1949-04-08

Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In last night's Ottawa Journal, one Sam Carr, on trial before an Ottawa court, is reported as having said that he came to Ottawa in 1945 for election negotiations, and that in this connection he saw a Mr. Allan McNeil-


Some hon. Members:: McLean.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am quoting from the newspaper report. He said he saw a Mr. Allan McNeil, of the National Liberal Federation, and myself. Mr. Speaker, Carr never saw me about such a matter, and his reported statement, so far as I am concerned, is absolutely untrue.



MIGRATORY BIRDS


Mr. R. M. Warren (Renfrew North):: I rise on a question of privilege. This is a matter of urgent importance. I am speaking on behalf of a farmer friend of mine who lives about nine miles west of the village of Cobden, Ontario. This man started taking care of a dozen wild geese about twenty-five years ago, and now the flock has grown until it has reached two or three thousand. These geese tear up his meadows in search of food, and, in addition, he has to carry about three hundred pounds of grain out of his granary every day to feed them. Is there a department of the federal government that would undertake-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: Mr. Speaker, I was going to refer the question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he wait until we have reached the orders of the day to put his question to the minister.

On the orders of the day:


Ralph Melville Warren: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare or, if he cannot answer, the Minister of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that there are about 4,000 wild geese on a farmer's property in my constituency, he would consider giving some assistance to that farmer? The geese have landed on his farm and are resting there for a couple of weeks on their way north.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall refer this matter not only to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, but to the Minister of Mines and Resources. The wild life division is under the Department of Mines and Resources.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
Government House, Ottawa 6th April, 1949
Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for this address.
Alexander of Tunis PRICES



TABLING OF REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I wish to table the report of the royal commission on prices. The report consists of three volumes which have been printed in English, and the first volume which has been printed in French. I am informed that the other two volumes in French are being completed, and it is hoped that they may be ready for distribution by the end of next week.
This report was handed to me by the three members of the commission just before I came into the house yesterday afternoon. It is a report addressed to His Excellency. It
2468

Ministerial Statements
was brought to council this morning, immediately forwarded to His Excellency, and has just now become available for publication.
Yesterday I expressed briefly to the chairman and the other two members of the commission the thanks of the government for their arduous work. But I was unable to express any views about the results of their labours, and I have not yet had an opportunity of reading the lengthy report which they have prepared.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wish to table two returns to orders made on motions of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). They have to do with the national capital plan. One is return reference No. 183, recommendations of the railway subcommittee of the national capital planning committee on proposals for relocation of railway and industrial sites. The other is return reference No. 188, copy of order in council or minute approving recommendations of the national capital planning committee.
I may say that most of those documents had been part of former returns, but I understand that it is sometimes difficult for hon. members to find in a voluminous document the part in which they are interested. No. 183 was part of a report tabled in parliament on July 7, 1947, and the other was part of a report which was tabled on May 26, 1948, with a map which was not tabled at that time but which appeared in the newspapers of Ottawa on December 23, 1947.
There is another return, in respect of the architect's plan for national capital projects and estimated costs. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) had moved for those papers, and when his motion was made I asked if it was proper to understand from his motion that what he wished was the plan which had been prepared by the national capital planning committee. I understood that that was what the motion referred to.
There is also an inquiry as to the amount which had been expended or which was expected to be spent in the acquisition of such lands. The report shows that $1,250,000 is to be charged against the fund constituted by the $2,500,000 vote at the last session of parliament.
There are other projects which had come into being before this national capital planning committee was set up. One of them was the Ottawa and Rideau rivers parkway, for which it is estimated that the lands required will cost $2,200,000. This would come out of

the $3 million appropriation made by parliament when the statute concerning the federal district commission was amended two years ago. Another project was started by this commission, known as the Gatineau park, and with respect to which lands have been acquired. This is something which will extend over a long period of time, and the estimate of the cost of all the lands that would ultimately be included in that project is $7,050,000.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ORDER IN COUNCIL SETTING UP ROYAL COMMISSION

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wish to table an order in council passed this day setting up the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, foreshadowed in the speech from the throne.
The commissioners appointed are Right Hon. Vincent Massey, P.C., C.H., chancellor of the university of Toronto, who will be chairman of the commission. The other members are to be Mr. Arthur Surveyer, B.A., B.Sc., C.E., LL.D., of Montreal; Mr. Norman A. M. MacKenzie, president of the university of British Columbia; Rev. Georges-Henri Levesque, dean of the faculty of social sciences, Laval university, and Miss Hilda Neatby, professor of history and acting head of that department in the university of Saskatchewan.
The order in council, in addition to the recitals, contains the terms of reference, and it might be of interest to have these in Hansard. They are as follows:
(a)	The principles upon which the policy of Canada should be based, in the fields of radio and television broadcasting;
(b)	Such agencies and activities of the government of Canada as the national film board, the national gallery, the national museum, the national war museum, the public archives and the care and custody of public records, the library of parliament; methods by which research is aided, including grants for scholarships through various federal government agencies; the eventual character and scope of the national library; the scope or activities of these agencies, the manner in which they should be conducted, financed and controlled, and other matters relevant thereto;
(c)	Methods by which the relations of Canada with the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization and with other organizations operating in this field should be conducted;
(d)	Relations of the government of Canada and any of its agencies with various national voluntary bodies operating in the field with which this inquiry will be concerned.
The order in council also provides that, on the recommendation of this royal commission, special commissioners may be appointed by the governor in council to make

such specific investigations as they may find it desirable to have made by experts in such fields.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I understand, Mr. Speaker, from a comment made earlier, that the Prime Minister is prepared to give the house assurance that none of the subjects covered in this order in council will, because of the fact that they are there included, be withheld from the ordinary procedure of this house and its committees.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, yes. My understanding is that this house has and will continue to have the right to discuss anything that may be relevant to the matters properly brought before it. There will be estimates dealing with these various agencies, and they will afford hon. members an opportunity to discuss the advisability of voting such estimates and making such remarks about those activities as may seem to them opportune.


George Alexander Drew: I may not have made my point quite clear. I want to have it clearly understood-and in saying this I believe it is in accordance with a remark made earlier by the Prime Minister-that this order in council will not have the effect of limiting discussion on any of these subjects in the house or in committees of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not the intention of the government to urge that because of the terms of this commission any of the matters that might otherwise be properly discussed in this house should not be discussed.



STRAIT OF CANSO


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. P. L. Pratley, consulting engineer of Montreal, to take charge of all engineering work and to supervise construction in connection with the $13,500,000 low-level bridge across the strait of Canso between Cape Breton island and the mainland of Nova Scotia.
Dr. Pratley has been associated either in the designing or construction of such outstanding bridges in this country as the Quebec bridge, the Montreal harbour bridge, the Vancouver harbour bridge, and the Detroit-Windsor bridge. He was also associated with the government during the Grand Trunk arbitration of 1920 as engineer in charge of bridges.
I have outlined Dr. Pratley's experience in bridge building to indicate how fortunate the government was in securing the services of 29087-156J
Inquiries of the Ministry such a distinguished and experienced engineer, first, to sit on the board of engineers who recommended construction of the low-level bridge across the strait of Canso, and second, to act as consulting engineer during its construction.


Mr.   Hackeil@: Will the minister say whether Dr. Pratley is the agency to which he referred as being set up by the government for the purpose of carrying out the construction of the Canso bridge?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Jutras (Provencher):: I wish ter direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister be in a position before we adjourn for Easter to make a statement with respect to the representations that were made to him by the Canadian beekeepers council and others?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The Canadian beekeepers, as I indicated recently to the house, interviewed me about a week or ten days ago and stated the facts with regard to their industry. I made representations to the government, based upon the facts as the beekeepers presented them to me. They stated that they had a carryover of four million pounds of honey from the year 1947 into the year 1948, and that they had somewhere between 40 million and 45 million pounds of honey in the year 1948, with the result that there is a considerable carryover this year. They suggested that the government should take control of a certain part of that honey in order to hold it over until such time as markets would be available.
As a result of these representations the government gave consideration to the matter and decided to purchase up to five million pounds of honey at fourteen cents a pound pasteurized, delivered at Montreal, or thirteen cents a pound unpasteurized. The price of the honey of course will be reckoned back from Montreal to whatever point it is shipped from, which would mean a price of probably a cent a pound less, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, from the Winnipeg area. That arrangement has been made and. is being carried out.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: I should like to ask this further question of the Minister of Agriculture, following his statement as to the purchase of five million pounds of honey. Is this purchase being made through the agricultural prices support board? If not, what agency in the department is being utilized for this purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; it is being made through the agency of the agricultural prices support board.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Can he inform the house of the circumstances surrounding a reported riot in Halifax this morning involving Canadian National Steamships? Were any persons injured? If so, how many, and in what manner were they injured?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that about three a.m. today, 176 men boarded the steamships Challenger, Connector, and Lady Rodney, vessels of the Canadian National Steamships. On arrival these men were met by very few pickets, who dispersed immediately and allowed the newcomers to board three vessels of the Canadian National Steamships. The ships, being fully manned, began to move into the stream. By that time several hundred members of the Canadian seamen's union arrived on the docks and immediately grabbed the hoses in the sheds and played the streams on the men aboard the ships. However they were stopped by local harbour police from continuing this. Retaliation was made by the crews on the ships, who sprayed water on the men on the docks. Missiles were exchanged between the docks and the ships, such as stones, bottles and the like. It is also reported that several shots were fired; and I am advised that after investigation it appears that these shots were fired, first from the vessel and later from the shore. They were small pellets fired from guns, and some injuries are reported. I am informed, however, that no one was seriously hurt.
The situation at the present time is quiet on the harbour front in Halifax, and the vessels are at anchor in the harbour.


Mr. Gillis:: Is the minister in a position to say that the crew that took the ship out in the harbour were Canadian seamen, or men imported from the United States?
(Mr. Gardiner.]


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to say that.


Clarence Gillis: A telegram I have received indicates that they were imported.


Mr. Julian H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that municipal and provincial authorities seem to be incapable of handling the attempted murder among certain seamen at Halifax, and as this is a national affair, affecting all of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -can this government not do something immediately to stop the communists at Halifax from creating all this trouble?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the Department of Labour and the Department of Transport are doing everything they consider reasonable to avoid such regrettable incidents as the ones reported to have occurred this morning.



QUESTION AS TO INCREASED PAY FOR WOMEN CLEANERS IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a question of the Minister of Public Works? Now that we are well into the month of April, can the minister say what headway is being made in the matter of increasing wages of women cleaners in federal public buildings at Winnipeg?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Actually it is under very serious consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That should mean an
announcement soon.



GRASSHOPPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKay (Weyburn):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, a copy of which I have sent to him. In view of current reports that grasshoppers are already hatching in Saskatchewan, and that federal government assistance to combat this menace is inadequate, will the federal government take immediate steps to increase financial and other aid to Saskatchewan in order to save this year's crops?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said a few days ago, the practice has been for provincial governments

to take care of the campaigns against grasshoppers. I have made inquiries since, and I find that in one year in the history of the battle against grasshoppers-and that was in the thirties, when western farmers were suffering from drought and depression generally-the federal government did give assistance in fighting grasshoppers. But otherwise the battle has always been carried on by the provinces.
While I have not very many good things to say for the socialist government of Saskatchewan, I must say that up to date they have been fighting grasshoppers without asking for assistance from the federal government. This being so, I do not think there is any great necessity for our doing anything about it at the present time.



LABRADOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, arising out of the distressing news of the threatened starvation of a hundred of our fellow Canadians in the village of St. Mary's Bay, Labrador. If it should happen that Premier Smallwood's efforts to get food in there by plane are unsuccessful, will the minister see to it that icebreakers are made available to get food to those people?


Lionel Chevrier: I have been in communication with Premier Smallwood about a number of matters, but on this one I have not yet received any communication from him. But if I do- and even if I do not-I can assure the hon. member that I will give consideration to this request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Newspaper dispatches say that if the effort by plane fails, the Newfoundland government will seek the assistance of an icebreaker.



PICTOU COUNTY, N.S.-LACK OF MARKETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has any communication been received from the state department of the United States government about the recent expulsion of two Canadians from the United States? If so, will the minister indicate what that communication was?\nRight Horn L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Yes; the United States department of state has replied to our questions concerning the expulsion of Mrs. Barker Fairley and Mr. John Goss. The substance of their replies is that there has been no discrimination against Canadians as such. They go on to say that visas were withheld from a number of persons who wished to attend in a private capacity the cultural and scientific conference for world peace. Any appearance of discrimination which may have arisen was occasioned by the fact that certain delegates who would not otherwise have been admitted were admitted because they were the official representatives of eastern European governments.\nThe state department has informed us that since Mrs. Fairley and Mr. Goss were not admissible under the United States immigration regulations they should have been stopped at the border. Had this been done, the regrettable incident would not have taken place. I think it is a fair deduction that, were it not for the ease with which Canadians and United States citizens normally cross the border between the two countries, Mr. Goss and Mrs. Fairley would not have got across the border, and the incident in New York would not have occurred.\nIt is regrettable that the circumstances of this case should have given anyone the impression that there had been discrimination against Canadians as such.\n2472\tHOUSE OF\nAgricultural Products Marketing Act POST OFFICE']
Clarence Gillis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I sent him a telegram this forenoon indicating that there is a continuing lack of markets for coal produced in Pictou county, Nova Scotia. This is a serious condition, and it has existed for several months. Is the minister's department making any
Inquiries of the Ministry efforts to increase the markets so as to remedy that situation?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am informed that the lack of markets is due wholly to a price dispute between the Dominion Coal Company and Canadian National Railways. I believe the price of that coal was advanced a few months ago, while the prices of competitive coals are being reduced. I have not been able to bring about a solution of the dispute; I believe it is still raging. As the market for New Glasgow coal has been almost wholly with the railroad, it is not easy to find an alternative market.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has any communication been received from the state department of the United States government about the recent expulsion of two Canadians from the United States? If so, will the minister indicate what that communication was?
Right Horn L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Yes; the United States department of state has replied to our questions concerning the expulsion of Mrs. Barker Fairley and Mr. John Goss. The substance of their replies is that there has been no discrimination against Canadians as such. They go on to say that visas were withheld from a number of persons who wished to attend in a private capacity the cultural and scientific conference for world peace. Any appearance of discrimination which may have arisen was occasioned by the fact that certain delegates who would not otherwise have been admitted were admitted because they were the official representatives of eastern European governments.
The state department has informed us that since Mrs. Fairley and Mr. Goss were not admissible under the United States immigration regulations they should have been stopped at the border. Had this been done, the regrettable incident would not have taken place. I think it is a fair deduction that, were it not for the ease with which Canadians and United States citizens normally cross the border between the two countries, Mr. Goss and Mrs. Fairley would not have got across the border, and the incident in New York would not have occurred.
It is regrettable that the circumstances of this case should have given anyone the impression that there had been discrimination against Canadians as such.
2472	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act POST OFFICE



MONEY ORDERS AND POSTAL NOTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Did his department on April 1 increase the cost of money orders or postal notes, and has any change been made in the name of the money order?


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General):: I am not aware that there has been any increase, but I shall question my officers about it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is a definite increase in cost. FISHERIES



QUESTION AS TO CHANGE IN LOBSTER FISHING REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if a change has been made in the lobster fishing regulations to permit the opening of the season at six p.m. on Saturday, April 30, instead of on Sunday, May 1, in the Prince Edward Island area?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I am not so sure about a change in that particular area, but there was such a change in at least one other area. I shall look into the matter and see if my hon. friend is correct.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I ask the
Prime Minister when the government intends to hold the Wetaskiwin by-election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No official notice has yet been communicated to the Speaker that there is a vacancy in that division.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 82, to provide for the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill I hope to confine myself to an historical review of what has led up to the bringing of it into the house.


I understand from the discussions which have taken place, not only during this session but during the last five or six sessions, that all groups in the house are in favour of legislation of this kind. Therefore I do not expect that there will be any great opposition to the bill. When we get into the committee stage some hon. members may wish to ask questions with respect to aspects of the measure which will not be sufficiently explained by what I have to say on the second reading.
I should like to take hon. members back to March 23, 1938. I have in my hand the submission which was made by what was then called the chamber of agriculture, which has since become the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, to the commission which was then examining into dominion-provincial relations. I refer to this in order to give a history of the development of the issue in the province in which the question has been dealt with to a greater extent than elsewhere; I refer to British Columbia. There are only three paragraphs in this document that I wish to read, but they will take us to the beginning of the historical review of the position. I quote:
A provincial act known as the Produce Marketing Act was passed by the province of British Columbia in 1927. This act was designed to control and regulate the marketing of certain agricultural products produced within a given area within the province, and it is apparent that the framers of that act relied upon the provisions of subsection 13 or subsection 16 or both, of section 92.
That was the British North America Act.
The act was, however, in 1930, declared to be ultra vires of the provincial legislature.
That was their first effort at passing legislation to control marketing within the province. The submission continues:
In 1934 the dominion parliament passed an act entitled the Natural Products Marketing Act, and it is apparent that the framers of that act relied upon the provisions of subsection 2 of section 91, "the regulation of trade and commerce." That act was in 1936 declared to be ultra vires of the dominion parliament.
In 1934 the province of British Columbia passed an act known as the Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, and that act, after the dominion Natural Products Marketing Act had been declared to be ultra vires, was amended.
They amended their legislation in a manner which they thought would bring it within the powers of the legislature of the province, basing their amendments on the decision which had been given against the federal legislation. The submission continues:
The act as amended is now before the courts, and is to be carried to the privy council with a view to determining the authority of the province to pass the act.
That is the record in so far as it is shown in this document, and I think it is a complete

record of what had happened up to that moment.
All I wish to say in addition is that the British Columbia legislation was declared to be intra vires by the courts, right through to the privy council. After it had been declared to be intra vires, the British Columbia chamber of agriculture made an appeal to all the provinces in Canada to pass similar legislation, and they also made an appeal to the dominion government to pass enabling or complementary legislation. When representations were first made to this government we suggested that probably we would be well advised to await the actions of the provinces and to consider what should be done after we had had some experience with those acts.
The next representation which we had, following the proposal I have just referred to on the part of the province, came to us from the Canadian chamber of agriculture as a result of a meeting held in Winnipeg. I think I should place on the record the letter which was written to me on that occasion by the then secretary, Mr. George Coote, of the province of Alberta. He wrote to me under date of November 8, 1938, in these terms:
At the annual meeting of the Canadian chamber of agriculture, held at Winnipeg, October 28 and 29, Mr. H. H. Hannam of Toronto, vice president of the chamber, together with the secretary, were appointed a committee to present to you certain resolutions passed at this meeting, dealing with the subject of marketing legislation.
I do not think it is necessary to read the remainder of the letter; that one paragraph indicates the desire of the committee to meet me and present resolutions. What I am mostly concerned with is the resolutions themselves. The resolutions as presented at a later date read:
1.	That we recommend to each provincial organization (excepting British Columbia) that they press for legislation in their respective provinces on the lines of the British Columbia Marketing Act.
2.	That the Canadian chamber of agriculture urge upon the dominion government necessity for the immediate passage of a compulsory marketing act to deal with interprovincial and export trade.
I am going to read a further resolution which was brought along with this, because of its relationship to another question which is being dealt with at the present time and which these people thought at that time could be dealt with satisfactorily under legislation of this kind. I shall not read the "whereases"; they have to do with butter and the surpluses of butter which then existed. If one were to read all the "whereases" one would find that they were outlining a situation in which, although the price is on a different level, the difficulties related to the
8, 1949	2473
Agricultural Products Marketing Act price were very much the same as the difficulties we are discussing at the moment.
The active part of the resolution reads like this:
Therefore be it resolved we request the dominion government to pass legislation which will permit the producers of Canada to set up a board for the purpose of regulating the export of dairy products so that the producers' price may be more evenly maintained, and so that the consumers' price may not be in jeopardy by extreme seasonal fluctuation;
And it is further resolved that the industry will assume the cost of financing the operation of such a board, for which purpose we petition the government to pass the necessary legislation or regulations giving such board power to obtain necessary funds from the industry either through an equitable levy on the entire production, or a service fee, or licensing fee based on the volume of production in each plant, or through any other form of revenue from the industry which can be permitted and approved by the government.
Let me repeat that these three resolutions were brought down at the one time. I read the last one in order to refer to something which took place in this house and in the country at the time the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934 was under discussion. I understand that the strongest objection to the passing of the Natural Products Marketing Act, made by those who were opposed to it in principle, was to the effect that under our system of government it had been customary to give taxing powers to people living within prescribed areas. In other words, we give taxing powers to provinces; the provinces, in turn, give taxing powers to municipalities, and then the municipalities or counties may be divided up into townships. In any case there was associated with any authority given to any body to collect taxes the idea that it applied to a certain area as well as to a group of people.
It is true that in the proposal made here there is the suggestion that these organizations should be given authority to levy certain charges against a product. That was criticized in days gone by as contrary to the general principle of confining such authority to bodies elected from certain areas to sit in certain places and levy these rates upon the people concerned. I shall not argue the point at the moment, but I want to say that we did at that earlier time, around 1938 and 1939, suggest to those who were advocating the setting up of these acts in the different provinces, under which acts the boards would be provided, that they should carry on in the provinces for a time in order that we might have the benefit of the experience which would follow the putting into effect of the legislation. One of the matters, which everyone who made that suggestion had in mind, was this very matter to which I have

Agricultural Products Marketing Act referred-the question whether that principle could be successfully applied in the marketing of farm products. All I wish to say about that at the moment is that eight of the provinces passed these acts. I have copies of the acts, and I think the only province which did not pass an act was Quebec. All the other provinces have natural products marketing acts, or agricultural products marketing acts, with the exception of Quebec and Alberta. Alberta later repealed their act, but today there are six of the provinces which have these acts, and which have been more or less operating under them.
As a result of the experiences we have had under these acts we are inclined to feel that there is some justification-


Major James William Coldwell: Which is the other province that does not have an act? The minister said there were six provinces that had marketing acts, and that Alberta and Quebec did not have them. What is the third one?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should have said seven provinces.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought so; I wanted to keep the record straight.


James Garfield Gardiner: In addition to Newfoundland;
I was counting three against and thinking of the old figure of nine.
To repeat, these acts have been in existence in the provinces, and boards have been set up under them. For example, the apple marketing board in Nova Scotia is set up under one of their acts. The marketing boards in British Columbia are set up under their act, and there are boards in Ontario. For example, there is the bean board which has been handling dry beans in Ontario. That was constituted under their act. In quite a number of the provinces the boards have been set up under these acts, and have been functioning.
What we have before us at the moment is a bill which was suggested first of all by the chamber of agriculture, and some time ago when it was reorganized under its new name, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the proposed bill was presented to us again for consideration. I have here a press release that I gave out on May 11, 1940, which pretty well covers the position up to that time. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture-or the chamber of agriculture, if it was still under that name; I believe the name had been changed-made representations to the federal government with regard to this legislation in these terms:
Provincial legislation being now on the statute books of seven of the provinces to deal with provincial trade, opportunity should be given to farmers


through federal marketing legislation governing export and interprovincial trade to set up marketing agencies under their own control.
I gave out the press release with regard to the discussions which had taken place on that resolution.
In answering this proposal Mr. Gardiner made the following statement: "The position has been gradually developing when it is impossible to sell Canadian surplus farm products anywhere, other than in American countries, excepting through the British Food Ministry."
We were then into the war, and it had become difficult to sell other than to American countries except through the food ministry. To continue the quotation:
"It would appear from latest news bulletins that time is almost, if not quite, here. It is therefore important that we should keep ourselves in a position as a government to meet any emergency which we may find ourselves confronted with. It is our opinion that during wartime any board set up to deal with surpluses of food products should be set up by the government, and that any powers conferred upon such boards to compel anyone connected with the trade or producers to do certain things which are considered to be in the interests of the state should be exercised directly through government agencies.
That is the position which we took on the 11th of May, 1940, early in the war. In other words we said that if we were to have boards to handle farm products they should be government boards which would be dealing directly with government boards set up in Great Britain.
At the time that presentation was made, we were asked by the farm federation to consider what they called a short marketing act or model bill. Earlier they had drafted a longer bill but that bill was very much in the terms of the provincial marketing acts. They presented this one as an alternative. Many of them expressed a preference for this rather than the other one, and I think all were in agreement that there was less likelihood of this bill being declared ultra vires than in the case of the longer measure.
I will read the bill presented to us. I think it is just as well to put this on Hansard since it can then be compared with the bill that is before us at the moment. This bill was drafted by Mr. H. E. Haskins, who I believe conducted British Columbia's case right through to the privy council.


Mr. Caslleden:: W. E. Haskins, was it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I believe he was secretary at the time this presentation was made. The bill reads as follows:
An act to provide for the marketing or the promotion, control and regulation of the marketing of natural products in interprovincial trade in Canada and in export trade.

His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Short Title
1.	This act may be cited as the Natural Products Marketing Act.
Purpose and Intent
2.	The purpose and intent of this act is to provide for the marketing and the promotion, control and regulation, or the prohibition, of the marketing in any or all respects of natural products in interprovincial trade in Canada and in export trade.
Powers
3.	Whenever under any law of a province any board or agency has been established to market, or promote, control, regulate or prohibit, the marketing of any natural product, the governor in council may confer upon such board or agency authority to exercise in respect to interprovincial trade or export trade in such product such powers similar to all or any of the powers provided by or under such provincial law, as may be within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and may vary or retract such powers.
4.	The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary for the efficient enforcement and operation of this act, and for carrying out the provisions thereof, according to their true intent and meaning.
Offences
5.	Every person who fails to comply with any regulation of the governor in council, or with any order, rule, or regulation made by any such board or agency pursuant to the authority conferred under this act, shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
That is the entire bill as submitted to us by the federation as a model bill when they presented their request for legislation to us. We replied that, for the duration of the war, any boards that were going to be set up for that purpose would be set up by the government. Those boards would take delivery of the product and market it wherever it could be marketed, more particularly in Great Britain.
When the war was over the Canadian Federation of Agriculture returned and requested once again that we put this legislation upon the statute books. At that time we stated we were still dealing directly with government boards in Great Britain under agreements. The greater part of our products were being dealt with in that manner and we thought it necessary to continue under that legislation. Nevertheless, we told them we were prepared to sit down with them and consider the type of legislation which might be satisfactory.
As I stated to the house, two years ago we had a bill drafted. At that time I stated it was not our intention to present it at that session of parliament because we were still trading largely through government boards, but that we had the legislation drafted and would at some time probably bring it before
2475
Agricultural Products Marketing Act the house. Last session it was under discussion again and we took much the same position. But since that time, as you know, there is not nearly so much of our product being marketed under these government marketing boards as during the war or as was being marketed for the first two years after the war. For that reason we have determined that this session we would bring down this legislation.
I should like to call the attention of the house to some differences that do exist, which are largely only differences in phraseology, as between the bill which I am introducing to the house and the one which I have just read. Bill No. 82 is in almost exactly the same language, if I can find my copy of it.


Gordon Graydon: You know what is in it anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know what is in it but I do not like to attempt to recite it. It is a bill with the same number of sections as the one I have just read, but it has a preamble, whereas the bill I read a moment ago had not. This is Bill No. 82:
An act to provide for the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade.
At this point I should like to call your attention to the fact that the other bill was concerned with the marketing of natural products, not the marketing of agricultural products. The reason for bringing this down as a marketing act covering agricultural products is largely the fact that the greater part of the agitation for the bill has come from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is the national body representing the farmers of Canada. We have thought it wise to confine the scope of the act at present to agricultural products, at least until we have had some experience under it; and because of the further fact that most of the boards and organizations that have been built up in the provinces under the natural products acts of the provinces have been dealing with agricultural products. We have thought it wise, therefore, to confine this bill to agricultural products.
The preamble reads as follows:
Whereas it is desirable to improve the methods and practices of marketing agricultural products of Canada; and whereas the legislatures of several of the provinces have enacted legislation respecting the marketing of agricultural products locally within the province; and whereas it is desirable to cooperate with the provinces and to enact a measure respecting the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade:	Therefore His
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	This act may be cited as The Agricultural Products Marketing Act.
2.	(1) The governor in council may by order grant authority to any board or agency authorized under
1476	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products Marketing Act the law of any province to exercise powers of regulation in relation to the marketing of any agricultural product locally within the province, to regulate the marketing of such agricultural product outside the province in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes to exercise all or any powers like the powers exercisable by such board or agency in relation to the marketing of such agricultural product locally within the province.
(2) The governor in council may by order revoke any authority granted under subsection one.
I believe that is the working part of the legislation. When you compare it with the main section of the other bill it will be found that, to all intents and purposes, it covers the same ground with the exception that this bill is confined to agricultural products while the other covered all of the natural products.
Section 3 reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions governing the granting and revocation of authority under section two and generally may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
Then there is the penalty clause which is very much the same as the penalty clause which was contained in the model bill, and I do not think I need to read that to the house.


George Hugh Castleden: Did not the minister also receive some amendments in 1948, the Barrett amendments, which it was suggested might be made to the original Haskins act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I have those here as well. I do not know that it is necessary to read them. They were somewhat to the effect that it might be necessary to deal specifically with pooling assistance but we have taken the advice of the counsel for the federation and also our own counsel; and we are advised that that is not necessary. So the legislation has been left as it now is. I do not think it is necessary to say at this stage much in addition to what I have already said. If hon. members desire to discuss the bill in a manner which will require answers while the Speaker is still in the chair, then I think I have the right to close the debate on second reading. If on the other hand hon. members -as I hope will be the case-are quite prepared to accept the principle of the bill and to allow it to go to committee where we can discuss the possibilities under it, then I would welcome that course. But we should like, if possible, to have this legislation put through its stages in the House of Commons; it may not be possible to have it put through the other house before Easter. But in any case, if it is through here we shall fairly well understand what the nature of it is, and when hon. members are home at Easter they can discuss it in full with those who are concerned with it.
I should like to move second reading of the bill.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: In order to set the minister's mind at rest, Mr. Speaker, as to the position of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative party, I may tell him at the outset that we are in accord with the principle of this bill and with the objects which the bill seeks to accomplish, namely, the extension to provincial marketing boards of marketing powers with respect to interprovincial and export trade.
We feel, however, that there are certain aspects of the bill with regard to which we must have reservations; those of course we can discuss more fully in committee. There are certain matters with respect to marketing policy which I think it is important to bring to the attention of the house and the country at this time. The first remark I would make in that connection is that the very history given this afternoon by the minister of the efforts made in the past to attain a satisfactory dominion marketing act, and of the many requests made to the present federal government for the enactment of such an act, raises the question as to why it is being done in this form at this time in this great hurry. The answer of course is quite plain to everybody on both sides of the house and throughout the country. The answer is that, so far as the present government is concerned, this is a mere death-bed repentance.
I use those words advisedly, Mr. Speaker. It is a death-bed repentance because, amongst other things, it is done to save a dying government. It is too late, however, to save the present government from the consequences of their maladministration in the field of agriculture generally, and particularly is it too late to save them from the consequences of their repeated denials in the past to organized agriculture of a satisfactory federal marketing act. The minister gave us an historical outline of marketing legislation which, as a matter of fact, has certain factual gaps in it which I should like to fill in in a moment. But he gave us answers to what he said was the question as to why this sort of legislation had not been introduced before.
He said that the reason it was being introduced now was that since the war, since the request put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in 1947, we have eliminated much of the intergovernmental trading. He said there is not so much marketing through government boards since that time. That is one reason he gave why we can now introduce a marketing act. Of course there is another reason. The main reason that he is now introducing a marketing act is that since that time he is confronted with an election. That is obviously the reason why this act is now being introduced.

The situation is little different in 1949 from what it was in 1947 or in 1948. In 1947 I think there were five intergovernmental contracts as between this government and the United Kingdom-only five commodities subject to contracts. In 1948 that same situation prevailed. Now I think we have only four. But really there is little difference as between the two years. So the reason is quite obvious.
But however that may be, as I have said we are in accord with the principle of this legislation. In fact we have been urging for some fifteen or twenty years that such legislation should be enacted. It has been one of the fundamental principles of this party with respect to its agricultural program.
Hon. members will recall-those who are acquainted with this subject-that there were certain omissions from the minister's historical review of marketing legislation. Canadian agriculture has always found itself in a peculiar position with respect to marketing. We have a vast production and a limited domestic market. Our markets are limited both in respect to the province in which the production took place and with respect to export trade. Let me give just two examples. In British Columbia we produce far more apples than it is possible for us to consume domestically. Therefore the apple growers in British Columbia are faced with the problem with respect to exporting their apples to other markets and to other provinces.
In the same way in Canada, on a national scale, we produce more grain than we can possibly consume. Hence we are faced with a national export marketing problem. Whether it be on the provincial or on the dominion scale, export marketing has always been of special concern to Canadian agriculture. So we find a long history of struggle in Canada to obtain marketing legislation which would enable our growers to deal with that peculiar situation.
The first concrete attempt to deal with that situation was probably the Produce Marketing Act which was enacted in British Columbia as far back as 1927. This was an act which applied to tree fruits, but it was ruled to be ultra vires on appeal to the privy council, in a decision handed down in 1931. It was ruled to be ultra vires for the reason that, although it was enacted by a provincial legislature, it sought to give power to a provincial board over interprovincial and export trade. So unfortunately, under the constitutional position under which this country lives, the act was not within the competence of the legislature of the province.
The next attempt was again in British Columbia, and was the Dairy Products Sales
29087-157 i
8,	1949
Agricultural Products Marketing Act Adjustment Act, passed in that province in 1929. That act in turn was held to be ultra vires of the provincial legislature by the privy council on an appeal in 1932. The grounds for that decision were that the act in effect imposed an indirect tax, and that the powers of indirect taxation were not given to the provinces under the constitution, and that therefore this particular act was not within the competence of the provincial legislature.
It then became obvious that the only people who could deal satisfactorily with this question of marketing were the federal government, or possibly a combination of the provincial and federal legislatures; and those who were interested in marketing turned to the federal parliament for a solution of their problem. The result was the passage of the Natural Products Marketing Act in 1934 under the administration of the late Viscount Bennett. This act provided for the setting up of dominion marketing boards and the introduction of marketing schemes with respect to individual products. It was based upon British marketing legislation, which in turn was based upon Australian marketing schemes. At approximately the same time, or I should say immediately after the federal legislation was passed, British Columbia passed complementary legislation, under which three marketing schemes were set up, schemes having to do with tree fruits, vegetables and dairy products. The attempt in British Columbia was to enable these boards to draw their powers from either the provincial act or the federal act. It was hoped that finally an act had been passed which was intra vires.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the violent opposition to the dominion Natural Products Marketing Act in this house in 1934, when the opposition, the party which now forms the government, sought by every means in its power to prevent that act from becoming law. You will remember also that after they became the government, instead of repealing the act, they took the rather less direct course of submitting it to the courts for a decision as to whether or not it was intra vires of the federal parliament. A decision was given in 1937, and that was appealed to the privy council, which held that the dominion Natural Products Marketing Act was not within the legislative competence of the federal government, mainly, as I recall, on the ground that it interfered with trade within the provinces, which was a matter reserved to the competence of the provincial legislatures.
That decision was given in 1937, and so again the attempt to set up an over-all marketing scheme for the dominion came to naught. But we now have it established-we
2478	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act had it established in the next year 1938, for the first time-that an act passed within a province is within the legislative competence of the provinces, because in 1938, a year after the dominion's act was declared ultra vires, the complementary legislation which had been passed by British Columbia was appealed to the courts, and it was held by the privy council to be a valid act and within the competence of the legislature of British Columbia.
Therefore after eleven years of attempting, with one form of act or another, to find a valid scheme, we had in 1938 the first decision that a provincial marketing act was valid. Almost immediately afterwards the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick passed acts similar to that of British Columbia, followed by Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and by virtually every other province since that time.
I have given a short factual history of the development of these schemes. It will be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that even though the provincial schemes were valid-and it should be observed that nearly all of them are based upon the general outline of the British Columbia scheme-still they are subject to one great weakness. The powers of the marketing boards set up under those schemes can extend only to trade within the provinces. Any other powers which they have can be derived only from a contractual relation between the marketing board and the agencies on which they rely to sell their products. But there can be no legislative sanction by one province for the control of its products in another; no British Columbia act can provide, let us say, for control by the British Columbia board of the marketing of its products within another province in Canada. The only way in which that can be controlled is by some form of contractual relation. That is the weakness which has beset marketing efforts in Canada up to the present. The provincial marketing schemes have no legislative authority outside their own provinces.
I should now like to turn for a moment to the desire of the producers of Canada for satisfactory marketing legislation. Their desire has been to have legislation which would enable the producers of agricultural goods to control the marketing of their own produce. They have found that they must have some scheme to enable them to organize so that they will be able to bargain on a basis of equality with those who sell their products, so that they will be able to bargain on a basis of equality with those with whom they must deal.


Marketing schemes are not set up, as has been so often alleged, in order to exploit consumers. If one thinks of this problem at all it becomes obvious that a large number of farmers, dealing with perishable commodities, are simply not in a position to bargain on a basis of equality so long as they are a number of unorganized individuals, and that they can only control their own destinies in any real sense of the word when they become organized, and when they are able to control all aspects of their own production and marketing.
In this respect I should like to refer to the words of the president of perhaps the most successful of these marketing agencies, namely, Mr. A. K. Loyd, president of British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited, which is the single selling agency for all the tree fruits in British Columbia. Mr. Loyd, speaking before the Washington state horticultural association, had this to say about marketing schemes:
It has never been a principle endorsed by the growers' selling agency that it is possible to obtain artificial prices for the growers. The law of supply and demand has governed from time immemorial, and will continue to do so indefinitely. All that the selling agency set out to do was to return to the pockets of the grower as much as possible of whatever the market was able to pay.
I think it is worth repeating, since one-desk selling has too often been represented as an attempt to establish artificial price levels. It is merely an attempt to return to the producers as much as possible of the market price, whatever that may be.
That attempt has been successful in nearly every province in Canada in so far as control of production and marketing of the commodity in trade within the province was concerned; and the most noteworthy feature of these schemes is that control is given to the producers. They are producers' boards. They are controlled by the growers, and I have never heard any suggestion, particularly in so far as the tree fruits industry is concerned, that there is outside interference, or that the thing is not so run as to have in mind the interest of the growers at every stage of the proceedings. The desire, then, of organized agriculture has been to extend this same principle of producer control to interprovincial and export trade. That has been the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture referred to earlier this afternoon by the minister, and I feel bound to say that it has been the request of the official opposition, and has been the stand of this party for many years.
We have found however from this government that just the opposite was the tendency. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the proceedings in 1947 when the Agricultural Products Act was first before the house. Speaking for the official opposition the then member for Yale, the Hon. Grote Stirling,

took exception to that bill because he said it was not a marketing act, but that it was a control act. Instead of the power to control the production and marketing of agricultural commodities being given to producers and producer boards, those powers were given to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He has exclusive power; he has the power to set prices, the power to requisition products, the power to compel delivery. In fact there is no suggestion of giving power to producers. It is a derogation from the powers otherwise held by producer boards.
The hon. member at that time introduced an amendment to that measure for the reasons set out at page 1372 of Hansard for 1947.
We are not in accord with the principle behind this bill-
He was referring to the Agricultural Products Act. There has been some confusion, Mr. Speaker, because the titles of these two measures are very similar. The one of which Mr. Stirling was speaking at that time was called the Agricultural Products Act. As I have said, it was a control act. The bill we are now discussing is called the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, and it is a true marketing act.
Speaking of the Agricultural Products Act, Mr. Stirling said in 1947:
We are not in accord with the principle behind this bill, because we believe that there should be recognition by the government of the existing boards, and it should be so stated in the bill. I intend to make that the subject of an amendment which I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton), and which I shall now read. It is as follows:
"That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that it be resolved that an Agricultural Products Act should be based on the principle that producer boards, set up under provincial marketing acts, where such boards exist, or as they may from time to time come into existence, be used for the purposes of such Agricultural Products Act, instead of commodity boards established by the minister under section four of the said bill."
That amendment was not accepted, but was ruled out of order. As I recall it, another similar amendment on second reading was voted down. So the Agricultural Products Act, in its present form a control act, has continued in force, and was renewed by the House of Commons less than a month ago.
I do not intend to refer to the debates which have taken place earlier this session, but I believe I am in order when I say that there is a conflict in principle between the Agricultural Products Act passed in 1947 and extended earlier this session, and the bill now before the house. One was a control act giving absolute power over agricultural commodities to the minister. The bill now before us gives power to the boards, or perhaps to be more specific it is a measure extending the
8, 1949	2479
Agricultural Products Marketing Act powers of the provincial boards to the sphere of interprovincial and export trade.
I said then, and I repeat, that the proper course to have taken would have been to drop the earlier bill, and to proceed with this one, which should have been passed first. Under this bill there can be orderly regulation of the marketing of agricultural products; under the bill now before us the situation desired by organized agriculture is at last brought into effect, that is that the producer boards are given control over their own activities.
In fact I find it difficult to know how those who on the one hand voted in favour of giving control to the Minister of Agriculture now find that they can reverse themselves and say that we should give control to the producer boards. I find it difficult to know how they can go through that contortion. I am glad to believe that they are going to be able to do so because, from what I understand, both the parties which supported the earlier bill, which was a control measure and one that took control away from the producer boards, are now about to support the present bill which has to do with marketing and' gives power to the provincial boards. I repeat that I am unable to understand their mental gymnastics, but I am glad to find! that they are able to adopt that procedure. We hope that as the result this bill will become law.
I believe there is some question as to the constitutional difficulty which has always beset attempts to introduce dominion marketing legislation: I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will speak in this connection, and when he does I hope he will confirm my impression. It is my view that this bill meets the constitutional difficulty because it will have to be based upon co-operation between the provinces. It does not seek to set up a board which will have jurisdiction over trade within a province. It empowers existing boards to control the marketing of their commodities in interprovincial and export trade. As I see it, therefore, the working of this measure will have to be based upon co-operation between the provinces and between the various provincial boards in existence. I should hope-and I think it is logical so to hope-that as the working out of this marketing scheme progresses, agricultural producers may find it possible to set up for themselves their own over-all marketing scheme, if such is found necessary.
However, as I have said, I believe this is a matter which is properly left to organized agriculture. They now have the basis in their provincial boards. They have the practical experience, as a result of the-
2480	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member a question? I had hoped that when he was giving his review he would probably cover something which I had not been able to cover. I thought I had the record concerning the point about which he is now speaking. My memory is that when British Columbia legislation at that earlier time was taken through to the privy council and declared to be intra vires, that government submitted legislation of this kind and received an opinion from the privy council to the effect that this kind of legislation is intra vires. That is my memory in the matter. I thought I had the information in my records, but when I was coming to the house I found I did not have it. Otherwise I would have obtained full information from British Columbia. However, that is right on the point about which the hon. member is now speaking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry I cannot speak with authority on the point, as the minister would like. Let me say this, however, I believe there will be no objection to my saying that I have been in correspondence with growers marketing agencies in British Columbia, particularly those concerned with the marketing of tree fruits, and I have asked them if they would be good enough to give me the benefit of their views. While I do not believe I would be at liberty to quote what they have said, I can say I have received from them a draft act which, according to legal opinion they have sought, would be valid. As I have indicated, their opinion is based upon legal support. That act follows closely the form of the bill now before the house.
Probably this matter can never be settled except by an appeal to the courts, but as this bill goes a long way toward meeting the wishes of the organized farmers I am quite certain that as far as they are concerned it will never be necessary to submit it to the courts. But I believe that if it is submitted to the courts it will be found to be within the powers of this parliament to enact.
In view of the position taken in the past I feel bound to say that if it were felt that this was ultra vires, then we could not in good conscience support it. But because I believe it to be intra vires, because I believe it to be based upon co-operation by the provincial organizations, because I believe that that co-operation can now take place, because the provincial organizations have had the experience of administering their own acts and realize that there must be co-operation in the working out of any federal marketing scheme and in co-ordinating their efforts in respect to external export markets, I am quite sure that practical results will follow. Although we feel that this legislation is a good many years too late, nevertheless for


the reasons I have stated we support the principle of this bill.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation welcome this bill. I had intended to speak at some length on it but as we are desirous of having it passed before the Easter recess I shall be brief in my remarks. First I want to point out that we welcome this bill because the producers of this country have fought for many years to have legislation of this kind in order that they might have some assurance that they would get a fair price for what they produced. I feel I can speak with some authority because I have been a producer of farm products for the last twenty years and have gone through the process of having my returns stolen on the speculative market.
I feel that this bill proposed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) offers some solution for our problem. While it provides for the setting up of provincial boards which may be able to deal with the situation to the satisfaction of some producers, yet I feel that there may be danger in that the results which most of us would like to see may not be achieved. I have a letter dated April 4 from the Saskatchewan poultry board. If I had the time I would like to read into the record the submissions which have been made to the government of Canada by the Canadian poultry industry. While they support an act such as the one proposed, at the same time they point out some of the difficulties.
I think their difficulties are somewhat similar to those faced by the producers of coarse grains and other farm products. The farmers and producers of Canada do not want to see a situation develop where when we have a surplus of a few tubfuls of butter, that will set the price of butter; where when we have a few extra steers, that will set the price of livestock products; similarly, where when we have a few extra bushels of coarse grains, that will set the price for coarse grains. Rather they feel that there should be adequate legislation to meet the needs of agriculture in this country.
Under the proposed bill we will be able to set up provincial boards. The submissions made by the Saskatchewan poultry board and those made on behalf of the poultry industry of Canada indicate that the contracts which were obtained during the war encouraged the development of the poultry industry until it had increased about 25 per cent. The industry is now facing a lack of markets. They recommend that in order to handle surpluses there should be set up

a central selling agency which could market these surpluses without deranging the market.
I think the minister will realize that it is necessary to have agricultural products channeled from the producer to the consumer without deranging the market.
I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). While I think he did a good job as a young lawyer in putting forward the case of the Progressive Conservative party, it seemed to me that he did not quite understand the full intent of this bill. Certainly the boards which will be set up will be compulsory in character. Subsection (2) of section 2 of the bill reads:
The governor in council may by order revoke any authority granted under subsection one.
That gives the governor in council complete jurisdiction over the board. Those producing poultry are satisfied with this bill. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) was unable to be here today because he had made other arrangements, but on his behalf I should like to refer to a letter which he received from the British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board suggesting that they were in full support of this bill. On behalf of the hon. member for Yale may I say that he is in full support of the bill. On February 4 he made an excellent speech in this house recommending that such a bill be brought in at this session so that the fruit growers of British Columbia would have proper marketing facilities for their products.
I should like to refer now to coarse grains. About eighteen months ago Bill No. 135 was introduced into this house to bring coarse grains under the Canadian wheat board. That act was never proclaimed because the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta failed to pass the complementary legislation which would have made that act operative. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has refused to proclaim the act until those two provinces have passed enabling legislation. Last year when the Minister of Agriculture was going through the west he indicated that provincial boards could be set up under that act to handle coarse grains adequately. He failed to tell us, however, how the provincial boards which may be set up under this act would handle the situation. That is one of the difficulties that I see in the act. It does not provide definitely for anything. It is merely a provisional act to allow the provinces to set up their own agricultural marketing boards.
My understanding is that the terminal grain elevators, for example, are what are termed works to the general advantage of Canada. I fail to see how provincial boards could
8, 1949
Agricultural Products Marketing Act operate without jurisdiction over those elevators. Then there is the matter of railway cars. I cannot see how the provinces can adequately handle the- channeling of their grain over the railroads without having control of railway cars. Then there are the storage facilities that would be necessary at the lakehead, a matter which is again outside the jurisdiction of the provinces. If we set up provincial marketing boards merely to handle our coarse grains, rather than having them come under the wheat board, I cannot see how it can be really satisfactory, because of necessity we must export a lot of our coarse grains, as well as our wheat. Moreover, as I have said since I have come into the house, I believe-and this is a part of our C.C.F. program-that unless we can plan nationally for our agricultural producers then we are certain to run into a lot of difficulties. I would have preferred to have a more comprehensive act with proper clauses in it so that we would know exactly where we stand. It seems to me that under the proposed measure we will still have a conglomeration of acts under which our farm commodities will be marketed, and we will always be running into many difficulties.
I should like to say in conclusion, however, that I support the bill. As farmers, as agricultural producers, we have been fighting for something in the way of a national marketing act comprehensive enough to give justice to the primary producers. When we go into committee I shall ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to tell us if it is proposed that the provinces must market coarse grains rather than bring them under the federal wheat board. I want to know how it is proposed to be done.


Mr. Benoit Michaud (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: I believe the few remarks which I wish to make apply to the principle of the bill, and that is why I would rather make them now. I suppose this bill is all right in many ways. I gather that it meets the wishes of the farmers of the west to a great extent, and also the farmers of other parts of Canada. From the point of view of a class of farmers in the maritime provinces I doubt that it will bring about the relief and protection which we have been seeking for a number of years. I refer, of course, to the potato growers.
This measure is in the nature of enabling legislation. Apparently the officers of the Department of Justice take the view, and I think correctly so, that matters of export trade and interprovincial trade come within federal jurisdiction. The object of the bill is to pass along to the provinces a portion of jurisdiction which properly belongs to the

Agricultural Products Marketing Act federal government. What will happen? When this legislation passes, I presume every province which has a marketing act-we have one in New Brunswick, and I think all the maritime provinces have marketing acts- will endeavour to take advantage of it.
Our problem is the marketing of our huge crops of potatoes in outside markets, and in central Canada. The difficulty applies mostly to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and to some extent Nova Scotia. We export considerable quantities to South America and Central America. The trouble has been that in past years there have been cutthroat practices amongst the different dealers in the maritime provinces. I am sure as far as New Brunswick is concerned that is so. I have here a letter from the minister of agriculture of New Brunswick which corroborates that statement. In New Brunswick the producers have never been able to get together to set a price. They have been underselling one another in these markets. To a large extent that has been the cause of a great many of our difficulties. Let us assume that under this legislation the New Brunswick government proceeds to set a minimum price at New Brunswick seaports for the export of our potatoes, because what is exported through the seaports is mostly seed potatoes to South America and Central America. Suppose they set a price of $2 per 100 pounds at Saint John, and Prince Edward Island sets a price of $1.90, Nova Scotia a price of $2.10 and Quebec a price of $2.20. What will be the outcome? We will have to face the same unfair competition that we have been facing as between individual exporters.
Countries which are purchasing will purchase where the prices are lower unless these provincial. boards can get together all across Canada and agree on a minimum price for the export of their farm products, or agree on a minimum price for products moving from one province to the other. Unless we can get them to agree on that I am afraid that this legislation will not be very helpful.
I am not closely in touch with the federation of agriculture, and therefore I am not in a position to say whether or not they have any views on this matter. The minister will know that. When I came into the house he had already commenced to explain the reasons for the bill. Not so very long ago it was the definite opinion of the New Brunswick minister of agriculture, the Hon. A. C. Taylor, that the matter of marketing was properly a federal matter. He expressed his views in these terms:
I am more convinced than ever that the only solution to this is a dominion marketing act which will give authority to control absolutely the marketing of this important crop.


I take the view, as far as our potatoes are concerned, that while the act may be aU right as far as other farm products are concerned-


Mr. Beniley:: It was the best we could squeeze out of your minister. That is the reason we took it.


Benoît Michaud: That may be so. I think the marketing of our potatoes is of such importance that it can be compared to some extent to the marketing of wheat. As far as the marketing of wheat is concerned we have a federal act, and I am inclined to think that only a federal act can do the job in the case of potatoes. As I said before, the reason is that we export huge quantities of potatoes to different countries, not only from the maritime provinces, but from other provinces. We export not only to South America and Central America but all over the world. I can give you the figures. I have a lot of statistics on the subject.
As for table stock, we supply the needs of Ontario and Quebec to a very great extent, and I am informed that sometimes our potatoes even find their way into the western provinces.
In a recent speech during this session, I think it was March 10, I expressed views on this vital problem of the potato market. As a matter of fact, the views I expressed on that occasion were views I gathered as a result of discussions with the farmers of my constituency and in other parts of New Brunswick. I have received oral and written comments on the views which I expressed and I am pleased to state that there was not a dissenting voice. All seemed to agree that the marketing of potatoes is so large a problem that it should be handled by the federal government. Serious difficulties faced us in the marketing of last year's crop and the crop of 1946. On both occasions the Department of Agriculture has come to our rescue to some extent by means of this Agricultural Prices Support Act. True, that aid has not been all that the farmers had hoped it would be, but it is not always possible to get all you would like to get. It has been very helpful.
I understand that this Agricultural Prices Support Act is going out of existence this year; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no intimation to that effect. It is extended from year to year and it has been extended for another year.


Benoît Michaud: Even so, it is not a permanent solution. So far as our potatoes are concerned, I believe we should have some legislation that would bring about a permanent solution. In the west there is the wheat

board, and that seems to function fairly smoothly. I believe we should have something of that nature. I wish the minister would look into this matter once again because I feel that this act is not going to bring us much relief. It is impossible to get all the provinces, even all the maritime provinces, to agree on minimum prices. If we cannot agree on minimum prices, of what use is the legislation? Let us assume that these three provinces do agree on minimum prices for export and interprovincial trade. Then, suppose we have a bumper crop, what are we going to do? The pressure would be applied to the various governments to have slightly lower prices to enable one province to compete with the other in the foreign market and in interprovincial trade. We will return to this cutthroat competition. I submit that we should have federal legislation with minimum prices and proper machinery for orderly marketing. In my speech of March 10 I outlined the broad principles of what I considered orderly marketing to be.
I believe it could be easily handled if, as we are assuming, the federal government had jurisdiction over interprovincial trade. This fact seems to be taken for granted, but if it is not so the provinces would be only too glad to pass enabling legislation for this interprovincial trade.
In so far as export trade is concerned, the federal jurisdiction is unquestionable. We should have some means of setting prices which could not be disturbed by any one province. I was going to ask the minister about the Agricultural Prices Support Act. He tells me it is going to be renewed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say it was going to be renewed; I said it has already been renewed for a year.


Benoît Michaud: That would help us if we found ourselves in a situation similar to the one of last fall.


Thomas John Bentley: It will help you get elected
again, maybe.


Benoît Michaud: The assistance we received last fall was not sufficient. Of course, it is difficult for the government to embark on a huge spending program just to support the potato growers of New Brunswick. It is for this reason that I have advocated a scheme which would not cost the government anything, except the cost of administration. I believe this scheme would work out to the satisfaction of the vast majority of growers. Taking the long-range view, I again urge the minister that some consideration be given to the setting up of special legislation for the marketing of potatoes.
Agricultural Products Marketing Act Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River): On behalf of the Social Credit group I should like to say that we are supporting Bill 82. It seems to me to be a skeleton bill, but with the proper treatment perhaps we will make it grow into something really desirable. It will be what the organized farmers of Canada have been seeking for a number of years. In addition to that, perhaps it might be of interest to the house to learn that last session the province of Alberta passed an act known as the Natural Products Marketing Act. It is practically the same as the Alberta Natural Products Marketing Act which was enacted in 1934. Alberta does not take second place to any province in Canada when it comes to supporting legislation that is in the interests of our producers.
The Alberta legislature passed another act known as the Coarse Grain Marketing Control Act, which deals with the marketing of oats and barley within the province.


George Hugh Castleden: What year was that?


Mr. Fair:: At the session just concluded.


George Hugh Castleden: It was not done at the last
session?


Robert Fair: At this session just concluded. In reply to the member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), I might say that if Bill 135 had been in the interests of the producers of the prairie	provinces-that	legislation was
promised last session, but after the Alberta legislature had been prorogued, representatives of organized agriculture wrote to the premier to the effect that, under present circumstances, they did not feel it was in the interests of the producer to call a new session. For that reason a new session was not called and the legislation did not pass until the present year.
I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in that I feel the present legislation is not sufficient. Permanent legislation, such as the Agricultural Prices Support Act, should be enacted. The member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) had something to say about the potato growers of his province costing Canada a large sum of money. I feel that other industries in addition to agriculture are continuously costing the people of Canada a great deal of money. Because agriculture is of prime importance to the Canadian family it should not be treated as an orphan when it comes to prices and working conditions. I feel it is time legislation was enacted which would put agriculture on an equal footing with the other industries in this country. Until we have a prosperous agriculture we certainly cannot have a prosperous Canada.

Agricultural Products Marketing Act One of the best authorities in Canada, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), is on record as stating that the farmers have received poor prices during the war. I am going to quote from the Ottawa Journal of February 10 something the minister had to say to a farmers' organization in Ontario. The article is headed, "War Sacrifices of Farmers Entitle Them to Fair Prices."
Canadian farmers were "entitled now" to prices which would justify their wartime sacrifices, Agriculture Minister Gardiner said last night. He was speaking to the annual meeting of the Ontario Concentrated Milk Producers Association at the Chateau Laurier. More than 150 delegates are attending the two-day session, the largest in several years.
"Because there have been declines in the United States, people here are suggesting that food prices should drop to that level, forgetting that prices there rose during the war to a peak never experienced here."
The whole idea in preventing high food prices in Canada during wartime was to allow a "leveling out" afterwards, Mr. Gardiner remarked.
He was "inclined to agree" with the popular statement that consumers did not appreciate what farmers did during the war in keeping the cost of food down. Mr. Gardiner said he was "surprised that farmers had not been able to sell that idea fully."
To reduce the cost of food would mean "bringing down returns to farmers."
"People are inclined to forget that farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, were asked to hold their hand on prices during the war-at a time when they might have charged almost what they wanted."
I agree wholeheartedly with the minister in that statement. The farmer has had comparatively slight increases in the prices of the products he has to sell.
We find that the cost of production has risen to a high level. To take one instance alone, the cost of farm machinery before the war was in excess of what it should have been: on the figures put out lately by the Massey-Harris Company we find that the price of farm machinery has increased by 43-9 per cent. Anyone who takes the trouble to figure out the price of agricultural products will find that it has not kept pace with the cost of production.
Before getting away from that part of my argument I should like to state that during the 1946-47 crop year, according to figures brought down in the house in my name, the farmers of the prairie provinces have lost no less than eighty-six cents a bushel on the wheat sold to the British government in 1946; and in 1947 there is an apparent loss of $1.22.
I am not saying that is the final amount, but the apparent figures show that amount. In addition to that, it is a well-known fact that the prices of coarse grains that were fed here in Canada, and of other products sold to Britain, were based on the price of wheat in the agreement.
I am like other members who have spoken before me. I do not want to be accused of


holding up this bill. We also, after waiting for so many years, want to see this bill passed tonight if that is possible. In order to help the minister and the government, I should like to place on record the Social Credit agricultural and primary producer policy.
(a)	A home market supplied with sufficient purchasing power to enable the people to buy the goods which they require for their use.
(b)	Adequate and low cost credit facilities through agencies especially acquainted with agricultural and marketing conditions.
(c)	Floor prices sufficient to cover the average production costs and to give farm producers a net return for their services, bearing a fair relationship to that secured by citizens engaged in industrial production and distribution.
(d)	Grain marketing-[DOT]
(1)	Revision of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that the board shall be an agency operating primarily for the benefit of, and in the interests of, grain producers.
(2)	That the Canadian wheat board market all commercial wheat.
(3)	Support long-term international wheat agreements to conform with the policy set out above.
(e)	Continuation of the operation of the Agricultural Prices Support Act as permanent legislation.
(f)	Adequate producer representation on all boards and agencies having control over farm products.
(g)	Setting up of federal legislation to provide for voluntary crop insurance.
To deal for a moment with each of those items, in connection with (a) I should like to refer the minister and the government to the analysis made by Professor Hope in dealing with the ability to supply purchasing power so that all the people of Canada could at least have enough to eat. Professor Hope's name is well known in this house, and his record for doing good work in Saskatchewan and at the present time for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is I believe recognized all across this country.
As to (b), we have at the present time the Canadian farm loan board and the Agricultural Credit Act administration. These two agencies are in my opinion charging too high a rate of interest, because there is no need in the world to have a rate of four and one-half per cent and five per cent interest charged on loans to farmers. If the farmers are not a good risk, I believe it is the duty and the business of the government to see that an agricultural policy is put into effect that will make our farmers good risks like those in other lines of business in the country.
As to (c) I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat our argument, because we have on many occasions stressed the need and given sufficient reasons for fair prices. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in the statement I quoted a little while ago, also bears out this argument.
As to (d) (1), we feel that the Canadian wheat board should sell grain for the highest prices that it will bring under our present conditions, and that it should not be used as

an agency to take from the producers and give to the consumers out of the producers' funds. If the government finds it necessary and desirable to pay a bonus, I believe that bonus should come out of the consolidated revenue fund of this country. The producers of this country should not be asked to subsidize other producers who are feeding part of their grain. That procedure is particularly undesirable because of the policy that has been pursued in connection with the sale of our grain and other products in the past.
As to (d) (2), under present circumstances I believe that is the only way we shall get the best service and the best price for our grain; because if we are to have a number of individual sellers and just two or three purchasers, we shall come out on the wrong end of the deal.
As to (d) (3), I think we made our stand on that question known when the international wheat agreement was introduced the other day. I shall have more to say when that agreement is brought in for ratification.
As to (e), my friend across the way who just finished speaking gave some reasons, and many other reasons have been advanced on this side of the house why that legislation should be continued as a permanent measure.
As to (f), I think anybody taking a realistic view of the marketing of farm products, or of any other products for that matter, will see the necessity for having people on the selling board-not on the advisory boards but on the selling board-who understand the position and have at heart the interests of those particularly concerned.
As to (g), that has been asked for by organizations for a number of years. I understand that system is working satisfactorily in the United States, that it is becoming more and more effective, and that more and more farmers are going in under it. That of course is a voluntary organization. I hope this agricultural and primary producer policy of this organization will help the government to set up a much better agricultural policy for Canadian farmers and to make Canada a prosperous country all through.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: shall not detain the house long, Mr. Speaker, because I know the members are anxious to see this bill passed as quickly as possible. I feel, however, that I should say a few words, because in listening to this debate I cannot help reliving the past to some extent inasmuch as I come from the district in which were made some of the first moves in Canadian history for the establishment of national marketing legislation.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the naturally academic historical review of
Agricultural Products Marketing Act marketing legislation in British Columbia given by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). That review would naturally be academic because the hon. member was wearing knee breeches when we were holding our first meetings to organize for a provincial marketing act. Regardless of the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party at the present time, I must say that our experience in British Columbia in the early days was that we had the toughest possible opposition from Conservative members of the provincial legislature when it came to trying to secure support for a provincial marketing act.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that the Bennett government brought in a dominion marketing act?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking of the early days in British Columbia, after which time they accepted the experiment in British Columbia which had proven successful and was receiving large support.


Howard Charles Green: Why not be fair?


Mr. Burton:: Wait until he is through.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am fair. I am dealing with the development of provincial marketing legislation in British Columbia. After that legislation had proven successful and was popular then, as usual, the Tories learned late.
I speak as one who has lived closely with this problem throughout the years. I never speak on a question of this kind without seeing our fruit growers, the small farmers who at the present time will be pruning their orchards and spraying their trees. I know those pioneers who worked for this legislation, who sacrificed their leisure and their holidays to build up public opinion in support of legislation of this type. I cannot forgo the opportunity to mention some of those in our history who have contributed a great deal toward the development of this legislation because, as the minister mentioned, it originated in British Columbia and amongst the fruit growers of that province.
I am glad to mention the Hon. A. D. Barrow, a former minister of agriculture in British Columbia who did a great deal of work in this respect. The late Dr. McDonald was a great advocate of provincial and national marketing legislation. The Hon. Frank Putman, who is a large and successful fruit grower, worked throughout the years with committees of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association in support of this
2486	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act legislation. Then a former president of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, a gentleman who was president in 1924 when this type of legislation began to germinate in the minds of the producers after their bitter experience with competition, had a lot to do with this type of legislation. I refer to the late Mr. Thomas Abriel, who met with other people in the village of Nakusp to organize support. In the district in which I live, the first meeting to consider plans for the development of provincial marketing legislation was held in my own home, at which the then president of the British Columbia growers association was present along with other directors and growers.
In supporting this legislation this afternoon I think it is wise to remember the efforts of those who have contributed so much to the development of this marketing idea in agriculture. I must also mention Mr. J. J. Campbell, Mr. Percy French and Mr. Barrett, and Mr. W. E. Haskins, whose name was mentioned by the minister, and who contributed a great deal toward the development and drafting of provincial marketing legislation in British Columbia. I also mention Mr. Stirling, a former president of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, and Mr. A. K. Loyd, present chairman of Tree Fruits Limited, also Mr. Tom Wilkinson, member of the British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board, and Major Turner Lee, Mr. R. Foxall, manager, Associated Growers, Nelson, British Columbia, and Mr. Noel Brown, president, Kootenay Co-operative Storage Association. There are many others too numerous to mention.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to mention the names of these people, because I am sure many of them will rejoice to know that their efforts have resulted in at least partial success. Those who have passed on would be glad to know of what we are doing in this house today. I do not think this bill is the end of the road so far as national marketing legislation is concerned, but I do think that we have reached a paved portion of the highway which will lead us to the goal of satisfactory provincial, national and international marketing.
I support the principle of this bill. I am pleased to note that it provides powers for provincial boards to control interprovincial and export marketing. I am sure that this bill, and the experience we shall gain as a result of its operation with the co-operation of all parties concerned, co-operatives, producer organizations, provincial boards and other agencies which may be formed under this type of legislation, will bring a greater measure of security to the agricultural producers of this country.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: It is not my
intention to delay the house for any length of time because I realize that everybody is anxious to get this matter through. I have listened with much interest to the speeches which have been made. I was deeply interested in the remarks of the last speaker, but I must say that I was disappointed when he mentioned the men from British Columbia who had done so much to promote this marketing legislation. He did not mention the name of one man who I know has done as much as if not more than any other member in this house to promote marketing acts. I refer to Hon. Grote Stirling. I am sure that the hon. member must have forgotten him, because he mentioned another Mr. Stirling, but he did not mention Grote Stirling, the former member. In the time that I have been in the house I remember that Mr. Esling, who also represented the riding which the present member represents, was a strong advocate of marketing acts.
I had intended to make extensive remarks this afternoon, but unfortunately the time is short, and I shall say what I have to say in a few minutes. At the outset I want to assure the house that I am in entire agreement with the principle of this bill, but I also want to assure the house that I agree with the remarks that were made by my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud), to the effect that this bill does not seem to meet the requirements of the maritime provinces, and particularly the potato growers of New Brunswick.
When we speak of the necessity of legislation of this kind it is only necessary to point out the chaotic condition of potato marketing in New Brunswick to realize that some federal act and a co-ordinate provincial act is necessary. As has been stated before, this year we had a surplus crop of potatoes. We sold a considerable quantity in the United States market, and then under an embargo our market in the United States was cut off almost immediately.
As the minister knows, we were allowed to sell seed potatoes in the United States, and again the marketing of seed potatoes was interfered with by many of the large exporters of seed potatoes in the province selling seed potatoes for table use. The United States complained of this type of sale, which has also added to the chaotic condition of the potato market in New Brunswick.
In former years we used to sell to the Cuban market. That market was lost to us. We sold to the South American market, and again, as the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska said, there was competition between potato dealers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Those in New

Brunswick were in competition with potato dealers in Nova Scotia, and those in Nova Scotia were in competition with dealers in Quebec. The result was that the whole market for this product, which means so much to the economy of our province, was chaotic. I sincerely hope that the minister will explain to us how some order can be brought out of the present condition.
As I said when I rose, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks. I do hope however that this marketing measure can be made workable in our maritime provinces. What applies to potatoes also applies to apples to a lesser degree. I was amazed the other day to hear the minister say that in the government's decision to cut down apple trees in Nova Scotia they were uprooting and cutting down trees in one year in numbers which they had expected to dispose of in three years. He said that was a proper procedure, because they would not be bothered with the sale of the apples from fruit trees after they had been cut down.
That is not the type of marketing legislation we want for our produce from the maritime provinces. We do not want to cut down our apple trees so as to dispose of the apples which would be produced. We do not wish to have to depend upon a smaller acreage in potatoes, because there is a great demand for potatoes, if not in this country then certainly in other parts of the world.
I trust that through this measure the minister will be able to work out something which would be satisfactory in connection with the marketing of potatoes from New Brunswick, as well as the marketing of our other farm products.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and thus far we have discussed it for only two hours. In doing the nation's business I believe we should not hurry at this point, because the present measure brings into focus the whole question of the best manner in which to dispose of our agricultural products.
A great deal has been said in that respect both in the house and in other places during the last twenty-five years. We of the C.C.F. have always taken the position that trade or marketing is essentially an intelligent exchange of goods, and that to the extent any agency assists in making that intelligent exchange of goods more efficient or easier, such agency is good.
That is why we have opposed speculative marketing as a marketing method. We believe speculation does not add anything to the value of goods exchanged, and that essentially it adds to the cost of exchanging those goods for other goods or services. That is
Agricultural Products Marketing Act why in the house we have always taken the strong position of doing away with speculative interests which enter into the exchange of goods, whether in our domestic markets or our export trade.
I was keenly interested in something that was said this afternoon about death-bed repentance. I am glad that expression was used, because I think it is time some points were cleared up so far as this matter of repentance is concerned. We of the C.C.F. are in the happy position of having no repentance to make, because we have taken the stand consistently for orderly marketing of agricultural products. However, when members of the Progressive Conservative party sitting to my right speak about deathbed repentance they are taking a text which is likely to backfire.
As I listened to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) I could not help remembering that it was only on March 25 that the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), one of the members of his party, was asked to state whether he believed in the orderly marketing of farm products. The hon. member replied that he did not care who handled his products or how much gambling was done on his grain, provided he received a better price as a result. He expressed the philosophy of the party to which he belongs.
In order to make sure that he was speaking seriously I asked him specifically at the time whether he was voicing his own opinion or that of his party, and he replied in these words:
I am giving, as I always do, my personal opinions. But I think I am expressing fairly well the opinions of a majority of the people in this party.
Let me say to him that he certainly was not expressing the opinion of the majority of the people of the prairie provinces. It is this belief, or this weakness as a result of which people believe that gambling can add something to the value of their product, which keeps the speculative markets alive, and which keeps gambling dens such as the Winnipeg grain exchange operating for their own profit and to the detriment of both producers and consumers.
It is because there are farmers-if the hon. member can so describe himself, in the full sense-who think that by some magic means or by being smarter than the gamblers on the grain exchange they can get a higher price than is received by their neighbours for their products, and that they can use the labour of other farmers to bring them a better return for their own produce, that these naive people place themselves in a position where the grain exchange and other speculative interests are making a good living from the hides of those
2488	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act hard-working people. I believe it was P. T. Barnum who said, "There's one born every minute." But I did not think we would find one in this House of Commons.
While we are speaking about death-bed repentance, let us make the record complete. The hon. member for Kamloops referred to the government's being in the throes of one of those repentances. While he spoke I thought of discussions which took place in this house in 1935 with respect to marketing. While I was not here at the time, I recall that the Bennett administration introduced a marketing act to which reference has been made this afternoon. It is interesting to note, as I have noticed in several debates this session, that the very words of criticism used by the Liberal party then in opposition are used today by the Tory opposition, and in relation to the same kind of legislation.
If hon. members would refer to Hansard of June 25, 1935, they would find that the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, speaking on the marketing legislation then offered by the Bennett legislation, and directing his attention particularly to section 5 of that bill which referred to fines imposed for infractions, used these words:
They will be fined $25 or $500 or go to jail for three months, or they may be both fined and jailed. And they are presumed guilty under this bill unless they prove that they are not.


Mr. Casgraln:: As in Russia.


Mr. Lapointe:: My hon. friend says, as in Russia, and he is right. These schemes of regimentation-
What familiar words!
-can be successful only under a dictatorship. That is the experience. Russia would never have been able to achieve even the small degree of success which she has with her quinquennial plan if she had not the Ogpu, that famous military police. And the same in Germany and Italy. It is the military arm that makes possible the regimentation of the German and Italian farmers under a bureaucratic system of control.
What familiar phrases! What ringing denunciations we heard from the Liberal party of those days about the same type of legislation they are now introducing.


Mr. Coyle:: Are you a farmer?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: My dear friend, I have farmed for a long time.


Mr. Fleming:: Answer the question.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not a farmer at the present time.
On June 25, 1935, we find that one of the members of the Liberal party felt that even Russia would not do the terrible things that the Bennett administration was attempting to do at that time.
Then, speaking on that day, Mr. Elliott said: What is going to become of respect for law in this country if this kind of legislation becomes common?
CMr. Zaplitny.]

I can almost see the long finger of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) poking its way half way across the aisle, and hear him yelling, "Wide powers!"
Under the marketing act there is power in these boards to create criminal offences, not offences for which the penalty is a fine of $10 for the first offence and $20 for the second, but a fine of $25 and not more than $500, or imprisonment for three months, or both fine and imprisonment.


Mr. Howard:: Is this in Russia?


Mr. Elliott:: No; to be fair to Russia I do not think you could get anyone to put through such legislation as that in Russia now.
At that time it was the opinion of the Liberals that the Bennett administration was even more dictatorial than communist Russia. To what were they objecting? The objection on the part of the Liberal opposition was to the principle of compulsion behind the marketing act. Under the terms of that act the producers were not to be allowed to dispose of their products, boards would be set up which would have the power to make regulations under which the products would be sold. Every time that legislation of that kind has been brought in by the present administration during the last four years we heard the same argument against it from the Progressive Conservative opposition. Obviously they are both right or they are both wrong. They have used the same criticism against each other and have cancelled out each other's criticism. I am glad that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is able to stand up in his place today and say that the party with which he is associated is wholeheartedly behind the principle of this bill.
As a matter of fact, about all that there is to support in this bill is the principle behind it. There is very little else in it but the principle of orderly marketing. As it stands now, the terms of the bill are not clear enough nor effective enough actually to provide orderly marketing in either domestic or export trade. Basically the bill provides for the granting of power to boards set up under provincial legislation and extending their authority into interprovincial and export trade. That may work or it may not work, depending upon the circumstances under which the work is done.
One can easily appreciate the confusion that will be created if the marketing boards of various provinces were to attempt to sell products in such a way as not to result in a co-operative effort. It is the view of this party that this legislation should be changed in order to make it possible for the boards set up under provincial legislation to set up a central selling agency to act on behalf of all or a majority of the provinces in relation to world trade.

The hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Michaud) brought that out clearly in connection with the disposal of potatoes. He pointed out that this bill as it stands today would not be sufficient to cope with that problem, which has already become a big problem in his province and which may become a big problem in Prince Edward Island.
The C.C.F. has always urged that a comprehensive natural products marketing act should be introduced and if necessary submitted to the provinces for consultation. Such legislation should be broad and comprehensive enough to make it possible for farmers to dispose of their products and receive the greatest possible return for their labour. There should also be the minimum of speculation or profit-making because, as I have said before, profiteering or speculation does not add one iota to the value of the goods exchanged. That is the position we take today.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in support of the principle of the bill. We consider that this is only an alternative to a real federal marketing act and we hope that some day this government will bring in such an act. The Canadian producers are facing a situation with regard to the exportable surpluses that exist. This situation is not going to be remedied by setting up internal or interprovincial boards, nor will it be remedied by provincial boards entering foreign fields.
Export trade is really a federal matter. Proper federal import and export boards should be set up. This is imperative if Canada is to escape the results of our export policy which existed in 1930. The minister will remember the prices that were obtained in Canada in 1932 for farm products. Oats were selling for as low as three or four cents per bushel; wheat was selling for as low as 19 cents per bushel; a farmer would bring in a dozen hogs and perhaps get $10. At that time it was difficult to exchange 20 or 30 dozen eggs for a pound of coffee. The Canadian people are not going to face that kind of thing again, especially when they know that in the world there are millions of hungry people.
There will have to be some change in the economy which in the past produced a situation where those who produced food for a hungry world were repaid for efficiently doing their job by having prices brought down so low that they did not cover the cost of production. Because they did their job they were faced with nothing but poverty and want, with the loss of their homes, with a mortgaged farm economy.
There will be a need, not only for agreements inside the country but for agreements
8, 1949
Agricultural Products Marketing Act in the international field. It will be necessary for the government to set up federal boards to deal with this matter so that when representatives meet at international conferences they can state in an authoritative way what surpluses will be available over a period of years. That cannot be done under a bill of this kind.
But since this bill goes along the road to some extent, since it lays down the basic principle that agreements can be made among the people inside the country and between provinces for the exchange of goods, we support it. But I want to make it abundantly clear that we do not look upon this bill as a solution of the problem which is facing Canada, and in a very real way.
I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has received recommendations from egg producers and hog producers across Canada that there is a need for federal boards to handle the export of their surpluses. Canadian agricultural producers are alarmed over the surpluses that already exist in Canada. We do hope that the setting up of federal boards will be announced as a government policy in the near future because it will be too late when everything collapses.
One good point about this legislation is that it provides that boards operating provincially or interprovincially may arrange for the exchange of goods within the country, so that we will not have people living within a few hundred yards of granaries filled with wheat facing a condition of dire need. It is ridiculous to think of elevators being filled to the top with wheat and food products when children are facing hunger.
The establishment of export boards and the arrangement of international agreements through the federal government will mean that such organizations as the open market will not be permitted to function and make a very good living, as has been done in the past, from the fluctuation in prices between the fall and spring and from year to year. As a people living in a modern economy, it is going to become necessary for us to stop gambling in food, and to establish through international agreements the stability which is essential to the well-being and economy of both the producer and the consumer in any country. Stabilization of prices is going to become essential to the security of the people, and that means both producers and consumers.


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


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, before you adopt the motion that you leave the chair for the house to go into committee

Agricultural Products Marketing Act of the whole on Bill 82, I rise to propose a motion of instruction to the committee. I believe this act at least does some of the things which organized agriculture has been asking for for a great number of years, but I do not feel that it goes far enough. I am not going to make a long speech. I merely want to move:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 82 by inserting therein immediately after section 2, subsection (1), the following new subsection (2):
" (2) The governor in council may by order grant authority to any two or more such provincial boards or agencies to form a central selling agency for the purposes of interprovincial and export trade. Such central selling agency shall have any or all powers like the powers exercisable by the provincial boards or agencies comprising the said central selling agency."
That simply means that these bqards, which under the act are allowed to enter into interprovincial and export trade, may themselves co-operate together to set up a central selling agency for the purpose of disposing of their products, either in interprovincial or in export trade. It seems to me that, unless there is some such provision in the act, you will have five, six or seven selling agencies set up by provincial boards which will not be able to co-operate in the disposal of their products, either in interprovincial or in export trade.
Therefore I believe that there should be a section in the act which will provide for the setting up of these central selling agencies. Perhaps that can be understood from the act now. I am not a lawyer. I do not know whether the sections now in the act provide for that. If they do not, I think we certainly should see to it that there is in it a clause which will provide for the setting up of central selling agencies. My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley).


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Wright moves, seconded by Mr. Bentley:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 82 by inserting therein immediately after section 2, subsection (1), the following new subsection (2):
I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that his motion is out of order. Actually the question that is before the house is that the bill be read the second time. The hon. member's motion is not an amendment that the bill be not now read the second time; it is an instruction to a committee, and it has not been decided yet whether the bill will be referred to the committee of the whole. Therefore, with regret, I have to declare the amendment out of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was a little too fast, Mr. Speaker. I thought you had put the motion for second reading of the bill. I wished to present my motion immediately you had put the motion for second reading of the bill. I will do so immediately you put the motion for second reading of the bill and before we go into committee of the whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I would remind the hon. member that I have to put the question first. Mr. Gardiner moves, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the said bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley):
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 82 by inserting therein immediately after section 2, subsection (1). the following new subsection (2):
"(2) The governor in council may by order grant authority to any two or more such provincial boards or agencies to form a central selling agency for the purposes of interprovincial and export trade. Such central selling agency shall have any or all powers like the powers exercisable by the provincial boards or agencies comprising the said central selling agency."
And by re-numbering the present subsection (2) of section 2 as subsection (3).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since there seems to be some confusion about the procedure that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has adopted, may I remind Your Honour that it is exactly the same procedure as was adopted on two occasions in the session of 1948. The first occasion was on March 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I call the attention of the hon. member for Melfort to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 410, which reads:
An instruction to a committee of the whole is a motion which ought to have the right of way on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. It should therefore be moved after the motion to refer the bill has been passed . . .


Stanley Howard Knowles: "And before"-read the rest.


Mr. Speaker:: Citation 410, Beauchesne,
third edition.
It should therefore be moved after the motion to refer the bill has been passed . . .


Stanley Howard Knowles: . . . and before the question is put that the Speaker leave the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I must again declare the motion out of order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the consent of the house to revert to motions.
And the house having reverted to the order for motions:



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table photostatic copies of the North Atlantic treaty as signed in Washington on the 4th of April.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28, to incorporate Canadian Home Assurance Company (as amended).-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East).
Bill No. 26, respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company.-Mr. Jackman.
Bill No. 84, respecting the Pension Fund Society of the Bank of Montreal.-Mr. Rinfret.
Bill No. 125, to incorporate the Sisters of Saint Elizabeth Hospital.-Mr. Burton.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 124, to incorporate the North West Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada-Mr. Dickey (for Mr. Maybank)-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity of making a suggestion which might facilitate the handling of these bills? It is difficult for hon. members to find these bills, largely because of the fact they are mixed up in our files, some of them bearing numbers and some bearing just the
Private Bills
letters they have when they come from the Senate. I hope the Chairman will consider the possibility of instructing the appropriate officials to have these Senate bills stamped with a number at the top when they come over to the House of Commons. If that were done we could find them a little more readily than we can now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Clarence Gillis: Before the preamble carries, may I inquire whether the sponsor of this bill is in the house? As pointed out by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is rather difficult to identify these bills. The bill before us is quite a lengthy one designed to set up a new organization. I think the sponsor of the bill should be in the house to give some explanation of each clause. The clauses have gone through so quickly that it is almost impossible to read them. If the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) is not here, I think the bill should stand until we have an explanation of it.


The Deputy Chairman:: We are considering the preamble; the clauses of the bill have all been carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Chairman, but I am a member of the banking and commerce committee, which considered this bill. This is not a new organization. It has had a provincial status up until the present time, but because it is extending its operations over a wider area the company is seeking dominion incorporation. It is intended that the dominion corporation will take over the operations of the provincial company.


Mr. Reid:: I always understood that bills had to have explanatory notes during the process of consideration. It is not so long ago that we had a debate on the divorce bills and it was contended that we were putting them through so quickly the members did not know what they were about. I believe I am safe in saying that there are not five members in this house who can tell me what bill we are dealing with now.


Mr. Cleaver:: This bill was considered thoroughly by the banking and commerce committee. We have never had a better attendance at any meeting. The four bills that were cleared at that meeting were gone into very carefully, and I assure the hon. member who has just spoken that every care was taken.


Thomas Reid: That is a good explanation, and I am not raising any objection to the bill.

Private Bills
I am objecting to what is happening here. The hon. member who last spoke is raising the point that, since the committee considered the bill, we should just fold up and say we are through.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall I report the bill?


Clarence Gillis: On division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE DOMINION ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 80, respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company-Mr. Dickey-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Board of directors.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we can set a better example this time and have the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) tell us whether the passage of this bill will give to the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company any powers that it does not already enjoy- I used the word "enjoy" advisedly.


Mr. Dickey:: No, Mr. Chairman, this bill deals only with the internal organization of the company. It does not affect its rights or powers in any sense at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The house in committee on the following bills, Mr. Golding in the chair:
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Francis Thomas Joseph Cleevely.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Jack William Corber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Mildred Ida Acres Wells.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Wilhelmina Doris Guenette Parkes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Anita Phyllis Ticktin Sacks.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Sylvia Feldman Blant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Doris Arvilla Jackson Legassick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Rose Klein Levin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Thelma Wilhelmina Wintonyk Colter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Doris MacArthur Richards Arnold.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 41, for the relief of Mary Matheson Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Vivian Pauline Davies White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Helen Hawthorne Kuhn Ellis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Joseph Octave Jules Lapointe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Nena Ruthen Teitelbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Annie Gwendoline Mabel Gammon Noble.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Margaret Catherine McDonald White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Howard Vincent Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Matilda Schneider Hutter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Robert William Phillips.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Ethel Rose Katz Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Edith Cecelia Cole Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Agnes Mathieson Metsos.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Dorothy Fern Brown Lacoste.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Sylvia Barnett Shane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Louise Soltanoff Rudy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Armand Bois-clair.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Mary Robertson Pangman Elder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Merilda Normand Maury.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Janet Stevenson Ivory Stein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Reba Schulman Schecter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Helen Fulton Burns Clark-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Lyford Homer George.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Joan Winnifred Lewis Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Frances Lenore Roe Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Philip Victor Thomas Rodbourn.-Mr. Timmins.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Dorothy Edith Entwistle Lorimer.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of William Christie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Priscilla Ben-ning Peart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Margaret Nelson Smith Calvert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Shirley Pearl Claman.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 72, for the relief of Lillian Helena Cross Page.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Rosario Proulx. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Micheline Lefebvre Simpson.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Catherina Koszak Tymczuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Anne Warnes Rice.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Joseph Edmond Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Grace Lambert Sturgeon.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Mary Middleton Thompson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Gordon Aylmer Thistle Shirres.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Walter Jasper Blake.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Margaret Murray McKinnon Trenholm.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Walter Wilson McBroom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Mabel Florence Dunk Wright.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Thomas Somerville.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Leon Desrosiers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of June Lucille Odell Woolnough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Christopher Edmond Cobham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Jack Zelinsky. -Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Morna Elsa Kott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Doris Christina Meldrum Franklin. (Without Amendment).- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Francis Thomas Lariviere.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Maurice Abraham Rodier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Liselotte Kar-ola Roer Goode.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Albert Labreche.- Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Bessie Drink-water Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Bessie Shafer Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Ludmila Mach Morawetz.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Ernest Cecil George Thackway.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of May Garnet Greene Lofting.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Henry John
Bobinski.-Mr. MacLean.
Private Bills
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Mary Eileen Birks Moorhouse-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Florence Ruby Robbins Cumby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Flookes Kerr.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Berthe Marie Medeleine Brunet Egar.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Mary Alice Eva Rivard Sharkey.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Evelyn Florence Brigden Piper.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Beatrice Violet Hudson Hineson.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Fernand Dupuis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Frances Strak-osch Alexander.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Peonie Taub Joseph.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Doris Mabel Garwood Cunningham Watt-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Marian Dorothy Hill Parker Jeffryes.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Ada Bailen Dubman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Sarah Patricia Crowley King.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Lola Dulcenia Hill Morton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Hilda Hodg-kinson Connolly.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Norma Thompson Farrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Harold Charles Boyes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Sophie Golden-berg Kovacs Feldheim.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Eva Brolofsky Richman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Arland Farmer Webster.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Wynifred Guinevere Withrow Couch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Ogilvie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Dorothy Edith Croft Douglas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Corinne Schlein Gottlieb.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Zelma Alexander Singer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Katherine Adamakos Koussaya.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Margaret Hyams Boldovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Frederick Cecil Carratt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Anne Harris Shefler.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Virginia Therese Scott Gillespie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Ruth Ellen Jones Palamar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Ida Ker Davies Kinnon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Arthur Filteau. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Karl Kastner. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Wilson Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Jean Martha Spiller Little.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	152,	for	the	relief	of	Violette
Blanche Heuff McKenna.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	153,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Elizabeth Amos Nicol.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of George Henry Burney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	155,	for	the	relief	of	Leonne
Dufresne Patenaude.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	156,	for	the	relief	of	Audrey
Blanche Duncan Myers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Brenda Denise Fuller Martin.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Suzanne Gundermann Wallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Margaret Ellen Joan Clayton Dullege.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Laura Goldstein Rosen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Doris Mazer Goldsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Marjorie Violet Schratwiser Cadham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Ross Robert Baskin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Ann Frances Gray Hirst.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Effie Violet Mugford Knox.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Freda Hersch Nishmas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Mildred Davidon Liberman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Raymond Joseph Louis Guay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Hyman Herbert Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Dorothy Mary Ward Bryant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Audrey Frances Stokes Lambert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Marie Katherine O'Connell Ball.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Stephen Henry Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Diane Grossman Botner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Rosina Templeton Mclndoe Corliss.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 177, for the relief of Lily Tansky Dratofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Anna Rose-marin Barsuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Christy Margaret Chisholm Cook.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Maud Ross Travers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Mary McDowell Hyslop Forbes	Cahill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of William Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Vera Mildred Holley Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Ruth Gorofsky Hall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Rita Latour Shugar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Margaret Martin Stewart Scofield.-Mr. Winkler.
William Henry Golding: Shall the bills
carry?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: On division.


William Henry Golding: Shall I report the bills?


Pierre Gauthier: On division.
Bills reported, on division.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the third . reading of the said bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the motion for third reading I just rise to ask why the hon. member for Lisgar stopped at Bill No. 186.


Mr. Whitman:: They are the ones for third reading. The others are for second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Right you are.


Mr. Speaker:: As to some bills, the order paper reads: House in committee on bill so-and-so; as to others, it reads: Second reading of bill so-and-so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now I understand.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the third time and passed.

Howard Waldemar Winkler: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Robert William Goudie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Nancy Catherine Harrison Moore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Claire Wiseman Grynberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Clare Breit-man Elias.-Mr. Winkler.

249S
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Lillian Florence Katherine Kaye Kulik.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Freda Simino-vitch Mosessohn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Agathe Groulx Grenier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Pamela Mabel Mackrory Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Muriel Fishman Schmelz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 200, for relief of Virgile Zenor Joseph Poncelet.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Mary Besner Bray.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Philip Wanton Engs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Blanche Marie Yvonne Boissonneau Dunlop.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Najla Tabah Ayoup.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Betsy Bruce Anderson Furlong.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Doris Mary Marjorie Evans Champagne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of David Anderson Guthrie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Frieda Stubina Lobe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Mary Bridget Ellen Conway Demers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Alexandrine Gauthier Boisvert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Mary Grant Macintosh Dobell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Marie Louise Irene Bouchard Magill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Thelma Jennie Alvera Brownlee Leslie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Elsie Roberta McCutcheon Cornish.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Vera Maude Rimmer Gasper.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Veronica Kazantseff Darrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Elsie Smith Brothers.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of John Howard Clendenning.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Bessie Lillian Lockhart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of May Victoria Gledhill Hossack.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Marshall Frederick Lebeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Miriam Sarah Celeste Glass Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Edna Vivian Eulie Hewitt Colclough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Gladys
Isabelle Brown Farewell.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Gladys Rollins Wilson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Anna May Tedstone Mose.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Elsie Knight-Huckle Metayer.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Charles Emile Groleau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Olive Eva LaBeau Carlson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Julia Catherine Dwane Raymond.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Philip Sluts-ken.-Mr. Winkler.


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


Pierre Gauthier: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bills read the second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Edmund Davie Fulton: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood there was to be fifteen minutes for private and public bills tonight. I notice that it is now ten minutes to eight. Has that position been changed?


Alphonse Fournier: No, Mr. Speaker. It was understood last night that the fifteen minutes would be from 5.45 p.m. until 6 p.m. But this is the regular hour. With the unanimous consent of the house we will revert to the marketing act, if there is no objection.


Clarence Gillis: No. The private member must get his chance.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say here that I think last week I called the attention of the house to the fact that it has always been the practice to take private and public bills between eight and nine o'clock but since we started sitting at seven-thirty, I think it is the spirit of the standing order to take them during the first hour. As hon. members will see in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, at page 41, standing order 15 provides that private and public bills should be taken during the first hour.


Alphonse Fournier: With the unanimous consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we now revert to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Industrial Relations INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 54, STATUTES OF 1947-48  DEDUCTION OF UNION DUES

Mr. Arthur Williams (Ontario) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (deduction of union dues).
He said: I should like to have agreed that we go on with the agricultural act. I am afraid that little attention is going to be paid to the question of labour in this house; therefore I felt in honour bound to make an attempt to study the case of labour at this time. This kind of bill is not anything new to the house. In the industrial committee of the house in the last session this particular question of the voluntary and revocable check-off was dealt with. At that time the committee agreed to have it included in the bill. Unfortunately when it came to the house that particular clause was stricken out. The clause which now forms the bill before the house is exactly the same as the clause which the house struck from Bill No. 185 last year. The discussion on the bill at that particular time was extended. It comprises some six pages of Hansard, and it can be found starting at page 5369 of Hansard of June 17.
I do not think it is necessary to have much discussion on it, in view of the long discussion which took place on the previous occasion; but I want to say that this is something which the trade union movement of this country, irrespective of the congress concerned, is particularly interested in having incorporated in an act.
It is true that in many instances we do have the check-off as a result of collective bargaining, but there are innumerable instances, despite all the efforts at collective bargaining, where we have failed completely to secure the co-operation of an employer, even though his employees readily agree to have the deduction of dues.
As a result of negotiations we have frequently had the employees sign the authorization cards, and during the negotiations we have presented them to the employer, and informed him most courteously that these cards were an expression of the wishes of his employees. In the face of that he has still refused to agree to the check-off. It is to deal with employers of that particular kind that we of the trade union movement feel it is necessary to have a clause of this kind in the industrial relations law of the country.
As I estimate the amount and the kind of business that this house is going to do during this session, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that not much is to be done for the trade union movement and trade unionists

throughout the country. I had thought that amid the great amount of business that this house will do it could agree to this bill, if only as a gesture of good will to the trade union movement of this country.
There are already all kinds of deductions from the wages of employees. The government itself makes sure that by law it gets its deductions. There is a law to compel the deduction of income tax; there is a law to compel the deduction of unemployment insurance payments; there is even a law permitting garnisheeing of wages, all permissible by law. Outside of the law there are all kinds of other deductions, such as deductions for Red Cross, the community chests, numerous health plans and all kinds of social and recreational deductions. In fact I came across one particular group of employees who have no less than fourteen deductions from their wages. In the light of all these deductions, some by law and some not by law, the trade union movement now feels that the refusal to agree to having this voluntary revocable check-off made legal is a distinct discrimination against our trade union movement.
Many years ago when the late Earl Baldwin visited this country he addressed a very influential gathering at the university of Toronto. On that occasion he described the trade union movement of Great Britain as one of the cardinal institutions of the country. I believe the trade unions are a cardinal institution of Canada. I think the least that this house can do for this cardinal institution of the country is to agree that this bill, which is now before the house, shall be included as part of the labour law of Canada. Therefore I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the house will readily agree to this bill going forward.


John Horace Dickey: I should like to say a few words on this measure. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Williams), who has just taken his seat, began his remarks, I understand, by saying that this parliament would apparently not pay much attention to labour. My own experience in this house has been very short, but the hon. member's experience is even shorter than mine.
At the last session of parliament I had the pleasure of serving on the industrial relations committee of this house. It was certainly one of the most industrious, best attended and most interesting committees that I had anything to do with at the last session. As a result of the deliberations of that committee, and of the committee which sat throughout the previous session of parliament, the national labour code was enacted into law.
I do not pretend to be an expert on labour matters. My contributions to the labour committee were few, but I did find it an interesting thing to sit on that committee and

to hear expressions of opinion by hon. members who have had lifelong experience in the trade union movement and in union affairs in the old country, in the United States and in this country.
As I understand it, the basis of our system of labour legislation and our conception of the proper method of dealing with labour problems are, so far as possible to do it on the system of free collective bargaining between employers and employees. The whole plan of our national labour code is to set up the necessary machinery so that the employers and employees can meet, as closely as possible, on equal terms, and agree among themselves on the conditions of employment, wages and the other matters which are of supreme importance to both factions, the employers and labour. In so far as has been possible we have kept clear of any form of compulsion in our labour legislation. I believe that creates the very best atmosphere in which labour can meet industry, and secures from industry, from the employer, the greatest amount of co-operation and the best deal in respect of wage rates and conditions of employment.
This labour code, which was the achievement of the industrial relations committee during two sessions, was enacted only twelve months ago. It has not yet been in effect for a full year. I submit it is not reasonable to ask the house immediately to change a considered decision of both the committees which studied the provisions of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the house did last year.


Clarence Gillis: The committee wrote it in. The committee wrote in the check-off that originated in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee the hon. member is lauding did exactly what this clause asks for.


John Horace Dickey: The committee did bring in this particular section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John Horace Dickey: But the members who supported it were unable to get the support of the house.
I submit this legislation should be tested more thoroughly before the house is asked to reverse its own decision. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Williams) put forward the argument that parliament should do this thing as a gesture of good will toward labour. I hope there is no great need for the House of Commons to show its good will toward labour by a gesture of this kind. I believe the trend of legislation passed by parliament is a much more complete gesture of good will toward labour than this amendment could possibly be. I believe that to adopt this proindustrial Relations
vision would be to abandon the fundamental basis upon which we have thus far proceeded in our labour legislation.
The hon. member also mentioned the number of deductions already made from pay cheques of employees. I submit to the house that, with the exception of deductions made for governmental purposes, there is no deduction normally made by any employer in Canada that is compulsory, and which is not the result of a freely negotiated contract with the representatives of the union to which the employees belong.
I submit this bill to amend the labour code which was passed by parliament at the last session should not pass.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, just so the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will not strain himself in talking this out, may I make a few remarks at this time? For the benefit of the record may I point out to the hon. member who has just taken his seat that the industrial relations committee which sat last year wrote this provision into the bill and brought it back to the house, but it was here rejected. What we are trying to do at this time is to have the house make an act of contrition. After having a year to think it over, I suggest that the house should write back into the code the provision which was written in there previously by the committee, the members of which were better informed on the subject than are ordinary members of the House of Commons who did not take part in the committee's deliberations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it was adopted last summer by the Liberal convention.


Clarence Gillis: And by the Conservative convention. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has said that we are trying to keep our labour legislation free from compulsion. There is nothing compulsory in this. This is a voluntary, revocable check-off. You put your card in the office if you wish to pay dues that way; and if you do not like the union after you have put your card in you can withdraw it. So it is completely free; there is no compulsion.


John Horace Dickey: Is it not true that if this provision were inserted there would be compulsion on the part of the employer to accept the check-off?


Clarence Gillis: If you put a card in on your own behalf, yes. If you say, individually, that you want your dues paid in that way, then it would be handled just the same as contributions to the Red Cross, the white cross, the blue cross, or anything else. You are calling for it now, right across the country; your cheques are collected in that way.

Industrial Relations


John Horace Dickey: But in this instance the
employer must freely agree to make the deduction.


Clarence Gillis: If the act says that I shall make application to pay my dues in that way, then my plant employer should accept it. There are many things, including unemployment insurance, handled in that way. There are so many that the bill would be talked out if I started to name them.
The one point about which I am most concerned, and the one which I believe should be driven home, is that this is supposed to be a national labour code. At least fifteen years ago every province in Canada, with the exception of the two central provinces, enacted labour codes and trade union acts of their own. In every one of those trade union acts we find this type of checkoff. That is the law of the provinces now. No province in Canada will accept this as a national code unless the provision we suggest is written in. If they did, it would be a backward step. And the organized trade union movement, which this affects directly, would not stand for it in any province-and the provincial governments know that. Until such time as we are prepared at least to bring our national code into step with the provincial codes, then in this country there will always remain a code for Ontario, and perhaps later on for Quebec. Definitely Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island-


Mr. Blackmore:: Put Alberta in there.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and Alberta-if we wish to make it a national code, then let us at least try to keep up to date with the provincial codes. The minister may now speak.


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Williams), the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). The hon. member for Ontario spoke about Lord Baldwin, and paid tribute to the trade union organization of Canada.
I believe that the trade union movement of Great Britain was far more conscious of the effect of the revolution in Germany under Hitler than was any other force in that country. They possibly took a more leading part than any other organization. They were ahead of public opinion, as trade unions usually are in these matters.
My hon. friend is a miner. He comes from South Wales.


Arthur Henry Williams: Was.
[Mr. Gillis.l


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, I would say to my hon. friend: Once a miner always a miner. You think like a miner. My mind goes back to South Wales-and I knew many of them there. The hon. member and I listened to Davie Grenfell the other day, an old friend of his and mine of many years' standing, when he spoke about the coal industry before the Canadian club in this city. Let me say to my hon. friend that they have not the check-off in South Wales, nor does the legislation in Great Britain contain the provisions that have been advocated on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps it is that they have more sense, that they have a deeper appreciation of the fact that what governments can give they can take away. As I have explained before in this House of Commons, that is exemplified by what happened in Germany. At one time the German trade union movement was the most powerful in the world, notwithstanding the prominence of the trade union in Great Britain. Employers and employees went to the state to have regulations passed covering everything. When the revolution occurred they were not free citizens; they were simply servants of the state.
I have some knowledge of the Tolpuddle martyrs of Great Britain, some of whom are buried outside of London, Ontario. I have some knowledge of what trade unionism went through in Great Britain, the cradle of the trade union movement as we understand it in the world today. If the hon. member for Ontario will go back home among his constituents I think he will take the opinion of those simple souls-I am one myself-in their approach to this sort of problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre laughs when I say that I am a simple soul. I will be frank and say that I believe in simple things that move the destiny of a nation or civilization. When you have passed the ten commandments there is not much left. It is the clever individuals, the so-called intellectuals-


Mr. Casselman:: Careful.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am looking at the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas when I say that.


Arza Clair Casselman: He did not mean that.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the clever people, the intellectuals who have given the world more trouble than any other section of society. I would rather take a good, common-sense understanding of life of the average man or woman on the street than of all those people put together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, any question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this provision seems so objectionable why did the Liberal party endorse it at its convention last summer?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can answer that, too.


Thomas John Bentley: You were probably run by intellectuals.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Swift Current is a man like myself. The C.C.F., or the socialist party as some people call them, had a convention in Regina some years ago. They are always talking about what the Conservatives said, what the Liberals said and what the Social Crediters said, but what they said is down on paper. Everything is worked out on paper. I believe that when we have educated the workers of Canada on the necessity of belonging to a trade union they will not need legislation to govern the normal things that transpire in the day to day negotiations between employer and employee. Frankly I believe that this is something that should be negotiated.
At the moment some labour organizations in this country are having difficulty with the communists. The other day there was an employer in my office. I meet them all, employers and employees. As I said the other night, we give them advice for nothing but they do not always take it. One of the large unions is dominated by the communist party. It has the check-off. A fight is going on within the union over the leadership. This employer told me that he was paying $20,000 per month into the treasury of that communist organization. Why would not the communists want the check-off? That is cold cash. That is live money. I would rather have a trade union organization which was based on service to its membership and which was disciplined by the membership. This is the basis of operations in Great Britain.
I may not be given credit for it, but some years ago I took some part in the establishment of the organizations in the automobile industry in Windsor. I believe in a healthy trade union organization where character is the basis of negotiation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who used to be a clergyman, laughs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, I was not laughing at the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member was probably laughing at himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was laughing at a remark that had been made behind me. But I still
Industrial Relations
would like an answer to my question. Why did the Liberal party endorse the principle which the minister is now opposing?


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought perhaps my hon. friend was laughing at himself because it is a wonder he does not do it sometimes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a good thing to be able to do.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know that. There was a saying in old Russia before the days of the communists that to see if you are stupid, you should take a look in the glass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget my question.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member broke the trend of my thoughts. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said that last year this was taken out of the bill recommended by the committee when it came on the floor of the house. That is the genius of parliament. You cannot have everything your own way. If we were all of one political stripe in this country, if we were all like my good Tory friends-


Arthur Henry Williams: Heaven forbid.


Humphrey Mitchell: -or if we were all sensible people like the Liberals-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says "explain," but I want to say this-


Arthur Henry Williams: The minister has only ten minutes left.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am just indicating the lessons that trade unionists-


An hon. Member:: What lessons?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend never carried a card in his life and he does not know what he is talking about. I have one in my pocket right now and he would not know what a card was. If we were all of the same opinion, if we were all C.C.F.'ers, it would be a pretty monotonous world in which to live. I expressed the opinion before the committee and before the house that you should not attempt to negotiate trade union agreements in your legislatures or in your national legislative body. In my opinion the check-off and other things should be negotiated between the employer and employee. It may be that some day opinion in this country will be overwhelming, and many things more advanced than the check-off will be in effect. I suggest to the hon. member that he go back to Oshawa. They do not have the check-off in Oshawa.


Arthur Henry Williams: It would not touch those people there.
2500

Industrial Relations


Humphrey Mitchell: They do not need the checkoff on the railroads.


Arthur Henry Williams: We have it there.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is what I mean by negotiations. That is true. Then I come to my next point, and I say that what a government can give it can take away. There was the experience of the Wagner act in the United States. In the opinion of certain people that act went too far to the left. Then you had the swing of the pendulum, and today you have the Taft-Hartley law in the United States. I would rather have our approach to the problem.
I was involved in a desperate strike in the Ford motorcar industry in the city of Windsor some two or three years ago. I appointed as commissioner Mr. Justice Rand, who recommended the Rand formula. Up to this time I think the Rand formula has worked fairly satisfactorily in that industry. They have never had more peace than under that industry between the trade union and the employer and without the interference of the government.


Clarence Gillis: There was government interference there.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appointed a commissioner.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly, and without the government you would not have had it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appointed a commissioner and you got the Rand formula. You cannot tell, however, what kind of government you will have in the House of Commons ten years hence, not one year hence, but ten years hence. You may have a very peculiar type of government. I remember discussing the Taft-Hartley law with some of the ranking officials of the American Federation of Labor in Ottawa. Under the Taft-Hartley law you have a swing of the pendulum back to the situation years before the Wagner act was passed. Under the Taft-Hartley law the closed shop is illegal. In the printing industry in Chicago there is still a strike which has lasted for the last eighteen months, brought about by the passage of that law. I am not criticizing legislation passed by any other country in the world. That is not my business; I am merely being analytical.


Clarence Gillis: Seven of our provinces have it.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true. If my hon. friend wishes to do so, he can easily have such legislation adopted in the province of Ontario. All he needs is to count noses; that is the way it is done. Under our British institutions and our method of government, we compromised in the committee to get

what, in my judgment, is the best piece of labour legislation in the world. When my friend, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Williams), says that the house has never taken into consideration-


Clarence Gillis: He did not say that.


Arthur Henry Williams: Oh, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wrote his words down somewhere.


Arthur Henry Williams: Then you were not able to write them down correctly.


Clarence Gillis: The session is short, we may have an election, and there will be no chance to do it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the words of the hon. member for Ontario were that there was not much being done for the trade union movement in this session. I am speaking of the labour movement in its broadest sense. Every piece of dominion social legislation that has had for its purpose the raising of the standard of living of the Canadian people has been passed by a Liberal administration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget to answer my question before your time runs out.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have answered the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked why the Liberal party endorsed this plan which the minister is now opposing in the house.


An hon. Member:: Ask another question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am waiting for an answer to that one.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say to my hon. friends, irrespective of where they sit in the opposition, that distant pastures always look green. There are some people who refer to Sweden as the country of the middle way, and next it is New Zealand, where the taxes-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute; you sit down. Then next it is New Zealand, where the taxes are somewhat higher than they are in Canada at the moment. Then they switch to Great Britain, and because their budget was not so good a couple of days ago they will have to find another haven. They are just like a gang of wandering minstrels. I have not been to every country in the world, but I have been to most of them, and I do not know of a better country under the canopy of heaven than the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 82, to provide for the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I was a bit hasty before the supper recess in prematurely moving my motion for an instruction to the committee. I hope at this time that you may be able to find it in order. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley):
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 82 by inserting therein immediately after section 2, subsection (1), the following new subsection (2):
"(2) The governor in council may by order grant authority to any two or more such provincial boards or agencies to form a central selling agency for the purposes of interprovincial and export trade. Such central selling agency shall have any or all powers like the powers exercisable by the provincial boards or agencies comprising the said central selling agency."
And by re-numbering the present subsection (2) of section 2 as subsection (3).
I move this instruction to the committee because I feel that the act, while it is good as far as it goes, does not go far enough. Under it provincial marketing boards will be set up in each of the provinces, and they will be authorized to enter into interprovincial and export trade. To do that they have to set up some sort of selling agency to sell their products interprovincially and in export markets. Let us take coarse grains and see what will happen in western Canada. There are three provinces there, and if their coarse grains were not marketed under the wheat board undoubtedly they would proceed under this act to set up provincial boards. What position would that put them in if there were three provincial boards, each selling coarse grains in the export market in competition with each other instead of in co-operation? You will have the same situation as far as honey or any other agricultural product is concerned. It will simply mean that every province will be setting up its own agency to sell the same products.
I see no reason why we should not give authority to these provincial boards under this act, when they are carrying on trade interprovincially and in export markets, to set up a central selling agency to act for those provinces in concert. It seems to me to be the sensible thing to do.
2501
Agricultural Products Marketing Act Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wright moves, seconded by Mr. Bentley:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend bill 82 by inserting therein immediately after section 2, subsection (1), the following new subsection (2):
"(2) The governor in council may by order grant authority to any two or more such provincial boards or agencies to form a central selling agency for the purposes of interprovincial and export trade. Such central selling agency shall have any or all powers like the powers exercisable by the provincial boards or agencies comprising the said central selling agency."
And by renumbering the present subsection (2) of section 2 as subsection (3).
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious that this bill, when it goes through the house and becomes a statute, shall be intra vires of this parliament. I have taken some trouble to be assured that it is intra vires. In the first place, we had the advice of the gentleman who was the secretary of the farmers' organization and who took the British Columbia act through to the privy council, to the effect that this legislation meets with the approval of those who are interested in having it put on the statute books. They had already satisfied themselves that it was intra vires.
In addition to that, when we were drafting the legislation two years ago we engaged the services of the solicitor of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We brought him to Ottawa and had him work along with the officials of our own department in drafting legislation which, we were assured-that is as sure as one can be on matters of this kind- would be intra vires. As the minister concerned, I asked that the bill be drafted so that the authority which we had to give could be transferred to the agency or board that might be set up under provincial legislation to do this particular job.
In so far as I am able to understand English, that provision is made. This bill does not provide that the government must set up some particular form of board or particular form of organization. It does exactly what the farmers have requested. With regard to the marketing of oats and barley, to which reference has been made by the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), it leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the producers. That is what they requested. When they were here last month they said they wanted a board which was a producers board. They were even critical of the present wheat board, stating it was not a producers board. This legislation makes it possible for them to have a producers board established by themselves without any interference on the part of the government.
2502	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Products Marketing Act


Percy Ellis Wright: These instructions would not change that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The instruction does a lot more than that, as will be seen from what I am going to read in a moment. Before doing that, I wanted to explain to the house that we have taken every precaution to see that this legislation is intra vires. We have taken every precaution at the same time to make it satisfactory to those who are requesting it. Then, we have taken a further precaution to try to make sure we are not interfering with the farm organizations that desire to have these boards set up. In connection with interprovincial and international trade, we have undertaken to give to the proper agency the powers which these boards are exercising within the province, to be exercised with regard to the product outside the province. I am satisfied that the legislation as it is does do that. It has been moved that we be instructed to put something else in the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To have the power to do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the use of moving it if you are not going to say, when we get into the committee stage, that this house has instructed the committee to do it? That must be the point in moving it, if there is any point in doing so. I would say the motion is out of order. In the first place, what is being proposed can be done in committee. If this house is going to instruct the committee that the committee must do it, then I presume when this bill goes to the committee we will be required to do it. When this bill is referred to committee the committee itself may do it, but it is not instructed by the house or by anyone to do it.
I should like to quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, article 410, which has been read to the house on a number of occasions today:
An instruction to a committee of the whole is a motion which ought to have the right of way on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. It should therefore be moved after the motion to refer the bill has been passed and before the question is put that the Speaker leave the chair.
Then, article 411 reads as follows-


Percy Ellis Wright: That is when I moved it,
before supper.


James Garfield Gardiner: Article 411 reads as follows:
If an instruction is moved when the motion to leave the chair is proposed, then it becomes an amendment which, if agreed to, supersedes the motion for the house to go into the committee which cannot be proceeded with for the time being.
Well, I do not know what the desire of the C.C.F. may be. Is it the desire to simply leave this bill in the air from now until the time we come back after Easter?


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume, if we follow this rule, we could either debate this all night and then take a vote on it or say that we will decide to leave the decision until a later date, and the matter will not go before the committee at all.
The suggestion we make is that this bill be allowed to go into committee and that it be considered in committee. If the suggestion that is now being proposed by way of an instruction from the house is discussed in committee, a decision could be made at that time as to whether or not we are going to proceed on that basis. I believe that when all the arguments are presented at that stage the committee will probably determine to abide by the advice received from the legal authorities and agree with what we are doing rather than act on a suggestion of this kind. At the moment, I am suggesting that the amendment is out of order on the ground that it is proposed that we do something now which we can properly do in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word or two on the points of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture? With regard to the second point of order, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on that before the recess. The Minister of Agriculture is arguing that it should not have been made at this time, but Your Honour ruled before the recess that this is the time to make it, so that is really not in dispute.
With regard to the other point of order the minister raises, namely, that this amendment is out of order on the ground that the committee has power to do what it proposes, I would say that, if Your Honour so rules, that would be acceptable to the member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright). All that the member for Melfort wishes is to make sure that, when the house gets into committee, he can move such an amendment. If Your Honour, in keeping with the suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture, says the member has that right and that this motion of instruction is therefore unnecessary, the purpose has been served.


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of the house to May, fourteenth edition, page 471 and the chapter entitled, "Instructions": Permissive Instructions-The object of a permissive instruction, which is the more ordinary form, is to confer on the committee authority to do something which, without the instruction, they would have no power to do . . .
I would call the attention of the hon. member to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 151, part of citation 407, which reads as follows:
If the subject-matter of an instruction is within the scope of the question referred to the committee then sucli instruction is useless and irregular.

Since this instruction moved by the hon. member is within the scope of the bill, I must declare the motion out of order.
Motion (Mr. Gardiner) agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to ask the minister a few questions in order to obtain some information. Has the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked for a central selling agency? Further, I should like to point out that there seems to be some argument for the point that this bill as it is introduced will not fully meet the point of the coarse grain producers in this country. I should like to draw the minister's attention to the resolution which was passed unanimously by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Saskatoon in the latter part of March. They requested that the Canadian wheat board-
. . . be the sole marketing agency of coarse grains and that any legislation giving the Canadian wheat board the same exclusive powers over the marketing of other grains as it now exercises over wheat shall be based on the principle that the Canadian wheat board shall be an agency operating for the benefit and the interest of grain producers with a duty to sell grain for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets.
I should like to ask the minister further, when he answers me, if he could make clear to the committee whether or not it would be out of the jurisdictions of provincial boards, in the control over our terminal elevators which would have to be handled or controlled by provincial boards for the storage of coarse grains? Would we not also run into difficulty if the federal government, through some federal board, did not handle the coarse grains which were going in transit from province to province? In that regard I refer to box cars. Then again, in regard to our export market, there are those of us who feel that, because we have lost a great many of our export markets both in eggs and in other farm products, it is necessary to have a federal export board which will be prepared to take the surplus farm commodities over and above our domestic consumption.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question has been asked as to whether I am acquainted with the resolution which was passed at Saskatoon. I answer that question by saying that I was one of the committee of three of council that met the delegation that came from Saskatoon to Ottawa to present the resolution. The resolution which was passed at Saskatoon was first discussed at a meeting which was held in Regina and which was attended by the premiers of the three prairie provinces.
8. 1949
Agricultural Products Marketing Act Then the three premiers, together with the representatives of the farm organizations, came to Ottawa. When I speak of farm organizations, I am speaking not only of western organizations but of eastern ones. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture brought representatives here along with the three premiers and they presented the resolution which has just been read to the house.
One of the questions I asked them was as to whether they were arguing or suggesting that the present wheat board is not a producers board. There was not anyone who would come out definitely and say it was not a producers board, but they said it had been operating in a manner which was not entirely in the interests of the producer. I asked this question: What producers are you talking about? Are you talking about the producers of oats and barley out in western Canada or are you including the feeders of oats and barley in eastern Canada who are also farmers? Which are you speaking of? They intimated that they were trying to speak for all the producers, but there might be some doubt. Then I asked them this definite question: Are you opposed to the board, whether it is the wheat board or whatever board it may be, deciding that instead of selling grain to the feeders in Denmark, they are going to retain oats and barley in Canada in order to feed the livestock we have in this country? Or are you saying that we must sell the oats and barley at the highest price we can get, even if we take the oats and barley out of this country and leave our own feeders without feed grain? The answer I finally received was: We think you should sell it at the highest price you can get for it no matter where you sell it.
The natural position to take on that is that we have had experiences in this country over a long period of years in connection with growing grain. Our grain is grown in an area that is subject to drought, and there has not been a five-year period that I can recall in the time that I have been associated with western Canada when some one of the provincial governments did not have to ask for support from the federal government and from the railways in order to see to it that no grain was taken out of certain areas of western Canada at any price. If it were taken out, then the livestock in those areas would go without feed.
We have had conditions like that within the last three years. The provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan have appealed to me as Minister of Agriculture to see to it that no grain was moved for several months at a time out of the area west of the Soo line, and that within the last three years. In this country I do not think you can have a control over coarse grain which would meet the con-
2504	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Marketing Act ditions that are in the resolution that has just been read to this house, where the only people who are going to be given consideration are what are called the producers of oats and barley; and more particularly if you are going to take the position that we must offer the grain for sale to farmers, let us say in eastern Canada, in competition with grain which may be shipped in from the Argentine by boat-which is a possibility at all times- under the resolution we are compelled to provide that the western farmer will receive a certain advance on his grain which may turn out to be more than it can be sold for.
Then you must meet the condition that exists in another part of Canada where a surplus of grain may be shipped over from the United States at a lower price, or shipped in by boat from the Argentine at a lower price and sold on this market. Under those conditions you must not forget the fact that in order to pay that difference we must take money out of the treasury, which was paid into it by all the taxpayers of Canada. In other words it is impossible to operate the wheat board on the basis which is suggested in the resolution which was read this evening.
After we had these discussions I think they suggested that under certain circumstances they might go back and in the other two provinces pass the enabling legislation which was asked for last session. It had already been passed in Saskatchewan. It has since been passed in Alberta. At that time they said they would go back and consider passing it.
I understand it is under consideration in Manitoba.
If what they want in western Canada is the marketing of oats and barley through the wheat board they do not need the powers of this legislation at all in order to get it. They can get their marketing of oats and barley through the wheat board by enacting the legislation already enacted by Alberta and Saskatchewan and if it is enacted by Manitoba. I understand it is being introduced into the house now. They can settle the question to their own satisfaction as to whether they are prepared to market their oats and barley through the wheat board as it is now constituted.


Thomas John Bentley: May I ask a question? If Manitoba passes that legislation, is the statement that the minister has just made definite government policy, that coarse grains will be dealt with in that way?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not in my department. The hon. member heard what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. He has told this house that that is the position.


Thomas John Bentley: I have the quotation here, but may we have that assurance now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not going to give the hon. member any assurance except as I myself heard it, which I understood was an assurance. I heard it also made to the group that was down here from western Canada.
I know that there are many farmers in western Canada who believe that the worst thing that could possibly be done would be to ask the wheat board to market oats and barley. There are thousands of them who believe that. And everyone I know who believes that is a believer in the wheat board as a means of handling the wheat of this country. They are fearful that if the wheat board is put into the position where it must market oats and barley under instructions from this parliament they will get into so much difficulty in a very short period of time that it will discredit the wheat board itself. There are a great many farmers who believe that. This legislation does make it possible for the farmers, if they decide on the alternative, to set up their own board. Under the provincial legislation there is no lack of authority. In the Saskatchewan act there is no lack of authority. I also have the act which was passed by Alberta and repealed, and I have the Manitoba act. They are in the same terms. The Ontario act is in somewhat different terms, but nevertheless it does give a very considerable part of the authority which is in this act. This act gives to the boards that degree of authority that one could hope for in connection with any board that has the power to take delivery of anything. May I read two sections of it? The board consists of three members.
4.	The lieutenant governor in council may also appoint such advisory committees, officers, clerks and servants as are necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of this act and the regulations and may fix their remuneration.
5.	The purpose and intent of this act is to provide for the promotion, control and regulation in any or all respects of the transportation, packing, storage and marketing of natural products which are within the province, including the prohibition of such transportation, packing, storage and marketing in whole or in part.
I read that in order to point out that, under this act, provincially authority is given to set up a board and to give it absolute authority within the province to take delivery of a product. They can do it under that section if the farmers desire to do it. They put the board that they have set up within the province in the position of owning all the oats and barley, if it is oats and barley that they are going to deal with. And when they own all the oats and barley-at least they have it all in their control; it is probably owned by the farmers-they can

market it; and in so far as what they are going to market inside the province is concerned they require no authority whatsoever from us. When they start to market it outside the province, then they must get some authority from us. What we say in this bill is that we may give them that authority.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister quoted from the Saskatchewan act. Is there not a clause in the Saskatchewan act which says that their board is prepared to co-operate with other boards outside the province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that authority is in the act. There is authority in the act to cooperate not only with the other boards but with a dominion board. What it says is this:
A board may co-operate with any dominion board or provincial board to regulate the marketing of any natural product of the province and may act conjointly with the dominion board or provincial board and may perform such functions and duties and exercise such powers as are prescribed by this act or the regulations.
There is no question about the board having the right within the province to take possession of a commodity, if they are given that authority by the legislature of the province. They can take delivery of it; they can set the price of it; they can say what must be paid as an initial payment and then provide for participation. I recall that at the time we were putting through legislation having to do with the pools-and some suggestion was made today that we ought to say something about pools in this legislation-when I was in the legislature of Saskatchewan it was determined that legislation with regard to pools had to be put through by the provinces; and for that reason they had to set up a pool in each province, not a pool for all the three provinces; and then these pools in each province appointed a central selling agency which had offices in Winnipeg and sold for all three pools.
I submit that there is a possibility of the same thing being done under this legislation. But knowing that, when it was suggested to me that we should put into this legislation authority to deal with pooling, I immediately made inquiries of the legal authorities with regard to the matter and was advised that we might be creating a situation where this legislation might be questioned, and for that reason the draft is as it is.
If they desire to do so, the provinces, under their legislation, can take care of the pooling requirements. Once they have obtained possession of the grain by that method they can make payments on the pooling system without any authority whatsoever from us. The only matter that we are interested in is the matter of marketing the product outside
Agricultural Products Marketing Act the province. What we say here is, if I may read the section:
The governor in council may by order grant authority to any board or agency ....
That board or agency is authorized under the law of any province to exercise powers of regulation in relation to the marketing of any agricultural products, locally within the province. May I go back for a moment?
. . . authority to any board or agency ... to regulate the marketing of such agricultural product outside the province in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes to exercise all or any powers like the powers exercisable by such board or agency in relation to the marketing of such agricultural product locally within the province.
Then it goes on to say that the governor in council may take away any of the powers after they have given them. In addition it says:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions governing the granting and revocation of authority under section two and generally may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
I am told by the legal authorities, both by those representing the farmers and by our own legal authorities, that the government is given here all the authority that is necessary to do the things that the farmers say they want to have done.
I do not want to recommend to the committee, nor would I like to accept from the committee, an amendment which would change the meaning of that section, because of the fact that the legality of the section depends absolutely upon the wording of it. The question is as to whether we are taking more authority than we are entitled to take in connection with the marketing of products inside a province as related to the marketing outside. I am told that this bill provides what the farmers want, and their own legal adviser says it does. Our own legal authorities say it does. For that reason I do not think we should start to change it until we have at least had some experience with it and know whether or not it will do all the things we want it to do.
I think it will, and we intend to operate it in that way. If it is found later on that there are some things that could be put into it, without endangering the act itself, in order to make it work, then we can take care of that as time goes on.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is one question I should like to ask the minister. He has said he had consultation with the farm organizations with respect to this bill, before it was drafted, as to the form in which it should be drafted. There is no doubt that they did raise the question with the minister with respect to some form of central selling agency. If the

Agricultural Products Marketing Act minister is prepared to say that they are satisfied with the act as it stands, or as he has brought it in, and that under that act they feel they can do the things which they believe are necessary, then I do not think any further amendment is necessary. But I should like to have the assurance of the minister in that respect.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, what I can say is this, that we were in constant communication during all the time this draft was being made. As a matter of fact, when they first came to see me about it, when the draft was being made, they had forgotten that this short bill was ever submitted to us. I raised the question when they came in.
They began discussing the question of some kind of agency to take care of the marketing of their surplus products. I said to them, "What I would like to see you have is an agency that you yourselves set up. I do not want you to be subject to a change of boards when you have a change of governments, and all that kind of thing. It is your own business. What I would like to see you have is legislation where you yourselves can set up the boards; and you can ask us to give that particular organization whatever authority it requires."
Well, they went back and worked for a day or two. Then they came back again and discussed the matter. I said to them, "Where is that short bill?" They said, "What short bill?" I said, "The bill Mr. Haskin drafted" -after they had had the question discussed by the privy council. They went back over to the offices and found the short bill on the files. I found it on my files before they found it on theirs.
We then read the bill carefully. As I said this afternoon, the bill is not in exactly the same language. I put it on Hansard so that you could read it and would see that it is not in exactly the same language. But I think it does put in legal language exactly what they tried to say in the model bill. And perhaps it puts it in a form which makes it safer from the legal point of view than it was in the model bill.
When they were working at it the one point in their minds, and the one point that was in my mind, was that whatever board they had to handle their farm products-and we were not thinking so much of oats and barley as my hon. friends are thinking of them, because it covers all farm products- I was saying to them and they were saying to me, "We want some way where we can set up a board of our own, with the setting up of which the government has nothing to do, but to which the government is prepared to give authority." That is what we tried to do in this measure. For example we do not

appoint the tree fruits board in British Columbia; we have nothing to do with that.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Melfort wishes to know this: Were the farm organizations which the minister mentioned satisfied that this bill would do what they wanted to be done?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I was satisfied that they were, and they have not asked me to change it in any way. They have seen it and read it, and they have not asked me to change it. As a matter of fact the president was up in the gallery all afternoon listening to us, and he has not said he wanted it changed.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has not yet answered the question I raised and that is this: Was the matter discussed of some central selling agency which had to sell for the boards of more than one province?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the Only thing that was discussed. And they finally agreed that if boards were set up to handle any particular farm products, it was better to have a board that was constituted by the farmers themselves. Their only concern was that we would have authority to give them authority to deal with the conditions that exist. We have proceeded in this act to do that.
We say to them, "You set up an agency in your province to take possession of the product; and under your own provincial law you have authority to take delivery of everything that is marketed in the province."
Now may I say that with respect to most farm products that is the effect of it. We have no authority whatsoever with regard to most products in Ontario, where they eat most of their food products. Out in the three western provinces we export 80 per cent of our wheat. A very considerable percentage of our pork is exported, if we are producing to the possible limit. The same applies to our cattle, and other things.
The position with regard to those is as I have indicated, and the same applies to the potatoes of my hon. friend (Mr. Michaud). Each of the maritime provinces has a bill like the one from Saskatchewan which I was reading. Each of the prairie provinces has a bill. Those are the provinces which are most concerned in this matter because they produce certain surpluses.
I have no doubt in the world that if one province comes under this act they can find agencies outside the province concerned which will take their products and handle them for them. They can appoint a board, or they may wish to appoint somebody who is in the business to do that job for them. What they ask of us is that no matter whom

they appoint to do that job as agent, we are prepared to give them the authority to handle it. Let us assume, for example, that the three provinces in the west have boards set up. Then their own acts make provision for their co-operating with boards in other provinces. We say to them that if they desire to set up a central selling agency of their own representatives, and that is the way they want it marketed, then we will give authority to whatever agency they set up to handle the products outside.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the point I wish to make.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly the way it is.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am satisfied if that is the principle.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what we are trying to do, and that is what we think we have done.


Mr. Charlton:: On section 2-I understand section 1 is carried.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Governor in council may grant authority to provincial boards to exercise powers of regulation outside the province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The discussion has been on section 2.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then, concerning section 2,
I would ask this question: If a board or agency is authorized or set up by a province, will it be acceptable after this act is passed? Will any board set up subsequent to the passage of this measure be acceptable under it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say yes. I was wondering whether the hon. member was asking about any board already set up. Yes, any board set up would come under this act. So long as it was set up under a provincial marketing act, then this becomes operative.


Mr. Campbell:: What is the purpose of subsection (2)?


James Garfield Gardiner: That provision is in the model bill that was handed to us. All this bill does is to take the three things that were proposed in section 2 of the model bill and put them in three subsections. One gives authority to the government to give whatever authority we have to the agency that the farmers desire to have handle their product. The second one says that if we find that some authority that has been given is being abused or that something is done which the government thinks should not be done, we may revoke it. I can scarcely conceive of a condition under which that might
Agricultural Products Marketing Act happen, but we are given that authority. What we can give, we can take away. This is along the lines of what the Minister of Labour was talking about a short time ago.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister was talking about hog producers. If provincial legislation is passed permitting the farmers to carry on interprovincial and export trade would that legislation go so far as to compel the packing plant to deliver bacon to the board so that the board would have the selling of it? In most cases the hogs are sold to the packing plants and once the hogs are out of the hands of the farmers they are no longer their property and the legislation might not be of much benefit in the export field unless that power were granted.


James Garfield Gardiner: The province can declare that any farm product must be delivered to the board. It might be handled in the same way as wheat is handled. We say that all wheat that comes to the elevator is delivered to the wheat board and the province may say that all hogs that come to the packing plant are delivered to the board. The packing plant would be operating as the agent of the board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Following the question asked by the hon. member for Brant, I should like to ask the minister if he thinks that the bill as it is presented would apply to boards that might be set up in the future under provincial legislation? Does he not think that it might be more advisable to say "authorized or to be authorized under the law of any province"?


James Garfield Gardiner: I see what my hon. friend
has in mind, but the intention certainly is as I have stated it. The provincial acts would grant authority to set up boards and then we say that if boards are set up we are prepared to give them authority. I cannot conceive of its being interpreted as not giving authority to any board in existence when the act comes into effect or that may be set up afterward.


Thomas John Bentley: I have a question to ask that I should like to have answered if possible. The minister has been most gracious tonight and has cleared up some points that were doubtful in our minds. There is one section of the agricultural industry which has not been dealt with tonight. About ten days or two weeks ago the poultry association presented to the minister a brief which asked definitely for federal centralization of the export marketing of eggs. I think that this must be one section of the agricultural industry which is not too happy with this bill.
2508

Agricultural Products Marketing Act


James Garfield Gardiner: When that delegation came to Ottawa they had never seen this bill. They did not come here to protest against the bill because it had never been distributed. While it has been in print for two years it has never been out of the hands of the authorities. I doubt very much if any member of this committee ever saw it. Many bills are printed in advance. We mull over a bill and then have it reprinted if we do not like it a month later or a year later until we finally get it in shape. As I have said, this bill has been in print for about two years but it has never been out of the hands of the authorities. It has been in print in secret, so to speak.
This group of poultry people came here and made recommendations. Their first recommendation-I do not know whether it is in the typewritten copy-was that they wanted us to continue the special products board to market their eggs and poultry. We had let their poultry out from under the special products board because we were selling in the United States instead of to Britain. They said that they had had absolute satisfaction under the special products board and they hoped that they could have their products handled in that way all the time.
I said to them that we appreciated the confidence they had in us but that the actual position was that as soon as we had no contracts with Great Britain with regard to eggs-the British wanted to cancel the one this year-I had no authority to handle their eggs; the authority to take delivery would go back to the provinces. Then they asked if we could not buy their eggs. I said that maybe we could but I did not know whether we could sell them or not under certain circumstances. I said, "You want a certain price paid for eggs and we agree to buy them at that price. We are dealing with the people's money. We might get away with it for one year; we might buy eggs at 75 cents a dozen and sell them at 50 cents, but I am quite sure that we would not get away with it very long." I said, "We could not give satisfaction under that kind of board."
To make a long story short, I finally asked them if they had discussed the question with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and they said, no. I told them that they had a model bill over there and they had better go over to have a look at it. That was not our bill but it contained the same provisions in other language. I do not know whether they were satisfied after they had talked to the federation because they did not come back. It was made plain to them that if they wanted a board of that kind they could probably get it under this type of legislation. I have no doubt that the poultry people and (Mr. Bentley.]
those who are selling eggs are feeling as well pleased with this legislation as any other group of farmers.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Melfort had an amendment.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not going to move it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot understand why this section should be so wide in its scope. Under section 2 the minister is empowered to grant authority-


James Garfield Gardiner: The governor in council, not the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then in section 3 he is empowered to make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions. I cannot contemplate what sort of terms and conditions would prevail. It seems to me that all that would be necessary would be a simple order in council stating that the authority is granted. What kind of terms and conditions has the minister in mind?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no particular terms or conditions in mind. I have in mind a lot of things that my hon. friends over here have been afraid of. They are afraid that this general power that we are taking under section 2 does not give us all the authority we require to have in order to make the thing work. If any regulations are required in order to make it work, then I point out that it says in section 3:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the terms and conditions governing the granting and revocation of authority under section 2 and generally may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
I think that the last part in particular is very necessary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So do I, the last part, but not the first part.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that a board may be set up in a province, and may want to bring about co-operation with a board in another province; if so, it will want to know in advance the conditions under which we would revoke the powers that were given. That would have to be written right into the regulations at the time. It might be asked by one party that something to that effect be put in and we might agree to it. Therefore I think that we should have the authority to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3

Regulations.
Mr. Quelch:: Am I right in assuming that the prices of agricultural products marketed under these boards will be supported under the Agricultural Prices Support Act up to March 31, 1950 at least?


James Garfield Gardiner: The marketing of farm products is being supported under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and I do not think there is doubt in anyone's mind that it will not be up until March 31, 1950. We have the authority up to that time. I would not like to say, however, that every product that is under this act will be under that one because there are many of the products that are now producing more than I think the farmers expected to get for them when the act was passed.


Victor Quelch: Yes. I am only referring to the case where the price may fall below the level covered under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: This act does not interfere in any way with the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister explain why the Agricultural Prices Support Act could not be continued beyond March 31, 1950? At the present time it is subject to action by the governor in council. The minister has admitted that, in an effort to achieve stabilization, the farmers have been required to take less since 1942 than they might otherwise have received. So far the policy of the government as to stabilization has been largely to keep prices down rather than up. That has been so since 1942. Therefore our farmers are justified in demanding that prices should be supported for at least another five years to balance the period of time when the government's program kept prices down.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question that was
brought up in the house at the time the agricultural prices support bill was brought in in 1944 was a question as to whether we were going to put a time limit on it. If we had put a five-year time limit on it it would have expired by now. It is now 1949. I argued at that time that nobody knew how long this legislation would be required. I remember quoting the conditions at the end of the first war which continued for many years, conditions that might be described as those of a transitional period. As a result of the discussions we had in the house then, instead of putting a termination date in the act we said that the operative section of the bill could be brought in by proclamation. We brought into effect immediately the part to appoint the board and put them to work on establishing relationships between farm products and other products, but after having done that we did not bring in the operative section-it was either section 9 or 10-in the bill. We said in the bill that the government could bring that in by proclamation.
When we brought it in by proclamation we brought it in for a certain period. I was
29087-159i
Pipe Lines Act
the minister in charge of the bill, and I must say that I think I was responsible for letting the date go by. Then I was told one day that this particular section of the act was no longer in operation. I had to go back and have it re-enacted by order in council. We have re-enacted it for a year at a time, and I am taking very special care that it does not run out until such time as we can justify its running out.


Victor Quelch: I am not suggesting that it should terminate in five years. I am suggesting that instead of extending it for one year we should extend it for five years in order to balance up the period of time during which prices were kept down under the government program of stabilization.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are difficulties about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 190, respecting oil or gas pipe lines.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the control of interprovincial and international oil or gas pipe lines. There is, I believe, no doubt about the jurisdiction of parliament over international and interprovincial pipe lines. The British North America Act, in so far as both sections 91 and 92 are concerned, covers such a case, and the bill has the approval of the Department of Justice.
At the last session of parliament a bill was introduced in the other place to incorporate Western Pipe Lines. The purpose of that bill was to incorporate a company with power to construct and operate a pipe line for the transmission of natural gas from a point near Calgary to a point near Winnipeg, and also certain branch lines. After considerable discussion the bill was withdrawn by its promoters, and the reason given was that my officers held the view that, to give private companies power over interprovincial and international pipe lines, without some governing body, would be to create a position of chaos in a new and growing field; hence the decision to enact this enabling legislation.
The government has decided to recommend to parliament the enactment of a public statute of general application regulating the

Pipe Lines Act
transportation of natural gas and oil by means of pipe lines connecting two or more provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province. The importance of the oil and natural gas industries to the economic welfare of Canada cannot be overemphasized. Light, heat and power are essential to our needs, and pipe lines are able to serve industry and the public by affording the cheapest and most convenient form of transportation of oil and natural gas.
The petroleum industry, with its diversified products, is a complicated business. The function of the pipe line in the organization of the oil industry is chiefly to serve large oil companies as an important part of their operation in the transformation of crude oil into the finished products ready for the market. Transportation by pipe line of crude oil to the refineries, and of refined oil products from the refineries to the market, is the most economic method of transportation yet devised. The large refineries and the pipe lines are integrated as the pipe lines afford cheap transportation from the oil fields to the refineries, and the refineries are necessary to the economic life of the pipe lines. Pipe lines are essentially one-way carriers and require a large capital investment which in turn needs a large and steady volume of business in order to pay fixed charges, maintenance and operating costs. The risk of shifting sources of supply and markets makes the corporate enterprises engaged in the oil refining business especially suited to the undertaking of building and operating pipe lines.
There are four major oil companies in Canada, British American, Imperial, McColl-Frontenac and Shell. I expect that the construction of pipe lines will be undertaken by subsidiaries of these companies in the near future. As the industry is competitive, I hope that other oil companies will also enter the field. There are now very few pipe lines in Canada extending beyond the limits of a province. There is the Montreal to Portland pipe line which was built during the war as a war measure. There is also a pipe line entering Canada at Sarnia, and I understand there is a pipe line crossing the international border between Alberta and Montana.
The attention of all Canada is now focused on the oil discoveries in Alberta which we hope will exceed our most optimistic expectations. The industry is spending a lot of money and effort to find the petroleum supplies of the future. These efforts are getting results which are most gratifying and a great tribute to the enterprise shown by the oil industry. The oil companies which are interested in the Alberta fields are to be congratulated on the effort, skill and enterprise shown in discovering this new source of supply. This country is fortunate in having people who are bold 
enough to risk their capital in an endeavour to open up these new sources of wealth. The potentialities of the oil industry in Canada are immense.
The new oil fields discovered in Alberta will require the construction of trunk pipe lines to carry the crude oil to refineries and the finished products from the refineries to the markets. Nature has also blessed the province of Alberta with abundant sources of natural gas that can be readily transmitted by pipe line to the great benefit of many communities using or desirous of using gas for light, heat and industrial purposes. I expect that these projected pipe lines will cross both provincial and international boundaries. The regulation of such pipe lines is undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of parliament, and the time is opportune for the enactment of a general act to regulate interprovincial and international oil and gas pipe lines.
The information which I have at the moment is that there are a number of private companies seeking to get special enactments for the purpose of proceeding almost immediately with the construction of these lines.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister say how many?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I could refer briefly to those companies. At the moment I am aware of five, and there may be others. The five are: Interprovincial Pipe Lines; the Queont Pipe Line Company; Western Pipe Lines; Alberta Natural Gas Company; West-coast Transmission Company.
The first of these, the Interprovincial Pipe Lines, is a company sponsored by Imperial Oil Limited. It seeks authority to build pipe lines within or outside of Canada. The company proposes to build a pipe line from Edmonton to Regina as the first stage of its construction. During 1949, if the legislation which they seek is approved, I am informed that the Imperial Oil Company expects to spend between $9 and $10 million on the line between Edmonton and Regina which will run to a total cost estimated at $35 to $40 million. As the company's plans develop, other lines will be built including a line to a point on the international boundary for the purpose of exporting oil to the United States. Perhaps it is of interest to the house to know that the share capitalization of this company is $200 million.
The Queont Pipe Line Company contemplates the possibility of building an interprovincial trunk pipe line, and three of the larger Canadian oil companies have filed a petition for a private bill to cover these plans. It is understood that preliminary studies indicate that the cost of this line might run from

$15 million to $20 million. The information I have indicates that the greater part of that money would be expended in Canada.
Then there is the case of Western Pipe Lines. The first bill that came before the other place during the last session of parliament was withdrawn after its introduction. The sponsors of this bill have informed me that it will again be introduced this session with some changes. According to the information given by the promoters of this bill at the last session, it is proposed to build a pipe line for the transmission of natural gas from a point in the vicinity of Calgary to the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface. The cost of the project was estimated last year at approximately $48 million.
The Alberta Natural Gas Company proposes to build a gas pipe line from the province of Alberta across the mountains to Seattle, in the state of Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. The cost of building the line is estimated at approximately $100 million, and about one-half of this amount will be spent in Canada. The capital required for this project will, in the main, be raised in the United States and I understand that funds are assured. The principals who are backing this venture are geologists and engineers of long experience with undertakings of this kind and are well financed.
The last private company seeking a special act of incorporation is the West Coast Transmission Company. This company seeks to build a line for the transportation of natural gas from Alberta to British Columbia and the state of Washington. I am informed that the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited proposes to spend between $50 million and $100 million on the construction of a gas pipe line from the Alberta gas fields to Vancouver and Seattle. This money will be spent mostly in Canada and will be largely United States capital.
From what I have said it will appear to the house that substantial sums of money will be spent in this country, a sum totaling between $200 million and $250 million, if these private special acts are given approval. Provision is made in this bill, particularly in part two thereof, that the board may order or declare a company to be a common carrier. This part applies to oil pipe lines only and not to gas pipe lines. The reason that this part differentiates between gas and oil pipe lines in so far as being a common carrier is concerned is that natural gas pipe lines, by the nature of the commodity carried and the difficulty of storing the gas, do not lend themselves to the business of common carriers.
In the United States, where they have had more experience with pipe lines than we have
Pipe Lines Act
had in Canada, interstate oil pipe lines are regarded as public transportation agencies and they were placed in the category of common carriers by the Hepburn amendment to the interstate commerce act for the purpose of regulating rates and services. This was done to promote competition in the oil industry by requiring the major oil companies to permit other shippers the use of their lines. Economic superiority of the pipe line as a means of transporting oil over long distances by land routes affords great competitive advantages to an oil company owning a pipe line, but if independent oil companies can use the pipe line as a common carrier this advantage is much lessened. It appears, however, that the regulation in the United States of oil pipe lines as common carriers has not been extensive, which may be explained largely by the fact that the users of pipe lines are in most cases the owners. The powers of the interstate commerce commission over pipe lines under the Hepburn act have been exercised less than its powers over any other type of carrier subject to its jurisdiction.	[DOT]
A moment ago I referred to the distinction in the bill between a gas pipe line and an oil pipe line in so far as the liability as a common carrier is concerned. I may add here that the gas industry is regarded more in the light of a public utility than the oil industry, and more subject to price regulation; but on account of jurisdictional difficulties the bill does not impose any control over the price of gas purchased or sold. The bill gives the board power to order a company operating a gas pipe line to extend or improve its transportation facilities and to sell gas to any person or municipality engaged in the local distribution of gas to the public and for such purpose to construct branch lines to communities immediately adjacent to its pipe lines if the board finds that no undue burden will be placed upon the company thereby.
The bill is a relatively simple one and is composed of several parts. It has an interpretation section; it has a section dealing with the powers of the board; and the powers of the board of transport commissioners are, in so far as the pipe lines are concerned, almost the same as the powers contained in the Railway Act. A section deals with the powers of the company, and those are wide, giving to the company a list of general powers to take lands as set out in clause 7 of the bill. Part I deals with the location of the lines and applies equally to oil pipe lines and gas pipe lines. Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 deal with the procedure before the board of transport commissioners.

Pipe Lines Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but he is not supposed to refer to the clauses of the bill. If I permitted him to do so, I would be obliged to permit other hon. members to do the same.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can easily refrain from referring to the clauses, Mr. Speaker. Let me say that the bill provides for the procedure before the board of transport commissioners. That procedure is for the applicant to file a plan. A plan having been filed, the board may grant leave to construct a line. The board can grant the order provided that certain details such as a book of reference, location of the line, the number of the lot and so forth, are filed with the board. That having been done, the board gives an order and the order must be registered in the registry office for the district or districts in which the line is located. There are provisions having to do with the taking of minerals and the protection thereof. Part III of the bill, as I intimated a moment ago, deals with the fact that oil companies may be made common carriers. I should have said that part II deals with oil lines whereas part III deals exclusively with gas lines. Then there is a part having to do with accounts and statistics, namely part IV.
In the other place there were one or two minor amendments which were made to the act, one having to do with interpretation and the other having to do with exemption with reference to branch lines. I recommend this bill to the house. In doing so, I trust that hon. members will bear in mind that there is great urgency for the passing of this act because of the fact that these private bills are awaiting the passage of this enabling legislation. While there is some urgency because of the importance of these projects, at the same time parliament is breaking new ground in the matter of general pipe line legislation, and the bill deserves the most careful consideration of the house.


Howard Charles Green: The official opposition approve of the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, because we are strongly in favour of the development of the oil resources of Canada-provided of course that, once developed, they are wisely used. We believe that oil and iron can form the foundation upon which Canada could become a great world power. It will be remembered that there is no great power in the world today or in modern times which has not had a great production of iron and steel; together with oil they are of the utmost importance in these modern times.
The minister has said something about the oil and gas resources in the province of Alberta. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that 
the finding of oil in that province has been one of the most important developments in the life of this nation. I believe that by the end of this year there will be a production of crude oil in Alberta of approximately 100,000 barrels a day. If I am wrong in any of these figures, I would ask the minister to correct me. Apparently the quantity required in the three prairie provinces is only about 60,000 barrels per day. There will therefore be, by the end of the year, a surplus of about 40,000 barrels a day. I believe that the requirements of the whole of Canada are something like 290,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Hence Alberta production is now becoming an important factor in supplying the total requirements of Canada.
We hope that the result of this production in Alberta will mean the establishment of many industries in that province and also in the adjoining provinces. We hope too that this oil will eventually be used to cut down the requirements of coal in Ontario. As the house knows, one of the weak spots in the Canadian economy is that we have no coal in Ontario or in Quebec with the result that in both of these provinces we have to import great quantities of coal from the United States.


Clarence Gillis: And leave our own mines idle.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I am afraid in some cases the result is to leave Canadian mines idle in the more remote provinces. We do hope that it will be possible to bring this Alberta oil into Ontario and also into British Columbia. I see no reason why eventually it should not be piped down to the Pacific coast. It is likely also that there will be a surplus which of course can be sold in the United States. It is a very encouraging picture, Mr. Speaker. Not only is there oil in Alberta but we believe that there are also potential oil fields in the Peace river district of British Columbia and in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.
As the minister has said, this is a new field of legislation for the Canadian parliament. It is certain to be a big field. We need only look to the United States where I believe they have a greater mileage of oil pipe lines than they have of railways. I may be wrong in that statement, but in any event they have a very large mileage in the United States.
Because this is a new type of legislation I submit that this proposed control law is of the utmost importance. The bill we are now considering is a key bill based, as the minister has said, on the fact that the pipe lines will cross interprovincial and international boundaries. I understood him to say that that is the reason it is considered that the Canadian parliament, as distinct from the provin-

cial legislatures, has the jurisdiction to introduce a control bill of this kind. The bill brings all these interprovincial and international oil and gas pipe lines under parliament. I believe also the government plans that all the companies must be incorporated under private acts of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: By special acts.


Howard Charles Green: Incorporated by a special act of parliament. As the minister said, there are already five companies interested in applying for such acts. I will not take the time of the house to repeat the names of these companies, but I presume there will be more as time goes on.
The minister has already pointed out that the board of transport commissioners is to be made supreme in administering this act. That is a wise plan, because the board of transport commissioners is a judicial body, and it is wiser to put them in control rather than have the control placed directly in the hands of a department of government. But the minister said nothing at all about the interest of the provinces in these pipe lines.
I believe that the provinces of Canada, certainly the province of Alberta, are vitally interested in this legislation. I am afraid that the legislation will not work out as it is meant to unless there is the utmost cooperation with the provincial authorities.
I am going to suggest to the minister and to the house that when this bill receives second reading it be referred to a committee of the house. I presume the proper committee would be the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I suggest that it be referred to that committee for consideration. The same course should be followed with the special acts which are to be brought in in respect of the different companies. If such procedure is followed the result will be that the members of the house, the press and the Canadian public generally will have an opportunity to study the terms of the bill, and we may find in the end that we have the very best kind of legislation that can be enacted.
If the bill were referred to a committee of the house, witnesses could be called. For example, the provinces should be given the opportunity to make whatever representations they wish before this committee. Officials could be called from the Department of Transport. That was done in the other place, Mr. Speaker. There I believe the solicitor of the department appeared before the committee and also the solicitor of the board of transport commissioners. It would also be wise to call before that committee officials of the companies interested, namely,
Pipe Lines Act
the companies that propose to install these pipe lines.
In connection with the bill I should like to place before the government briefly, four or five considerations. We have not had this bill very long for study, and I do not pretend to have all the suggestions that could be made with respect to it. The first consideration is this. The oil and gas should be used in Canada as much as possible. I would point out to the minister that two of the five companies which he has named are proposing to pipe gas from Alberta down to the Pacific coast, but their main purpose is not to pipe gas to Vancouver but to pipe it to Seattle and Portland in the west coast states of the United States. There is a far bigger population in those two states than in British Columbia, and I believe that the intention is that the main line of these pipe lines will be to these states with a branch up to Vancouver.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, this bill does not provide that pipe lines shall go anywhere. It simply deals with general rules governing interprovincial and international pipe lines. My hon. friend is now talking about private bills that are being introduced in another place, and which will come here in due course. This bill does not provide for piping gas to any particular place.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is quite wrong and is quite out of order because in his speech the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) listed those companies and said where the pipe lines were to run. If he could do that, surely I can. In his speech he said that the pipe lines were to go to Vancouver and Seattle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Again speaking to the point of order, that is true provided this parliament incorporates the companies for that purpose. There is nothing in this bill that permits it.


Howard Charles Green: The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, and I am amazed that the minister should interrupt, is that this oil and gas should be used to the greatest possible extent within our own country. I cite as an example the possibility that these two companies piping natural gas to the Pacific coast may be piping it primarily for the western United States rather than for British Columbia.
The second consideration which I think should be borne in mind is that the dominion government, having stepped into this field, will now be responsible for giving assistance to the provinces in the conservation of these natural resources. I believe this opens the door, or places some obligation at least upon the dominion government to help the provinces conserve these resources.
The third consideration-and this is a very important one-is that this development of

Pipe Lines Act
oil and natural gas must bring down the cost to the Canadian consumer. I submit that the development could be a great help in reducing the cost of living in Canada. There is not much use in Canada's developing vast quantities of oil and natural gas if our people are not going to have any benefit by way of reduced prices for those commodities.
That means that pipe lines should be installed in the most economical way possible. It seems to me some use should be made of the railway rights of way. For example, if pipe lines are to go to the Pacific coast, they will probably have to go through the Yellowhead pass or the Crowsnest pass. Are we to have new rights of way through all those hundreds of miles of mountain country, or is some use to be made of the railway rights of way? That is a point worthy of some thought. The railways have their maintenance staffs; they are already looking after their own rights of way; and surely there would be a great saving if, in so far as is reasonably possible, these pipe lines used railway rights of way. That would also mean far less interference with private property. Under the bill the companies are given the very widest powers of expropriation; they can go onto anyone's land and expropriate. I suggest that consideration be given to making use of railway rights of way.
I understand that this pipe line business is highly profitable; that very large profits can be made out of the operation of pipe lines. I must say 1 am somewhat surprised that the railways are not interested; that they have not stepped in to install at least some of these pipe lines.
A further consideration I place before the minister is that oil pipe lines at least must serve all comers. There is some provision in the bill that they must take oil from whoever offers it. I believe however that in the United States the terminology in the legislation provides that, where there is more oil than can be taken by a pipe line, the company owning the pipe line must take a fair share from everyone offering oil. One could describe it as carrying oil rateably. As I read the bill -and I have gone through it carefully-I do not find any such provision. In my view a provision of that kind should be inserted. Otherwise if one of the oil companies puts in a pipe line, and then has sufficient oil of its own to fill it, the independent operator will just be out of luck. That would be most unfair and, I suggest, should be provided against.
The minister has said that the natural gas lines, as distinguished from the oil lines, are not to be considered as public carriers. That may be a good plan, or it may not. Frankly 
at the present time I cannot understand why they should not both be made public carriers. However, I do not know enough about the business to be emphatic on the point.
The final consideration I place before the minister is that the government must move quickly to set up an efficient staff under the board of transport commissioners to handle the administration of this oil control bill. I should think that experienced oil men would have to be engaged. There would have to be inspectors. A whole new staff must be set up. I hope the control of the board of transport commissioners is not to be a mere formality. If that were to be so, the bill would have little value.
The administration of this measure is left to the board of transport commissioners, and that board must be in a position where it can do a real job. These companies will have to be watched. There will have to be efficient supervision by the board. It is a very busy organization at the present time, trying to settle freight rate questions; and just how it is going to step into this new field and give a proper lead in setting up control of oil and gas pipe lines, I do not see. Before the bill goes to committee I suggest the minister should explain what changes are proposed in the set-up of the board of transport commissioners in order that it might be able to handle this legislation.
Those are all the considerations I have to place before the house. I hope other members will put forward further suggestions. I am sure there are many hon. members in the house who know a great deal more about this subject than I do. The official opposition believe that the bill is of the utmost importance. We pledge our co-operation in getting it into the very best possible form, so that it will be of great benefit to the people of Canada as a whole.


Mr. F. E. Jaenicke (Kindersley):: Mr
Speaker, with much of what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has said, we in this group agree. We also agree that the principle of the bill should be endorsed on second reading, and that it should then be referred to the committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines for further consideration.
As the minister has said, we are breaking new ground; and while there may be a rush in the matter, yet I do not think we can treat it lightly. In my view a committee of this house should deal with it fully. The minister mentioned a private bill introduced last year in another place, on the application of the western pipe lines. This bill received second reading in the other place and was referred to their committee on railways. I

had the privilege of sitting in at the hearings of that committee, and I may say that Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were represented, because they were the three provinces chiefly concerned. Those provinces were very much interested, in fact all provinces I think will be interested in the bill now before the house. I certainly think that all provinces should be given the opportunity to appear before a committee of this house in order to make representations and offer any objections they may have to the bill.
I believe that they do have objections. Last year the three provinces that I have mentioned were almost unanimous in their objections to the private bill which was then before the committee in the other place. For instance, the minister told us tonight that a pipe line would be considered a common carrier while a gas line would not be considered a common carrier. I think the provinces desire to make representations that a gas line should be considered a common carrier the same as a pipe line carrying oil.
As the speaker preceding me has said, some great powers are being given to these companies. They are to have the power of expropriation; they are to have the power of directing the registrars of deeds or registrars of land titles, as we call them in western Canada, to register deeds. There are provisions in connection with highway crossings. These are all provincial matters and I think the provinces should have an opportunity of making representations.
As the minister said, this is an important bill because the pipe lines will cross from one province to another. But even at that, does not the minister think that it should be declared in the bill that this is a work for the general good of Canada, as is required in the British North America Act? I am just throwing that out as a suggestion because I believe it would then be brought within the powers of this parliament.
As I say, we favour the principle of the bill. It is getting late and possibly some other hon. member may wish to speak. As I have to catch a train I shall waste no further time, but I hope that the minister will consent to the bill being referred to a committee as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only briefly. There is an urgency about this bill because I am told the capacity of the railroads to transport petroleum products from the Alberta field is approaching its limit. A real effort is being made to get this pipe line under way. The steel controller has arranged for the fabrication of steel for the principal pipe line being planned, which will
Pipe Lines Act
be undertaken as soon as the bill incorporating the company can be put through.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has authorized me to say that if the bill is given second reading at this sitting it will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as has been suggested by the speakers who preceded him. Consideration can then be given to the bill when parliament reassembles after the Easter recess. But it would facilitate matters in several directions if the bill were moved forward tonight. It would allow a private bill to be considered in another place if the principle of this bill were approved here and it would also permit prompt consideration of the bill when the house reassembles.
I hope that this suggestion meets with approval.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Alberta people generally will be in accord with the suggestion that the bill be given second reading and referred to the committee, as has been suggested by two speakers in the opposition.
I am desirous that the bill should be entirely in accord with the wishes of Alberta. I hope that it will not be assumed that because Alberta has gone ahead and developed this oil somebody else should go in and run everything.
I would be interested in knowing whether Alberta has asked that this bill should pass at the present time. There are many such things that pass through our minds. Naturally we are desirous of seeing that the interests of our province shall be protected, as well as the interests of the other provinces. When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was talking about the power which would be given to the board of transport commissioners under this bill I was moved to wonder whether he had intended to say that that board should exercise its power in co-operation with the provinces?


Howard Charles Green: I dealt with that earlier.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry, I had to be out of the chamber. I do not think it can be emphasized too often in this house that the provinces are perfectly capable of taking care of all matters pertaining to their resources. Naturally when those matters become of dominion concern they have to have the power given to them which they do not possess by virtue of their provincial jurisdiction. They must then come to the dominion for assistance.
If one gives careful study to the way inL which Alberta has managed its oil industry one must admit that they have done a magnificent job. As far as I know, there has been

Pipe Lines Act
no government agency in Canadian history that has done a job comparable to that done by Alberta in developing her oil industry. I think it will be found that she is quite capable of carrying on. I am completely in accord with the suggestion of the two gentlemen who have preceded me.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we have the business for the next sitting?


Alphonse Fournier: The Prime Minister gave notice tonight of a motion that he would move on April 25 to give priority to government business on that day. Then there is a resolution which will precede a bill to amend the Judges Act. I have explained that this applies to the province of Quebec. We would like to move that along to second reading of the bill. Then we will take up the budget debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday, April 25.

Monday, April 25, 1949