorizing credits of over $200,000 to industrial concerns which met all the other requirements of the bank and did not have access to reasonable credit facilities elsewhere.
The proposed amendment to subsection (2) of section 15 will relieve this situation by increasing the limitation on credits exceeding $200,000 from $15 million to $25 million. At the same time it is obvious that in view of the fact that the act enables the bank to provide financial assistance up to a total of at least $100 million, an increase from $15 million to $25 million in the limit on loans over $200,000 will not interfere with the granting of smaller credits, since $75 million would be earmarked for that field in comparison with current authorizations of $19,519,801 at September 30, 1949.
It is also recommended that several other minor amendments be made at this time.
One amendment will make it clear that while the bank is an agent of the crown, nevertheless actions may be taken by or against the bank in its own name rather than by proceedings instituted in the name of the Attorney General of Canada or by petition of right against the crown.
Another amendment will permit the bank to make credit available if the board of directors of the bank is satisfied that the applicant is about to undertake an enterprise which is "an industrial enterprise", as defined by the act. Under the present legislation the determination as to whether a particular enterprise is an industrial enterprise would in the final analysis have to be determined by the courts.
Another amendment is to permit the bank to make a loan where money has been invested by some other person in the enterprise so long as the board is satisfied that the amount invested by others affords reasonable protection to the bank. This amendment broadens to some extent the concept of the investment to be considered as junior to the bank's investment.
Another amendment is to clarify the application of one section of the bill concerning the program in the province of Quebec.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not quite clear, Mr. Chairman, whether you called section 2.


The Deputy Chairman:: We are now on
section 1.
Industrial Development Bank Act


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: If I understood the parliamentary assistant to the minister correctly, this is a five-year operation. Is that correct?


Gleason Belzile: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And the bank has made 690 loans?


Gleason Belzile: Yes, 690.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That would be one loan every two days of its existence, or less than that. Is that right?


Gleason Belzile: Less than that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What staff has this bank?


Gleason Belzile: At September 30, 1948, there were 92 employees; 48 were men and 44 were women. The staff comprises experienced bankers, industrial engineers, lawyers, chartered accountants, insurance men, and the ordinary clerical help.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have 90 employees of this bank engaged in making one loan every two days? I made it quite low. Every couple of days these 90 employees are able to make a loan. That is the net situation, is it not? Is that correct?


Gleason Belzile: That is correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is merely a matter of simple mathematics. Now I gather that you want to increase the loaning facilities. Do you intend to increase the staff? If one applies simple mathematics, one will see that you are going to have more people than you have loans, before you are through, without any trouble at all. Is that not correct?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Gleason Belzile: I do not think it will be necessary to increase the staff; but I wish to add that the kind of business that the bank carries on involved the employment of a rather large staff. Every risk of the bank is verified by meeting the prospective borrower at his place of business.


George Alexander Drew: They are screened, are they?


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. How much money does it cost, in expenses, to loan $1,000?


Gleason Belzile: I shall have to look it up for 1948.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I doubt if these questions are in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are quite in order.

Industrial Development Bank Act


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are now on
section 1 which amends the act by adding thereto the following subsection:
(3) Actions, suits and other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred 6y the bank may be brought or taken by or against the bank in the name of the bank in the same manner as if the right or obligation had been acquired or incurred on its own behalf.


Mr. Green:: This is general discussion.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I note that the hon. member for Calgary West wishes to have some information, and I will not put any limitation on his questions. I would merely hope that he would confine his remarks to the section under discussion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I immediately suggest, Mr. Chairman, that your slightest hope is my command. As a matter of fact, all I was doing was answering the explanatory statement made by the parliamentary assistant to the minister. It strikes me that when we are loaning money, it is a matter of some importance to know how much it costs us. Make it $100,000. Then when you have done that, in order that you may have the assistance of your co-parliamentary assistant-he may look this up-I should like to know what proportion of the loans of this bank have been made west of lake Superior.


Gleason Belzile: Answering the last question first, I wish to state that in 1948, 25 per cent of the loans were made in British Columbia and 8 [DOT] 5 per cent in the prairie provinces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is, the three of them?


Gleason Belzile: Yes. Ontario got 27-7 per cent; Quebec, 34-1 per cent; and the maritimes, 5-3 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are those percentages as to the number of loans or as to volume?


Gleason Belzile: As to volume; total gross of authorized loans.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then will the parliamentary assistant to the minister tell me how many loans of this $200,000 type were made west of the great lakes?


Gleason Belzile: Altogether there have been 21 loans over the $200,000 limit.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How many were made in the province of Alberta?


Gleason Belzile: I have not that information.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Could you make a fairly intelligent prophecy or guess?


Gleason Belzile: I cannot guess that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1
carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but not yet. As I understand the explanation just given, you intend to increase the amount of capital which you may loan and which remains I think-if my hearing is correct-at four times the amount of capital of the bank and reserves. Am I correct so far?


Gleason Belzile: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then where is the bulk of this money going? Do you anticipate that the percentages you have given me will probably continue?


Gleason Belzile: Probably.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. Then we will suppose that a man living in the city of Calgary borrows some money. We are not good borrowers out there; but let us take the richest man I know. He might be able to borrow $20,000. Will the parliamentary assistant tell me how much it costs the Dominion of Canada to loan him $20,000?


Gleason Belzile: Last year the bank loaned a total of $17,535,918.49.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us take it as $18 million in round figures.


Gleason Belzile: $18 million.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What were the general expenses?


Gleason Belzile: General travelling expenses amount to $10,000. I will give the figures in thousands. Rental and other costs, $30,000; depreciation on office equipment, $4,000; telephones and telegrams, $8,000; office supplies, $12,000; directors' fees, $3,000; auditors' fees, $6,000; other operating expenses, $9,000; pension fund and unemployment insurance, $33,000; and salaries, $265,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the
total?


Gleason Belzile: The total is $398,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It took $400,000 in round figures to lend $18 million. The interest payments on these loans are how much?


Gleason Belzile: Five per cent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Have you ever figured out how you are doing?


Gleason Belzile: We are making money. Last year the profit before deducting appropriations was $994,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are charging nothing for the money you borrowed. You borrowed it at what price?


Gleason Belzile: The money was subscribed by the Bank of Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I realize that, but how much did it cost you? How much did the money cost you which you lent? In other words, you are losing money, are you not?


Gleason Belzile: The government is borrowing at 2-5 per cent, 2-75 per cent actually, and on treasury notes they are paying 75 cents on a hundred dollars.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the length of time of these treasury notes as compared with the time of the loans you are making? You cannot make a comparison of rates of return unless you make comparisons of the time that the loans are made or that the borrowings on behalf of the bank are made? I am merely trying to find out how you made out. I hope you did well; I do not think you did.


Gleason Belzile: It is a very risky business, because we are doing business in a rather marginal field, whereas the other banks go in for long terms of four, five, six or seven years. The ordinary investment houses would not contemplate the possibility of issuing debentures for that rather short term.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The parliamentary assistant refers to banks making loans for four, five, six or seven years. That is one of the things that chartered banks cannot do. You cannot go into a chartered bank and get any substantial loan from that bank except on the stock on your shelves or something of that kind. In Canada you cannot borrow from a chartered bank on the real estate that your company owns. Let us take one of these major companies such as the Minister of Fisheries owns who sits behind the parliamentary assistant. He cannot borrow money from a bank on the real estate that he owns. That is one of the things that a bank cannot do. The only way that a person in industry can borrow money from a bank is under section 88.


Gleason Belzile: Yes, but they are not shortterm loans.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why is the
parliamentary assistant talking about four, five, six or eight years that the chartered banks make loans for? They cannot do that unless they are breaking the law. There is no doubt about that. Does the parliamentary assistant not think that that is a complete answer to the statement he made a moment ago when he was talking about marginal loans and had to do something different from what
Industrial Development Bank Act a bank does and said that they made loans of money on four, five, six or eight years credit. They cannot do that.


Gleason Belzile: I did not say that. I said that the banks would not touch such risky money.


Arthur Leroy Smith: At 5 per cent.
I am borrowing money on my insurance policies at 4 per cent.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know-


Louis-René Beaudoin: With great respect, if I may-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then it is mutual.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I hope it is. It certainly is as far as I am concerned. I should like to point out to the hon. member that if he will read the marginal note he will see that clause 1 deals with proceedings in the name of the bank. The hon. member has been asking questions which would be more appropriately asked on clause 2 which deals with loans, investments and guarantees. I have given him some latitude but I want to make it clear that some other hon. members may think that we are on clause 2. I maintain that we are on clause 1. If the hon. member wishes to question the parliamentary assistant further perhaps he will wait until clause 1 is carried, unless he wants to ask some questions dealing with proceedings in the name of the bank.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you and bow accordingly, if that is the word we use. If the questions I asked on clause 1 cover clause 2 then we shall not lose any ground when we get to clause 2 because we shall finish with it that much more quickly.
I want to make it clear, sir, that while I bow to your ruling I was merely asking questions that arose out of and were in reply to the statement made by the parliamentary assistant. In view of the fact that you are one person that I do not wish to get into difficulty with I shall wait until clause 2 is called and then I shall do it all over again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has there been any occasion in the experience of the bank that has made clause 1 necessary?


Gleason Belzile: When the bank has had to take legal action it has been a matter of concern to lawyers as to whether the action should be taken in the name of His Majesty in the right of the crown or in the name of the

Industrial Development Bank Act bank. In fact, action is always taken in the name of the bank but with some apprehension that the defendant might successfully plead that the action should have been taken in the name of His Majesty. To remove doubt on this point and to enable the bank to sue in its own name it is proposed that subsection 3 be amended in such a way that the Industrial Development Bank can sue in its own personal name.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Loans, investments and guarantees.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Now that we are on clause 2, sir, I am going to assume that you heard me when I was out of order on clause 1. I am not going to repeat what I said. The point I am trying to make is that I do not think you are making very much money. Some people think that you are losing money, but I have nothing to do with that. I am quite unable to add, and when I come to multiplication I am just floored. There is no doubt about that. I know what 8 per cent is, and I know what 5 per cent is. I know what you are paying. Would it not be infinitely simpler, and would it not save the taxpayers of Canada a great deal of money, if they gave our present banking authorities the right to make the loans that we are making, thereby saving ourselves a tremendous amount of money in administration costs? That is a fair question, and I wish the parliamentary assistant would answer it.


Gleason Belzile: Actually the report of the bank shows that a clear profit of $95,000 in round figures was made on its operations last year.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There is nothing in that to show what they paid for their money.


Gleason Belzile: The aim of the bank is not to make money, but to help industrial enterprises or firms which could not otherwise obtain money.


Arthur Leroy Smith: As a matter of fact the chartered bank is in the same position.


Gleason Belzile: The chartered bank will not provide credit for capital expenditures. They will not lend money to build a plant or to buy equipment and machinery.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the difference between Canadian and American banks. I know that. Don't teach me the ABC's of this business. They can do that. Would it not be better-and please forgive
IMr. Belzile.]
me for speaking loudly

would it not be much better and would we not save ourselves a great deal of money if, with a small committee and using the chartered banks, we backed the enterprises now being backed by the so-called industrial bank?
The moment that anyone in the House of Commons suggests that you might save a little money in staff, then, from the Prime Minister down, from the other side of the house they say that we are attacking the civil service. Let them say it. I am attacking them, if necessary-if by dispensing with this new thing, which is only five years old, we can have this done for nothing by other banks who will simply reap the interest charges which they were established for, and thus save ourselves a great deal of money.
I hope I am not being facetious. All I am trying to ask is this: Is there not here an excellent opportunity to save expense? If you run a chartered bank or a corporation or something of that kind you pay out to staff only what you think is necessary for the operation of the business. If one department of that business can be operated by another department-and you may think I am hardhearted in suggesting this-they run the thing as efficiently as they can. I do not think anyone who accuses me or anyone else of being opposed to the civil service would back that opinion by saying we are wasting our money.
Is it not true that it could be done much more simply and at much less expense? All you need to do is pass on these loans, back them and save all the administrative costs we are now spending.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Even if I did not receive an answer-and I think I was entitled to one-I have nothing more to say.


Gleason Belzile: The answer is that this is government policy.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh boy, that's one for the book.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Gleason Belzile: On September 30, 1949, the end of the fiscal year, $12,635,145 was in credit for amounts in excess of $200,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the total amount outstanding? What I am getting at is the figure that corresponds to the language of section 15 (2). In other words I want the aggregate of the amount of the loans or liabilities of the bank and of the expenditures by the bank for securities held by it.


Gleason Belzile: That is $12,635,145.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have difficulty in relating that figure to the published figures of amounts outstanding, because while the statements issued by the bank may not be intended to be related specifically to the aggregate of the amounts of the loans or liabilities and of expenditures of the bank for securities, nevertheless the bank statement does indicate quite clearly that the amount outstanding includes loans, investments and guarantees. That figure is shown at September, 1948, as $20,616,443, and at September 30, 1949, a year later, as $23,605,030.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I might presume to help out the parliamentary assistant, it seems to me that the answer to the hon. member for Eglinton is that subsection (2) of section 15, which he read, applies a ceiling of $15 million only upon the loans to be made under the next succeeding section.
Industrial Development Bank Act


Gleason Belzile: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The next succeeding subsection, which is subsection (3), is the subsection under which loans of amounts over $200,000 are made. The over-all ceiling on loans to be made under the act is set out in section 14, which says that the aggregate of the total direct liability of the bank, and so on, and so on, shall not exceed three times the aggregate amount of the paid-up capital and the reserve fund.
In other words, if the bank has $25 million capital, its total loans could be $75 million; but the loans of $200,000 and up cannot exceed $15 million.


Gleason Belzile: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, may I ask a question. When the parliamentary assistant was discussing this phase of the matter earlier-and I think some on this side of the house joined in the suggestion-reference was made to the ceiling being four times the amount of the capital. Section 14 of the act reads:
The aggregate of the total direct liabilities of the bank, including bonds and debentures issued by the bank, and of the total contingent liabilities of the bank in the form of guarantees given or underwriting agreements entered into by it, shall not at any time exceed three times the aggregate amount of the paid-up capital and the reserve fund, for which provision is made hereinafter.
When the parliamentary assistant was speaking earlier tonight he referred to an aggregate total of $100 million and explained that was four times the $25 million, whereas it seems to me it should be only three times the $25 million. In other words, the ceiling is $75 million unless there is something else in there.


Gleason Belzile: That reference was to another section of the act under which the bank is authorized to borrow up to three times its capital.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It adds that to the original $25 million and that is where you get the $100 million.


Gleason Belzile: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How much has been lent in loans under $200,000? I understand the total loans of $200,000 and over was about $12 million.


Gleason Belzile: The total of loans of $200,000 and less is $19,519,801.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently one of the purposes of this bill is to increase the amount that can be lent in loans of $200,000 and over.


Gleason Belzile: Yes. There is no change in the provisions affecting loans of $200,000 and under.

Industrial Development Bank Act


Howard Charles Green: Will that not mean that there will be that much less available for the smaller loans?


Gleason Belzile: No.


Howard Charles Green: There is a ceiling of $75 million for loans of all sizes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is $100 million now.


Howard Charles Green: If the ceiling for loans of $200,000 and over is raised from $15 million to $25 million will that not mean that the amount available for the smaller loans will be reduced by $10 million?


Gleason Belzile: There will be no change in the discretion of the bank to make loans of less than $200,000 because the money is available now out of profits, reserves and capital funds.


Howard Charles Green: The money is available for the smaller loans?


Gleason Belzile: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: My point is that the total that could be let out in the way of small loans would be reduced by $10 million?


Gleason Belzile: The aim of this amendment is to make money available for the larger loans.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it desired to make more of these larger loans? All these loans are riskier than the ordinary bank loan. As I understand the practice, the only loans made by the Industrial Development Bank are those which the commercial banks cannot or will not make. The applicant for a loan is first interviewed by his bank and then is referred to the Industrial Development Bank. The larger the loan the more chance there is of there being a larger loss. The original act was intended to help the smali man, and I refer the parliamentary assistant to the recital which reads:
Whereas it is desirable to establish an industrial development bank to promote the economic welfare of Canada by increasing the effectiveness of monetary action through ensuring the availability of credit to industrial enterprises which may reasonably be expected to prove successful if a high level of national income and employment is maintained, by supplementing the activities of other lenders and by providing capital assistance to industry with particular consideration to the financing problems of small enterprises:
It seems strange that we are now being asked to provide $10 million more for large loans which will reduce the aggregate available for small loans. I think hon. members who were here in 1944 when the original act was passed will agree that it was intended to help get industry on its feet after the war, particularly to help to get the small man established. It was never intended to be a permanent lending institution down through

the years. But by this bill we are expanding the business in large loans, and restricting the possibility of making the smaller loans. Why is that being done? Is there a greater demand for loans of over $200,000? Why is the bank asking for this particular power which seems to be contrary to the intent of the act as originally passed?


Gleason Belzile: The bank caters particularly to the small-sized industrial enterprises. The individual or company which needs $200,000 for plant expansion is not a particularly large business. A small lumber mill worth $200,000 may want to expand by another $200,000. When it buys a few planing machines and a band saw it will have used up the $200,000 right there. There has been a considerable increase in capital cost since 1944. It has been found that a prospective borrower who could expand his plant for $150,000 in 1944 or 1945 will now need $200,000 or $225,000 to buy the same machinery. That is why the bank is asking an increase in the limits imposed by the original act.


Howard Charles Green: It is now being provided that the bank may lend to an individual or company where somebody else has invested money in the enterprise. Under the original act a loan could be made only to a man who was putting in his own money or to a company which had sold its shares to an individual. In other words, the original idea was to help the man or company who had put his or their own money into an undertaking. We are now going a step further and giving power to lend where an investment has been made by others, where there is other money in the business. The Industrial Development Bank will simply be one creditor among one or more other creditors. Why is it necessary to branch out into that type of loan? It will not be as good a loan and I was wondering why the bank wants to branch out in that way. There is one other point which I will raise after the parliamentary assistant answers.


Gleason Belzile: No, I do not interpret clause 2 in the same way as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. By "person" I imagine he refers now to section 15, subsection 1, paragraph (c)-


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Gleason Belzile: -which reads:
The amount invested or to be invested in the industrial enterprise by persons other than the bank . . .
The money invested by the owners, being persons other than the bank-


Howard Charles Green: No, that is not it. That is the way the act read originally, and of course no

one can quarrel with the original terminology. Here is the explanation given in the explanatory note:
It also permits the bank to make a loan where money has been invested by some other person in the enterprise so long as the board is satisfied that the amount invested by others affords reasonable protection to the bank.
The wording of the new clause (c) is "by persons other than the bank", which means that you can have a second or third creditor. The parliamentary assistant said that in his statement explaining the bill. He also said that the Industrial Development Bank was to get priority over other creditors. I should like to have an explanation as to just what the situation is. I do not understand why the bank should ask for this wider power.


Gleason Belzile: Of course the bank lends money only on first security to the owners of the enterprise. Section 16 of the original act stipulates that:
The bank may take, accept or acquire and may hold collateral security of any kind and in any form for the repayment of any loan, made or guaranteed by it under this act. and without limiting the generality of the foregoing-
The bank may take stock, bonds, debentures, warehouse receipts and bills of lading, goods, wares and merchandise, mortgages or hypothecs. You have to be the owner of these rights if you want to transfer them as collateral security to the bank.


Howard Charles Green: That does not deal with the case of a second creditor. If the bank is to have the right to loan, where there are other people who have loaned money to the business, then at least there should be a provision written in the clause that the Industrial Development Bank will get priority over these other creditors.


Gleason Belzile: The hon. member has read the explanatory note, but I think it should be read in conjunction with paragraph (c). The explanatory note reads:
It also permits the bank to make a loan where money has been Invested by some other person-
That is as stipulated in subsection (c), "other than the bank".


Howard Charles Green: That is not right.


Gleason Belzile: And so long as the bank is satisfied that the amount invested by others than the bank affords reasonable protection to the bank.


Howard Charles Green: I am very much concerned about this because I am quite sure the parliamentary assistant is not interpreting the amendment correctly. The explanatory note says:
The amendment permits the bank to make credit available if the board is satisfied that the applicant is about to undertake an enterprise and that the enterprise is an industrial enterprise.
Industrial Development Bank Act
That was the effect of the old provision.
It also permits the bank to make a loan where money has been invested by some other person in the enterprise so long as the board is satisfied that the amount invested by others affords reasonable protection to the bank.
The wording of the new section is clearly for that specific purpose. The proposed amendment to section 15 reads, "where in the opinion of the board", and then it sets out certain things. A person must be engaged in an industrial enterprise, credit is not otherwise available, and then paragraph (c) reads:
The amount invested or to be invested in the industrial enterprise by persons other than the bank . . .
They make it broad so that it covers both the man who is in the business and anyone who is lending him money in addition to the Industrial Development Bank. Paragraph (c) goes on to read:
-and the character of that investment are such as to afford the bank reasonable protection.
There may be some good reason why the bank wants that additional power, but why is it trying to make these loans where there are other creditors?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had some little experience with these loans. I think it covers the case where a man, a returned soldier we will say, has undertaken to start a small business, has borrowed from his father and his relatives and obtained a sum which he thought was sufficient. It later develops it is not sufficient and he goes to the Industrial Development Bank and asks for help. His business is already mortgaged to his friends, and under the old act the bank could not function. I think this simply gives the bank freedom to take security in that kind of situation.


Howard Charles Green: Would the bank get prior security?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think so. Of course it would be a matter for the bank to arrange, but generally speaking in a situation of that kind, as my hon. friend knows, the last man in gets the preferred position.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have one question I wish to ask the parliamentary assistant. In the original section 2 of the act the definition of "industrial enterprise" is as follows:
"Industrial enterprise" means a business in which the manufacture, processing or refrigeration of goods, wares and merchandise or the building, alteration or repair of ships or vessels or the generating or distributing of electricity is carried on.
Can a co-operative qualify as an industrial enterprise for the purpose of carrying on these various businesses, and if they can how many loans have been made to co-operatives for this purpose?

Industrial Development Bank Act


Gleason Belzile: I think a co-operative can obtain a loan if it is an industrial enterprise according to the definition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And incorporated; it would have to be incorporated.


Gleason Belzile: It has to have some kind of incorporation or registration.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is there a branch of this bank in the three prairie provinces?


Gleason Belzile: Yes, there is a branch in Winnipeg.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think it is my turn now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. As the hon. member knows, the Chair must see members of various parties.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You saw me before sufficiently to make me sit down.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I saw the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Then I proceeded to see the hon. member for Mel-fort who rose before you. Now I proceed to give the floor to the senior member for Halifax.


Mr. Isnor:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. If the hon. member for Queens will be patient, I will not keep him waiting very long. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant about the definition of "industrial enterprise". In order to make it a little clearer, I have in mind an operator of fishing vessels which fish in the far north. They are manned by sailors from Newfoundland and the other maritime provinces, and because of the sealing industry they produce oil. To our way of thinking the production of this oil is an industry, but up to the present time there has not been a clear-cut interpretation, so those who would like to borrow money either for the purchase of fishing boats or for the overhauling of machinery have not been able to do so. I feel there should be a clearer interpretation of the term "industrial enterprise" than we have had up to the present. While I am on my feet may I add that because we do not have a representative closer to the maritimes than Montreal it is rather difficult to get the interpretations that we would sometimes like to have.


Gleason Belzile: I am informed that fishing enterprises of the kind which have been described by the senior member for Halifax have obtained loans.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is fine; then I shall be safe in telling those who have made application that their loans will be granted, so those who are fishing or sealing in the far north not only will be able to carry on those enterprises but will be able to make any necessary alterations to their ships.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the Industrial Development Bank a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada?


Gleason Belzile: That is correct.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then is that why Prince Edward Island has not been able to get any loans through the industrial bank following the withdrawal of the Bank of Canada from that province? Where is there a branch of the industrial bank in the maritime provinces?


Gleason Belzile: There is no branch of the bank in Prince Edward Island, but money has been loaned in that province.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to get this straight. Is the Industrial Development Bank a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada?


Gleason Belzile: It was organized as such.


Clarence Gillis: I want to ask if the Industrial Development Bank has an office anywhere in the maritimes.


Gleason Belzile: No, sir; not in the maritimes. The Montreal office serves the Atlantic division.


Clarence Gillis: As usual everything east of Toronto is written off. What is the function of the Industrial Development Bank? Is it to help create new industries, or just to assist in the expansion of existing industries?


Gleason Belzile: Both.


Clarence Gillis: I ask that question because I had occasion to make some inquiries about a year ago. I know quite a number of applications were made by people such as those described by the parliamentary assistant, people who wanted to put a little capital into a small industry; but none of those applications were granted. I received letters asking me to find out why that was so, and my inquiries revealed this. I was told by an official that the bank was not created for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of new industries but rather to assist in the expansion of existing industries. I asked specifically why the loans in which I was interested had been rejected. The answer was that the people applying did not have sufficient credit. I asked what credit was necessary, and was told that if they could go to a bank and have the bank sponsor them for $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000, if they had the collateral to support that kind of loan and got the endorsation of a bank, they could get a loan from the Industrial Development Bank. Well, if they had that kind of credit they did not need the Industrial Development Bank.
Personally I do not think it serves any purpose. I was in the house when this bank was set up, and this group supported it as a move in the right direction. We were led to believe that it was to provide the kind of credit that

A'ould not be provided through the chartered banks, that it would make funds available for the establishment of small industries where the persons concerned did not have the necessary bank credit to carry out the undertaking. I was quite satisfied that it was a step in the right direction. I visualized many small industries springing up in the maritime provinces, but when I made inquiries the information I obtained was that it was not intended for that purpose; so I do not know just what purpose it does serve. Certainly it serves no purpose in the maritime provinces. It does not even have an office there; if you want to make contact at all you must write to Montreal. If this is part of the national bank I think there should be an office or a representative in each province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under the act as it stood, and as it is amended, the words "the bank may lend or guarantee loans" appear. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us, as at any stage, how much of the money the bank has out is from the funds of the bank itself, and how much is by way of guarantee?


Gleason Belzile: The bank authorizes a credit but does not disburse it immediately. Let us say it authorizes a credit of $100,000 to build or enlarge a plant. The bank does not disburse the $100,000 right away, but only as the work progresses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is interesting, but I do not think it quite answers my question. From this wording I understand that the bank may make or guarantee loans. Does that mean that, in some cases, on the basis of the bank's guarantee the borrower goes to some other institution, say a chartered bank, and borrows the money?


Gleason Belzile: No. After having authorized a credit the Industrial Development Bank could endorse a note.
Industrial Development Bank Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are getting close to an answer now. What percentage of the liabilities of the bank-or is it assets?-are in the form of these guaranteed notes?


Gleason Belzile: Looking at the reports I do not think there are any such guarantees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the bill was given second reading only this evening, and many hon. members were not here. I suggest that it should not be put through two readings in the same day, except by unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow at eleven o'clock we shall take up first the third reading of Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges Act, 1946; then third reading of Bill No. 210, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act; then Bill No. 217, to assist producers of coal in the Atlantic maritime provinces; Bill No. 195, to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act. Then we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. When we finish those estimates we shall take up Bill No. 218, to amend the Veterans' Land Act; then resolution No. 10 on today's order paper, and Bill No. 200, to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Thursday, December 1, 1949