1950-05-30

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. Baier (The Baillefords) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am sure hon. members will be glad to learn that arrangements have been made, subject to confirmation by the house, to have the Prime Minister of Pakistan address members of both houses of parliament at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
The tentative arrangements are similar to those which were made when we had the honour of a visit by the Prime Minister of India; and as seats will be placed on the floor of the house for the members of the Senate it would be appreciated if hon. members of this house could be in their seats just a minute or two before three o'clock, when the Prime Minister of Pakistan will make his appearance here.
I understand that the ordinary tickets for the galleries have been cancelled, and that special tickets have been distributed to the whips, to be made available to those hon. members of this house who may wish to have guests attend the ceremony.
If this is agreeable to hon. members I should like to move, with unanimous consent:
That when this house adjourns today it stand adjourned until tomorrow at 4.30 o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In connection with my recent trip to the United Kingdom, I should like to
read into the record an agreed statement by the United Kingdom and Canadian governments recording the result of our wheat discussions.
"The Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce held discussions in London with United Kingdom ministers on the subject of the United Kingdom's wheat requirements in the crop year 1950-51 within the framework of the international wheat agreement.
Both governments have now reviewed the results of those talks. They are agreed that the international wheat agreement removes the need for a contract to replace the existing Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement which expires at the end of July.
The United Kingdom government has made it clear that out of its total wheat import requirements in 1950-51, it expects to buy a large proportion in Canada which, quite apart from the special contractual arrangements for the past four years, is, and it is hoped will remain, the traditional source of supply for the United Kingdom. The Canadian government, for its part, is satisfied that Canadian wheat growers will continue to find in the United Kingdom a market for a very substantial part of their exportable wheat."
I should also mention that the United Kingdom has agreed to take 300,000 tons of Canadian flour at competitive North American prices as part of its purchases of Canadian wheat in the crop year 1950-51.
In the light of all our discussions, I think it reasonable to assume that in 1950-51 the United Kingdom will purchase from Canada between 100 and 120 million bushels of wheat. It is understood that such wheat will be offered upon international wheat agreement terms as to price, quality and position not less favourable than those obtained by any other buyer in the dollar market, whether in the United States or in Canada.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if at this conference a basis of settlement under the "have regard to" clause was discussed for the great loss suffered by Canadian wheat producers as a result of these United Kingdom-Canada wheat contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand the wheat board act will be discussed later in the session, and I do not care to amplify this statement at the moment.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I should like to ask the minister whether anything at all was done in connection with small fruits.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were not included in the wheat discussions.

Ministerial Statements


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, Mr. Speaker, but there is more in agriculture than wheat.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a position to advise the house what the price spread will be during the season 1950-51 on the wheat agreement or wheat arrangements that have been entered into?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The prices under the international wheat . agreement will be in the range from $1.98 to $1.54.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ANNOUNCEMENT OE AGREEMENT WITH NEW BRUNSWICK    ROUTE THROUGH NEW BRUNSWICK

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Hon. members may be interested in knowing that the federal government has entered into an agreement with the government of the province of New Brunswick for the construction, under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, passed by parliament at the last session, of the links of the trans-Canada highway through New Brunswick. The agreement was signed on behalf of the province of New Brunswick by the Hon. W. S. Anderson, minister of public works.


Mr. Brooks:: Will the minister disclose the route of the trans-Canada highway through New Brunswick?


Robert Henry Winters: In all cases so far the route has been announced by the provinces, but I understand that by this time the province will have made an announcement, so I think I can disclose that the general route will be one that enters the Quebec-New Brunswick border near Edmundston and proceeds along the Saint John river to Fredericton, thence southeast to Sussex, thence to Moncton, and thence to Aulac. There will be a spur from Aulac to Cape Tormentine.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table at once the correspondence called for by the address adopted yesterday on the motion of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), asking for the correspondence, direct or indirect, with the government of Manitoba since May 1, 1950. I will lay on the table all that has been received or forwarded in the form of letters or telegrams, with the exception of those that have already been read into the record of the house.



SOUTHERN MANITOBA


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I may answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Souris on May 24 when I was absent from the house and was
brought to my attention yesterday. It reads as follows:
Will consideration be given to the request of the Canadian chamber of commerce that contributions to the Manitoba flood relief fund be exempted from taxation over and above the five per cent now allowed corporations and the ten per cent allowed individuals?
This question has come up before, more particularly with regard to the Fraser valley flood relief fund. As the hon. member is aware, these limitations of five per pent and ten per cent are fixed by the Income Tax Act. Any variation would require an amendment to the statute. On the previous occasion to which I have referred, it seemed that the only way in which an amendment could be effected would be to give the Minister of National Revenue discretion to exempt certain cases from those provisions. Aside from other considerations, it was felt that was placing an onerous responsibility on the Minister of National Revenue to differentiate between most desirable relief funds of this kind, and after careful consideration it was decided that it was neither desirable nor practicable to amend the Income Tax Act. The same considerations, of course, apply in this case.



CRIMINAL CODE AND CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 250 (from the Senate) to bring the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act into force in Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough, member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. F. E. Lennard.
George H. Hees, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Broadview, introduced by Mr. George A. Drew and Mr. J. H. Harris.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting

Secretary of State for External Affairs. A week ago today I asked him whether we could have a report on the commonwealth conference which took place in Sydney. He said he would let us have it within two or three days. Can he let us know when it will be available?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Acting Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I was hoping to be able to let the hon. gentleman and the house have that report before this, but I felt that it would be more desirable that it be presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who was expected back yesterday. It is now expected that he will be here tomorrow, and I am sure that he will present the report as soon as he can.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did he have any success in selling British Columbia salmon or British Columbia fruit in the old country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Many trade matters were discussed in the United Kingdom. Few of them were brought to a conclusion, other than the wheat transaction, which was the particular topic of discussion. The United Kingdom already has made a substantial purchase of British Columbia salmon for delivery during the current year, and it is hoped that other food purchases will be made as the season progresses.


Mr. Pearkes:: What about lumber?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Try to buy some lumber.


Mr. Higgins:: I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, although I have not given notice of it. Did he discuss the sale of iron ore?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Was there any result?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We hope that the results will appear shortly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Interim Supply



INTERIM SUPPLY

Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $116,793,505.67, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items (with the exception of item 170) to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $254,000, being one-third of the amount of items 364, 430, 497; a sum not exceeding $1,441,677, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 18, 30, 94, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 199 , 360 , 361, 370 , 384 , 385 , 386, 554, of the said estimates, and a sum not exceeding $833,333.33, being one-third of the amount of item 635, of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, be granted to His Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951.
He said:	Mr. Chairman, in this resolution
I am asking for the usual additional one-twelfth of all the items in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1950-51, with the exception of item 170, on which one-twelfth has already been granted. Then there is an additional one-third of certain special items which are set out in the schedule to the bill, and which cover services coming for payment within the first few months of the year. Illustrations of that are the expenses of the international trade fair, which is now in progress in Toronto; the expenses of the royal commission on transportation, and an item of resources and development which provides for the excavation of a flood channel at Dalles rapids, where the work has been virtually completed. Then there is an additional one-twelfth of certain items of a seasonal nature, similar to one for which I asked for an additional amount on the first interim supply. These cover such matters as health of animals; compensation for animals slaughtered; freight assistance on western feed grains, which commence in the early part of the year; expenditures for mines and technical surveys, covering survey parties which are sent out at this time of the year. Finally there is an additional one-third of the special item in the supplementary estimates which I tabled the other day, covering unemployment relief in Newfoundland.
The form of the bill of course is exactly the same as the bill passed at this time last year. In asking for this interim supply I do so with the usual undertaking that it will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any items in the estimates which will come up for consideration during the remainder of the session.
I understand that following the passing of the resolution in committee of supply we have to pass, of course, the corresponding resolution in committee of ways and means, in connection with which it will be necessary to

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry dispose of the amendment moved some time ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.

Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I am merely speaking to clarify our stand on this resolution. When the leader of this group spoke on April 28 he stated that we were in general support of the amendment, the purpose of which was expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on April 28, as recorded at page 1989 of Hansard, as follows:
What I have suggested would be the surest way of giving convincing evidence to the people of Canada that we have done all within our power to make democratic government in this country as efficient and as economical as is humanly possible.
In view of the fact that it is a month now since this resolution was moved, I will quote the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, which is as follows:
"Consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for:
1.	Reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency.
2.	Eliminating duplication of overlapping services.
3.	Consolidating all public services and departmental activities of a similar nature.
4.	Improving the general efficiency of government and assuring to all members of the civil service full recognition of their responsibilities.
And without limiting the generality of the foregoing to make such further recommendations as may contribute to the general efficiency of the organization of government."
The leader of this group made it quite clear that we would not support any program of cheese-paring or curtailing of essential services. But on the other hand we do believe that economies can be effected in the cost of administration.
However, section 1 of this resolution is open to many interpretations, and may mean far more than the establishment of economical administration. It may very well mean a general curtailment of public expenditures. For instance, section 1 places the main emphasis on the reduction of public expenditures; but if public expenditures are to be at a level consistent with efficiency, it may well mean that they will have to be increased rather than reduced. We feel that the amendment should have read, "to control public expenditures at a level that will be consistent with efficiency."

The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) took issue with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for saying that expenditures could not be reduced below the level of $2,400 million. Evidently the hon. member for Greenwood felt that expenditures could be reduced below that level by establishing economies and also by eliminating wasteful expenditures. On the other hand there is need to expand expenditures of some of the departments of government. Therefore in the over-all picture you might very well have an expansion of government expenditures rather than a reduction through the reducing of administration costs.
It seems to us that the main point is to control public expenditures at a level that will provide for most efficient operation and servicing of the Canadian economy. Toward that end members of all parties in this house have from time to time urged an increase in certain government expenditures. For instance, recently we had a debate on the question of government grants to the provinces for educati n. Members from all parties urged an increase in expenditures for that purpose. We have also had debates on irrigation. Members of all parties have urged the federal government to increase their expenditures on irrigation. There has also been a great deal of discussion in the house about water conservation, flood control and reforestation. At the present time we have before us the picture of Winnipeg. We realize how necessary it is to establish flood control measures. There is an old Chinese saying to the effect that to control the rivers you must also control the hills. Of course in controlling the hills you will require to adopt a program of reforestation and building of reservoirs. As I say, members, on both sides of the house have repeatedly urged an increase in expenditures for that purpose.
Last session we had a discussion about the federal share of financing the trans-Canada highway. Members on all sides emphasized the fact that the federal government should take the larger share in that financial responsibility. All these expenditures may be considered to be self-liquidating, but they would mean a substantial increase in government expenditures at this time.
All parties in the house have urged an increase in government expenditures for social services, especially for old age pensions. All parties have urged an increase in the amount of war veterans allowance from $40 to $50 a month. Members of various parties have urged the necessity of maintaining a substantial floor under agricultural prices and for the purpose of mking a substantial payment on the five year wheat pool. These payments would no doubt be greater than the

reductions by the elimination of waste or by making cuts in the cost of administration. Therefore, for that reason, I am not prepared to support the motion to reduce public expenditures when it may very well be in the interests of Canada to increase public expenditures in the future.
The Conservative party emphasizes the need to expand production in order to ease the burden of debt and taxation, and I would agree with that wholeheartedly. I think members on both sides of the house would agree with the necessity of doing that very thing; but let us not forget for one minute that a prerequisite of increased production is an effective demand against that production, which means increased spending by the people of Canada. Some hon. members may say, not necessarily an increase in spending by the people of Canada; it may mean an increase in exports. But an increase in exports must mean also an increase in imports, and an increase in imports means an increase in sales internally. That means an increase in spending by the Canadian people. Therefore before you can hope to get industries to expand greatly their production, you must be in a position to assure them that when they expand that production they will be able to sell it.
I found it most refreshing to read a copy of a speech made by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) before the advertising and sales club at Toronto on April 14, 1950. Since this is a new type of speech to come from a member of this government, I am going to quote a number of passages from it. I will say in advance that I concur in everything that he said in that speech. He was referring to the problems of the fifties, and he said:
Most of our factories are in tip-top shape. Our workers are experienced and skilled. Our farms are well mechanized. Thanks to hard work and widespread ability the supply problems of the forties have been well-nigh licked.
Looking to the fifties, the problem is: will there be sufficient demand both at home and abroad for the things our heavily industrialized economy can produce? One way of finding out how big the demand really is, is to sell, sell, and sell again. For remember the economic repercussions of what might happen if you sell less than you used to.
Then he went on:
Canada's prosperity in the fifties will depend not only on your ability to sell. It will also depend, among other things, on the willingness of Canadian consumers to buy. And here a major responsibility rests on the shoulders of Canadian women.
Under the heading: "Canadian Women-A major factor in maintaining sales", he had this to say:
Now what I have to say may appeal to the ladies, though I am not so sure about the reaction of some of the husbands. If Canadian consumers-and that
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
includes the ladies here and their sisters in every part of our country.-don't keep on buying, sales people will sell less, producers will produce less, and there will be less employment and less income. In the end there will be less of everything.
Referring to the high level of consumption essential to prosperity, he said this:
In putting great emphasis on the point that consumers should spend, salesmen should sell and producers should produce, I am not unmindful of the fact that Canadians also want to put something away for a rainy day. I agree that this is important. But for the nation as a whole a situation may arise where there is too much of a good thing. If all Canadians were to try to save too much, less would be spent on consumer goods and services. And if less money is spent on consumer goods, businessmen will have little incentive to expand capital facilities. And if there is a decline in private investment, not only will many private savings remain unused-in the absence of the government's taking a hand in the matter-but men will be laid off work in capital goods industries. And off we will be on the road toward a depression.
The major domestic challenge of the fifties, then, will be whether consumers can be persuaded to keep on buying, and how effective sales and advertising efforts based on increasingly efficient production will be in keeping up sales.
He concluded with these words:
To put it into nine simple words: buy more, enjoy more, and Canada will remain prosperous.
That is a happy slogan. I would remind the house that it is the type of speech that we in this group were making in the thirties, every time we stressed the fact that increased saving on the part of the people, while highly desirable from the point of view of the individual, might have a detrimental effect on the economy of the country by bringing about a reduction in spending, unsold goods, and an increase in unemployment. I am sorry the Minister of Resources and Development did not go one step further. He told the people what would happen if they continued to save at their present rate, and if sales declined. He did not say, however, what the government was prepared to do.
In other words, if the people of Canada do not take his advice and do not step up their spending, is the federal government going to sit idly by and see a depression develop, as he forecast in his speech would be the case unless the people increased their spending? If unemployment becomes a problem, and if private spending fails to create effective demand, which would cause surpluses of goods, curtailed production and expanding unemployment, then we say the government would be justified in expanding expenditures without meeting the full cost by taxation or by borrowing the savings of the people.
It is very interesting to note that the governor of the Bank of Canada, speaking on that very point back in 1943, agreed that if such a situation developed as was envisaged

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry by the Minister of Resources and Development, the government would be justified in expanding its expenditures without meeting the full cost from taxation or borrowing from the savings of the people.
In this connection I quote from a broadcast entitled "The Shape of Things To Come," which went out on April 4, 1943, and in which Mr. Graham Towers and I participated. At that time we discussed the subject of post-war financing, and the discussion ensued in this way:


Victor Quelch: After the war the need will be to
encourage private spending. Heavy taxes and public borrowing will be contrary to the public welfare. Will the government finance all desirable public projects by credit expansion when necessary?


Mr.   Towers@: In circumstances such as Mr. Quelch describes, I would say that there would be grounds for government not meeting the entire cost of its programs by taxing and drawing on public savings. The desire would be to encourage private spending and make government investment more of a residual item. If part of the necessary money had to come from credit expansion.-and the projects were sound and in the public interest-then I should say, go ahead.
So when the Minister of Resources and Development warns the Canadian people that unless they increase their spending we will have a depression, I should like him also to say that if the people do not take that advice and if a depression does develop, the federal government will be prepared to step in and take up the slack as recommended by Mr. Graham Towers in the broadcast to which I have referred.
We believe that the royal commission which is urged by the amendment might well recommend setting up a commission similar to that set up in the United States back in 1934, to make a survey of the potential productive capacity of the country, with special reference to the relationship between national production and national income, so as to find out. to what extent demand lags behind supply. It could then make a recommendation to the government as to steps which might be taken to ensure that there would be effective demand for the production of the country.
If the government can give business in Canada the assurance that demand will be maintained at all times, I am satisfied that industry in this country will at all times have sufficient confidence to go ahead and expand production. Therefore, as public expenditures should be controlled in this country at a level required to help provide a balanced economy-and by that I mean a condition under which production is maintained at the optimum level and at the same time effective

demand maintained' against that-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie):
That the amendment be amended by striking out clause 1 and substituting therefor the following:
I.	Controlling public expenditure at a level consistent with efficiency.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally planned to speak in this debate, until I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) say how very easy it was for members of the apposition to obtain, information in answer to questions. He began to enumerate members of the opposition, and pointed out that there was one in particular, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who did know how to ask questions and how to obtain information.
During the last few days when the orders of the day have been called I have heard the hon. member for Lake Centre complain about the kind of answers he has been receiving and ask why he has not been obtaining the information he sought. A check through Hansard will show many occasions on which similar objection has been raised, and I have in mind one in particular which prompts me to speak in this debate.
First of all, I do not know why a question of mine about freight assistance on western feed grains should have been passed as an order for return, because it affected only one department of government. However, a return was brought down on May 16. The questions were as follows:
1.	Is freight assistance on western feed grains granted in Canada beyond Fort William, Ontario, or Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, where to?
3.	Are milling companies or feed companies permitted freight assistance or drawback on freight on oats or coarse grains purchased or handled by them?
4.	If so, what companies during 1948 and 1949 obtained freight assistance or drawback on coarse grains and what amounts?
I would ask the Minister of Finance if there is anything wrong with that fourth question. The return gave the following reply:
The attached1 information has been received by the Secretary of State of Canada from the Department of Agriculture.
1.	Freight assistance is paid on feed grain shipped from Fort William to all eastern provinces, and from Edmonton and Calgary to points in British Columbia.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Freight assistance is paid to wholesale handlers of feeds and feed grain on submission of proof that-
(1)	The grain has been shipped and the freight paid.
(2)	That the grain has been sold to a consumer, retail dealer or co-operative and

(3)	That the consumer or retail buyer has been allowed the freight assistance claimed by the wholesaler.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
I will ask the Minister of Finance if he does not agree that in that answer I have been given the run-around. It speaks for itself.
I certainly did not receive information that I asked for very pointedly. But I tell you that in my humble way I have been able to obtain some information myself. There was no reason why that question should not have had a proper answer. These things should be followed up and more information should be given. As we all know, hon. members have been trying to get information on the expenditure of the taxpayer's money.
Just the other day the hon. member whom the Minister of Finance said was an expert on getting information asked some questions in connection with coarse grains. Here are the questions, and the answers given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith); I quote from page 2695 of Hansard of May 22, 1950:


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many bushels of (a) feed oats; (b) feed [DOT] barley, were sold by the wheat board to feed merchants, dealers or brokerage houses In each of the months beginning in December, 1949, and to date?
2.	What was the average price received for each of said grains in each of said months?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to divulge its sales position within the crop year in which it is operating.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
Is there anything wrong with those questions?


John George Diefenbaker: Just hiding.


James Arthur Ross: I say there is a lot
wrong with the answers. I do not intend at this time to refer to several newspaper articles that have been written about how we have been trying to get information. I can tell you that I have dug up a lot of information which is rather startling. In connection with both these questions the government has been hiding the answers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government has not been
hiding any answers. I am not responsible for answering for the wheat board, but I understand that it has always been understood that the board would not disclose sales figures for the current crop year. There is nothing new about that.


James Arthur Ross: What about the position of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the parliamentary assistant? Does the same thing apply there?
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am answering for my own
department; I do not include all the rest of the government.


James Arthur Ross: That is the point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will couple my hon. friend
with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) as being one who is able to get the information he wants.


James Arthur Ross: I do not profess to be
very able at all, but when the Minister of Finance spoke against this amendment he was speaking for all the government. He covered quite a large field. He pointed out how easy it was to obtain this information from any department of the government. That is all I am finding fault with at this particular time. He pointed out that historically and primarily it was the function of the government, and especially of the opposition, to perform this duty. Anyone who has been following the proceedings of the public accounts committee knows how easy it is to obtain information, and it should be easy to get an answer in that committee.


An hon. Member:: Very easy.


James Arthur Ross: Very easy, I suppose.
There are many such examples that I could give besides the two I have mentioned. I am bound to refer to an article that appeared in Maclean's magazine of March 1, 1943, written by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) when he was parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) pointed out the other day, it makes quite a difference where you happen to find yourself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is this the first time that
article has been brought up?


James Arthur Ross: No, it is not the first time, and I intend to repeat it. As the Minister of Justice said the other day, you have a different viewpoint when you are premier of a province from that which you have when you are a member of the government in Ottawa; you see things in a different light. I presume the same remark would apply to the present Minister of National Defence, because at that time he was pointing out the great difficulty that the then 245 members found in obtaining this information, and that a committee should be set up to be furnished with a research staff and all that sort of thing; but how different it is today when he is a member of the government and is called upon to give these answers! He stands up repeatedly and votes against the very procedure that he so well defended in 1943 as a parliamentary assistant. This is not the first time this has been brought up;
2992	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry it has been repeated several times and may be repeated several times if we have this same difficulty in obtaining information which we should rightly be given on behalf of the taxpayers of this country.
As I have pointed out in other debates, I think a more satisfactory system could be evolved in this House of Commons for the scrutinizing and following through of public expenditures. I have pointed out that there are fifty members of the public accounts committee, approximately fifteen of whom are members of the opposition groups. You can see what happens there when they do not want to give information. The chairman is always a supporter of the government. Contrast this with what happens in Great Britain, where the house membership is much larger, and yet they have a small committee of about fifteen members. Usually the majority are members of the opposition, and frequently the chairman is an opposition member. It is granted that that should be so, that there should be that advantage in scrutinizing public expenditures and following through on behalf of the taxpayer.
This is a very unhealthy state of affairs that we have here. I repeat that extravagance is being practised by the present government. Even the Minister of Finance agreed with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when he said that the hon. member had ably pointed out and placed on Hansard several expenditures that could be eliminated without interfering in any way with the efficiency of government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say that. I believe my hon. friend would wish to be correct.
I congratulated the hon. member for Kamloops upon really getting down to this question of expenditures and bringing up specific cases which in his judgment could be eliminated without affecting efficiency. But I expressed no opinion on the merits of the suggestions.


James Arthur Ross: I may have been going a little far and drawing on my imagination, but that is what I would expect the Minister of Finance to say could be done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I made no such suggestion.


James Arthur Ross: Nevertheless the hon. member for Kamloops went that far; and more than that, he moved to eliminate certain public expenditures, but every supporter of the government voted against it. We have indicated how public expenditures could be eliminated without interfering with the efficiency of the government, and I do not think I can go any further. The original motion moved by my leader was a proper


one, and I know it meets with the approval of many organizations and individuals from coast to coast in Canada. I am not unmindful of the fact that occasionally the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and other ministers draw to our attention the fact that the government was endorsed a year ago. Probably they did receive a mandate by constituencies; nevertheless the majority of the people who cast their votes on June 27, 1949, voted against this government.


Mr. MacDougall:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: Laugh if you like, but stand up in your seat and dispute that statement if you can.


John Lorne MacDougall: I certainly will.


James Arthur Ross: You can do it when you follow me. I can elaborate on that. According to the figures released in early August, 1949, by the chief electoral officer, the majority of the electors of Canada who voted cast their votes against the present government. I defy anyone in the house to stand up and dispute that statement. While the government under the present antiquated electoral system did receive almost seventy-five per cent of the seats in this House of Commons-


Mr. Mitchell:: I am here and you are there.


James Arthur Ross: That is very true. I am glad my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is in the house. I admire him.
I do not wish to take up any more time, but I was pointing out briefly that this motion moved by my leader has had the approval of chambers of commerce and other organizations, as well as of many individuals who have studied this matter. A great many people, regardless of how they cast their ballots last June, are becoming alarmed at the extravagant waste of money by this government.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word on the amendment and the subamendment. When the amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), my colleagues the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) both stated that we would oppose it. We are still of that view, because we believe the suggestion means the abrogation of the responsibilities of this house, and we do not think we should be parties to placing our responsibilities upon a royal commission or any other body. However, that does not mean we do not believe there are certain government expenditures that need more careful review than has been given by this house and its committees.

Indeed I think the activities of our members of the various committees of this house will underline what I have just said. However, we do feel that the subamendment moved this afternoon is worthy of support. Therefore we shall support the subamendment, and if it is defeated we shall have to oppose the amendment that was moved on April 28.
I agree very largely with what was said by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I would point out, however, that when we speak of issuing credits we must remember that there are times when the issuing of credits may be very beneficial to the economy while at other times, when there are high prices and inflationary conditions, such action may increase the inflation within the country. Consequently I like the words the hon. member used in the beginning of his subamendment, "controlling public expenditures at a level consistent with efficiency." Of course I would go a step further and say that if we are going to control public expenditures we must have some plan under which those expenditures are made. So we warmly advocated a proposal made some years ago and accepted by government supporters, and therefore I suppose in effect by the government itself, for the establishment in Canada of a national investment board. That has not been set up, but I believe such an instrument might have been extremely valuable over the past several years, and perhaps would be even more valuable during the course of the next few years.
That is one way by which we could control public expenditure and investment at a level consistent with efficiency. The hon. member for Acadia mentioned the possibilities of the use of the central bank of Canada, the establishment of which marked a great step forward in controlling both the amount of currency in circulation-to use Mr. King's words, to control it in terms of public need-and also to influence the economy in various directions at times when that influence is particularly desirable.
So, Mr. Speaker, without delaying the house further, I shall conclude what I desire to say on this point. I should have liked to comment briefly on the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), because some of us regret very much indeed that the British wheat agreement has not been carried forward and our agricultural producers protected in a way perhaps they cannot be protected under the international wheat agreement, but I am going to defer any discussion of that matter until the appropriate time, when wheat and wheat marketing are discussed in this house.
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry All I rose to say was that we shall support the subamendment, and if it is defeated we shall vote against the amendment.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the subamendment is entirely acceptable, and I shall support the amendment as so amended. I would remind hon. members that the subamendment in no way affects the main body of the amendment I moved on April 28, and that in my opinion it does not in any way affect the meaning of the paragraph for which it is substituted, beyond the fact that it is apparently intended to avoid any uncertainty with respect to the interpretation which was placed upon the words of the original amendment by some speakers. The first clause of the amendment 1 moved read "reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency," and by the subamendment that is to be replaced by the words "controlling public expenditure at a level consistent with efficiency." I am inclined to think the word "controlling" in that case is actually the better word, and for that reason I welcome the subamendment.
Before a vote is taken on the subamendment there are certain facts which I think should be in the minds of hon. members which have arisen since the original amendment was presented. There has been no suggestion at any time of a reduction of essential services. What has been proposed is that the biggest business in Canada, the business of government, follow the course that any ordinary business of any size would follow at this time and bring in outside experts to examine the method of handling the accounts and determine if there are ways in which those accounting methods may be improved and economies made. When it is suggested that it would be wise to have the whole organization of government and the system of handling accounts examined by a group of independent experts we are told there are no indications of any definite economies that can be effected, and that no single item has been mentioned where economy could be practised.
I am very glad that the amendment I moved just over a month ago comes up for discussion today, when there are two new members in the house. One of them is the only lady member and, apart from that special qualification, a public accountant of established reputation. The other hon. member who has come in today is a young and successful businessman with a very keen appreciation of sound business practices and, may I add, sound labour relations within his own organization. I can well imagine the
2994	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry surprise that both of them will get when they really have the opportunity to go into our accounting methods. There is no business in this country, large or small, that could survive if it adopted the accounting methods we follow here in carrying on the biggest business in Canada. It is so easy for the Minister of Finance to get up, and in his bland, friendly way say, "Give me examples; point to any specific item. I have sat here for a long time and no one points to any definite item." We are aware that there are great public services that must be performed, and that those constitute the bulk of the obligations for which he must tax the people on the scale that they are to be taxed.
I shall point out some items that suggest clearly where substantial savings could be made, but that does not answer the argument that there are great possibilities for reduction in expenditures, without reducing any essential public service. We are told of the large expenditures for old age pensions, family allowances, veterans services, and things of that sort, as well as the service of our large public debt which is in the nature of fixed obligations. We know that they do constitute the bulk of public expenditure. It must be remembered that when we have placed before us these large items for services of this nature, there are included in those services expenditures of an administrative character, and expenditures of another kind as well.
On April 17 of this year we learned that there are 366 publicity and information experts, if that is the correct name, attached to the various departments of government. They are receiving $1,275,508.43, but do not let any member of the house carry away the impression that $1,275,508.43 pays for this publicity. It is only the start. These are the people who turn on the tap and keep the flood flowing. These are the people who write the speeches. We do not know when we are really hearing the thoughts of a minister, and when we are hearing the thoughts of one of these employees. They are all so busy explaining things to the people of Canada to the greatest advantage of the members of the government. There is not anyone here who does not recognize that it is desirable that public business be explained, but that does not need this host of writers; that does not need these people outside of the ordinary activities of the civil service. We do not know how much they cost in paper alone, but the figure would be enormous.
Let me give you an example. I have in my hand a collection of material which was gathered in only eleven days by a member of the press gallery, and which constitutes


the output of these publicity men. Every member of the press gallery has had more than the mass of material in my hand handed to him by these publicity experts in the last ten days.


Mr. Fulton:: It must be two inches thick.


George Alexander Drew: At least two inches thick, and that does not include everything. Every wastepaper basket in that part of the building is filled with it. If one took the time to peruse the material, one would know that is the best place for it. This does cost money, and when you multiply that by the number of days in a year, when you multiply it by the number of times the machines run this off for distribution, and when you realize that there are a great many circulars going out besides these, because I have only included the material that goes to the press gallery, you realize the cost. There are many other channels for this sort of publicity as well.
What is this publicity? In addition to the gaily coloured releases of this kind, and the other coloured releases of this kind, some red, white and blue,


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Would the leader of the opposition indicate the last publication he described as "of this kind"?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, the director of public relations is the one I have in my hand.


George James McIlraith: No, the other one from the dominion bureau of statistics.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, the dominion bureau of statistics. Then, we have one the hon. member may like, the green one.


George James McIlraith: No, just read to hon. members the name of the publication, so that they will know what it is.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to read the titles of all these.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition held up a publication and described it as "this publication". He made some remarks about it but he did not tell the members of the house what publication he was describing. I believe it would be fair to the hon. members if he would name it. It is a dominion bureau of statistics publication, and quite easily identified by him.


Mr. Ferguson:: This is all trash; why waste time on it?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as every hon. member knows, that amongst this material there is some good, but the greater part of it is not worth reading.


George James McIlraith: Give us the name of it.


Mr. Warren:: Tell the house what it is.


George Alexander Drew: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: National defence, for instance.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, national defence is a part of it; that is perfectly true. But it is only a part of it.

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
Let us take an item like travelling and transportation expenses. In the year before the war the amount of the estimates was $4,742,206; now it is $22,744,354. But, Mr. Speaker, the most striking item of all is that under the heading of telephones, telegrams and postage. It is well to remember that this is not ordinary postage, because ordinary departmental postage is carried free. Therefore these are services of another kind. In the year before the war the estimates for telephones, telegrams and postage amounted to $960,248. The estimates at present before us call for $8,595,943. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has so persistently questioned the possibility of savings which could be effected and the practical results of any inquiry of this kind, just let us take his own department with regard to these items. For telephones, telegrams and postage, in the last year before the war the Department of Finance asked for $33,000. This year the estimates now before us call for $1,639,900 for the Department of Finance largely.
Mr. Abbot!: That is all the departments in Ottawa, of course; not just the Department of Finance.


George Alexander Drew: This is for the Department of Finance, largely.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is on a different basis than before the war.


George Alexander Drew: In other words, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), with whatever adjustments there are, is now asking for fifty times as much for telephones, telegrams and postage-


George James McIlraith: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: -as was asked for before the war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is simply because the telephones of the other departments in Ottawa come under these estimates. We took over telephones from the Department of Public Works.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance does not need to attempt to change the figures that come from his own department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to change the figures, but I do not want the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to mislead the house and the public.


George Alexander Drew: There is no suggestion of misleading the house.


George James McIlraith: That is what it is.


George Alexander Drew: The figures I have are provided by one of his own senior officials.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are all before the public accounts committee. I know that my hon. friend wants to be fair. He puts out to the public that the expenditures of the Department of Finance for telephones, telegrams and postage are fifty times what they were before the war. I do not know whether that is true or not; it may be. But so far as the figures are concerned, the expenditures now for the Department of Finance on telephones represent the expenditures of all government departments in Ottawa, because they have been centralized under the direction of the Department of Finance and the expenses are included in the Department of Finance vote. If you are going to compare anything, you should compare like with like. That is my only point.


George Alexander Drew: It is an interesting thing. Let us take, for instance, national defence. If all the departments are under the Department of Finance, how is it that we find, under telephones, telegrams and postage, that in the year before the war the Department of National Defence asked for $62,932 and this year is asking for $1,968,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer to that is because they operate extensively outside of Ottawa.


George Alexander Drew: These are departmental expenditures, and Ottawa, no matter how much some members of the government may think so, is not the whole of Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend does not want to misrepresent intentionally. I was only pointing out the position of the Department of Finance. I am simply saying that to compare the figure before the war with the figure now cannot give you a valid basis of comparison, because the Department of Finance has taken over from the Department of Public Works the telephone service of all departments in the city of Ottawa. That is my only point.


George Alexander Drew: That point is perfectly well
taken.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was not the case before.


George Alexander Drew: But I come back to what I have already given, namely, the total figure for all departments of government in every part of Canada for telephones, telegrams and postage, which was $960,248 in the year before the war and is now $8,595,943. And the fact is that instead of these figures being increased, in a great many instances they could well be reduced because today we have air carriage of mail, which in ordinary cases is almost as fast as service by telephone or telegram.
One of the things that a competent group of independent experts would examine would

be the extent to which just as effective communication could be carried out by the speedy use of air mail as by the use of telephones and telegrams at the present time; and whether there are more departments in Ottawa brought under the Department of Finance, and other departments outside operating separately, makes no difference. These are the figures given by officials of the Department of Finance itself as to the comparative costs. I am not suggesting for one moment that this is not in every way an accurate representation of the figure. On the contrary, I am satisfied that it is. Whatever the balancing may be between departments, the totals have increased enormously.
In so far as the over-all picture is concerned, the items that I have given are only a few of the combined items that show very great increases under headings that certainly are subject to ordinary business examination. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this case there is no abrogation of the responsibility of parliament by the appointment of a royal commission to go into a subject of this kind. In fact, if that argument is sound then there would be no single case where a royal commission could properly be appointed, because whenever a royal commission is appointed it is for the purpose of examining into some public affairs.
One of the statements made by certain speakers on this amendment is that -this would be a commission of judges. I simply point out that I have suggested that this commission be set up on a basis similar to the commission which was set up in the United States under the chairmanship of ex-president Hoover. Whether there be a judge or judges is of course entirely a matter of responsibility for the government that would be called upon to make the appointments and to set the terms of the reference. I did make it clear that I believed a royal commission of this kind could best carry out its purpose if it were made up of business experts, and of experts in accounting and others who by their training could effectively deal with matters of this kind.
We of course cannot say that the result would be on the same proportionate basis. But it is interesting to note that the Hoover commission in the United States, inquiring into the same general subject, made recommendations which it is estimated would amount to an annual saving of $5 billion. In this country on a proportionate basis it would amount to a saving in excess of $400 million. I am not saying that such a commission could of necessity make recommendations that would bring about a saving of that kind.
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry What I do say is that only a commission of that kind could determine the extent of the savings that could be made. If the savings are $50 million, $100 million, $150 million or $200 million, they are the kind of savings that we want at this time.
In this country, as in other countries, the war necessarily expanded the business of government. I wish that the government itself would accept these arguments without suggesting that we are necessarily imputing any improper handling of the public business when we say that savings could be made. When Mr. Hoover's commission, a large commission, got to work it set up a number of teams, and those teams examined different subjects. I do not recall any suggestion from either side of congress that there was anything unfair about the claim at that time that savings could be made. In fact Mr. Hoover, the ex-president, representing one party, was appointed by the president who belonged to another party, and that very non-political and impartial approach to this subject has been carried right through. All over the United States today public committees, made up of people of the two major parties in the United States, are organized to carry into effect and to obtain the implementation of the recommendations of the Hoover commission.
I should think that the government itself would welcome the opportunity to gain the assistance that it would receive from the constructive examination of departmental organization and accounting procedure by the most competent people who could be called to this service throughout the whole of Canada.
Although opposition has been expressed to this motion, I still urge the government to reconsider the position and to consider the advantage that there will be to the government, as well as to the people of Canada, if the whole organization of government in relation to its public accounting system, and the whole system of public expenditure, be so examined as to ensure that the taxpayer gets as close as possible to one hundred cents value for every dollar that he has to pay.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take time this afternoon to traverse again the ground which I covered on April 28 when this amendment was moved, and in which I answered the arguments for the appointment of such a commission which have been reiterated today by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I want to say simply a word about the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), and to state why I am bound to oppose it. The
2998	HOUSE OF
Public Service-Proposed Inquiry subamendment, because of the form in which it is, is of course a want of confidence motion in the government, something which, I appreciate, does not interest members of the opposition parties.
Secondly, in my judgment this subamendment, if adopted, would constitute an abrogation of the constitutional responsibilities of this house.
The amendment, as contained in Hansard at page 1989, reads, after the preliminary words, that all the words after "that" be struck out:
Consideration should be given to the matter of appointing a royal commission for the purpose of examining and making recommendations for:
The amendment as it stands reads:
Reducing public expenditure to the lowest point consistent with efficiency.
For that is substituted:
Controlling public expenditure at a level consistent with efficiency.
I am of the opinion that no royal commission can assume the responsibility of determining how public expenditures shall be controlled at a level consistent with efficiency. That, in my opinion, is a matter for decision by the House of Commons and, for the reasons I gave on April 28, the government will oppose both the subamendment and the amendment.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I am still paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Catherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Gillis:: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. Hosking:: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). Had

Public Service-Proposed Inquiry
I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Abbott
Anderson
Applewhaite
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Bater
Beaudoin
Bennett
Blackmore
Blanchette
Boisvert
Bonnier
Boucher
Bourget
Bradette
Breithaupt
Brisson
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Bryce
Byrne
Campney
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Cavers
Cleaver
Coldwell
Conacher
Corry
Cournoyer
Croll
Dechene
Decore
Demers
Dewar
Dickey
Dion
Eudes
Eyre
Fair
Ferrie
Follwell
Fournier (Hull)
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fulford
Gardiner
Garland
Garson
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
George
Gibson
Gillis
Gingras
Gingues
Gosselin
Gregg
Hansell
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Harrison
Hellyer
Helme
Henderson
Herridge
Hetland
Howe
Hunter
James
Jeffery
Jones
Jutras
Kent
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Knight
Knowles
Lafontaine
Laing
Langlois (Gaspe)
Lapointe
Larson
Leduc
LefranQois
Leger
Lesage
Little
Low
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught Macnaughton McCubbin McCulloch McCusker


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely-
1.	The sum of $116,793,505.67, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items (with the exception of item 170) set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951;
2.	The amount of $254,000, being one-third of the amount of items 364, 430, 497 of the said estimates;
3.	The amount of $1,441,677, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 18, 30, 94, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 199, 360, 361, 370, 384, 385, 386, 554 of the said estimates;
4.	The amount of $833,333.33, being one-third of the amount of item 635 set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951. as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 251, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1951.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Knowles:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question which might have been asked on the orders of the day, except that I believed it would take too long, and knowing that this opportunity would be forthcoming today I saved it until now. It relates to something which comes within the minister's own department, and my excuse for asking it now is simply that this bill votes money to all departments, including his own. My question is based on an inquiry I received today from a person connected with a very responsible firm in Winnipeg. It relates to the Manitoba flood situation, and in particular to the question of income tax.
Will consideration be given to the case of employers who make special grants to their employees who have suffered heavy losses, those grants being for the purpose of assisting those employees to get on their feet again? The suggestion made was that, as the law now stands, any grant made by an employer for that purpose would not be allowed to the firm for tax purposes. Then again,. the employee in receipt of it would have to list it as income and pay tax thereon. I appreciate that the problem is a little different from the sort of request the minister usually receives, but I am sure he will realize that the situation in Winnipeg is a most unusual one and that a request of this kind merits special consideration.
As one who does not often rise to say commendable things about large corporations, 1 would say that any corporation, large or small, which does something like that would be justified in asking whether that sort of consideration could be given. It may be a new thought to the minister, but will he make some comment on it or give the matter further consideration?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to give it every consideration. While I hesitate to give a legal opinion, I shall draw it to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the facts as stated by the hon. member, I would say that it would be legitimate for an employer to make a payment of something in the nature of a bonus, which would be for consideration of past services as well as future services, and he could deduct it as an expense. Of course, the employee would have to include it as taxable income in his own receipts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall send the minister a copy of the letter I have received, and ask him to look into it and perhaps his colleague would do so as well.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to get a ruling on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there is any discretionary power that could meet either or both of the two points I have referred to, I hope it will be used favourably.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. It was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Souris, and that is the considerable delay that is being experienced in receiving answers to questions passed as orders for returns. I want to bring a number of these matters to the minister's attention. On one previous occasion I mentioned this, and in my opinion the answers to these questions are available. The questions were passed as orders for returns on April 24. The first question reads as follows:
What was the amount expended month by month since the first of April, 1949, to date in all departments of government for (a) travelling expenses: (b) living expenses and allowances?
The next question passed as an order for return on the same date reads:
How many government officials or representatives of Canada have travelled beyond the confines of Canada in connection with government business month by month since the first day of April, 1949, and to date?
2. What has been the total amount of expenditures and for all travelling, living allowances and expenses incurred or expended by such persons since that date?
. In so far as the delay in giving the answers to those questions is concerned, I do not want to bring it up every day as a question of privilege. Ten days ago I mentioned the matter, and I have since been in touch with the Secretary of State. He advises that he has not received the replies to these questions. I am now asking the minister to do his part to secure them. I do not want to raise strenuous objection at this time, except to say that there is too great a time lag in the answers given to these questions.
Furthermore I would point out that the member for Peterborough West had a question passed as an order for return on March 16. The question he asked was:
What was the total cost of (1) long distance calls; (2) telegrams, for (a) each department; (b) each section of each department of the dominion government, for the year 1949?
The hon. member asked a further question on April 27 dealing with the travelling expenses of persons engaged in publicity and information work. The member for Three Rivers had a question passed as an order for return on May 3 which read as follows:
What was the total amount of travelling and removal expenses paid by the federal treasury in (a) the year 1948; (b) the year 1949?

I do not speak about the answers to the other questions, but over a month has gone by. My questions were held up lor several days on the order paper before they were passed as an order for return. I simply bring this to the attention of the minister, and say that one does not want to have to bring these matters up regularly. The degree to which delay prevails in answering questions such as these arouses at least more than passing interest as to the reason why the information is not available, having regard to the accounting facilities which the departments of government have. Surely the information requested should now be available in each department as of March 31, 1950.
I am mentioning this matter at this time and asking the minister to see to it that these delays, which are becoming almost insupportable, are not permitted to continue. The passing of orders for returns seems to amount to a means whereby answers are embalmed, and certainly great delays have resulted in connection with information which it is comparatively simple to obtain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend is certainly entitled to get the information for which he asked, and concerning which an order of the house was passed, just as soon as it is reasonably possible to give it. In the case of some of the returns, I know that it does take a considerable amount of time and work in order to assemble the information. That might be true in the case of travelling expenses, and I am sure it is in the Department of National Defence, where the travelling expenses of service personnel from one section of the country to another are very heavy. I do not know that it is the case with my hon. friend, but sometimes it requires a lot of work gathering in the information which the questioner really does not want. However, I shall do my utmost to urge other departments, just as I do my own, to produce the information as quickly as possible. The house is entitled to it and it should be given at the earliest reasonable date.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A, B, and C agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Cold Storage Act COLD STORAGE ACT

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 222, to amend the Cold Storage Act.


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


Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister or the parliamentary assistant going to make a statement on this bill?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the Cold Storage Act was first passed in 1907. It was passed by parliament at that time to encourage the establishment of public cold storage warehouses in order to take care of surpluses in the flush season so that in the seasons when there was not so much it would be possible for them to be sold and in that way they would bring a better return to the primary producer. There was also a Cold Storage Act passed in 1914. Over the period since 1907, I think the government has spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,815,397 to assist the cold storages in helping the primary producers. But in 1927 the two acts, the one of 1907 and the one of 1914, were brought together; they will be found in the revised statutes of 1927; I think it is chapter 25. The amendment has reference to part II of the act. As to part II of the act in respect of certain regulations covering these warehouses, nothing has ever been done with it, as all the inspections and so on are done by the provinces. The federal Department of Agriculture has never done anything in respect of that. It has always been done by the provincial governments. For that reason we are asking that part II dealing with these regulations be taken out and excluded from the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Part II repealed.
John Alpheus Charlton: Will the parliamentary assistant assure us that there will be no change in part I of this bill and that there will be no change in grants to cold storages being built in Canada?


Robert McCubbin: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the parliamentary assistant say what grants have been made in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta under this act? I understand that one grant has been made in the city of Prince Albert. I should like to secure from the department

Criminal Code
information as to the amount and as to whether the amount in question will be a continuing one payable annually.


Robert McCubbin: I have not that information before me; but when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture come up for consideration, and when we come to the cold storage grants, at that time we shall try to answer that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the answer be given without the question being asked again?


Robert McCubbin: Yes. I will see that that is done.


Mr. Bryce:: There will still be the same grants as there were before for cold storage lockers in the country points?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


William Scottie Bryce: That section is protected?


Robert McCubbin: That section has been left in the act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 82, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 9-May remand for observation.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lanark and I spent considerable time in conference this afternoon on an amendment to replace the one which he has already moved, one which would meet the point that he has raised and at the same time be workable in the opinion of the law officers of our department. I think my hon. friend has the amendment, which is quite agreeable to the department.


Mr. Blair:: I withdraw the amendment that I moved last night and substitute therefor this one.


The Chairman:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Gourlay Blair: I move that paragraph (f) be amended to read as follows:
(f) Where in his opinion, supported by the evidence of at least one duly qualified medical practitioner, there is reason to believe that the accused

person is mentally ill, order that the accused be remanded in such custody as he directs for observation for a period not exceeding 30 days.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 24-^-Coming into force.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will ask my colleague to move that clause 24 of the act be amended by striking out the word "May" therein and substituting the word "July".


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I so move.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, inter alia, to extend the provisions of "Part II-Control of Elevators and Railways" to August 1, 1953; to extend the definition of "pool period" to include each crop year subsequent to July 31, 1950, and prior to August 31, 1953; to vary the payments by the board to producers selling and delivering wheat produced in a designated area; to extend the provisions of "Part TV-Regulation of Interprovincial and Export Trade in Wheat," to August 1, 1953; and to substitute a schedule of mills and warehouses declared works for the.general advantage of Canada for the present schedule to the act.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it seems a long while since I moved the adjournment of this debate on April 20, after the statement on the introduction of this resolution had been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Since that time he has been abroad. Today he gave the house a very general statement regarding the outcome of the negotiations that he and the deputy minister had been engaged in in London over a period of several days. It is impossible to discuss in any detail the statement that was made today by the minister, for he himself said that, apart from giving the general outline, the particulars would not be given or furnished to the house at this time.
Even on the basis of the general outline that he has given, the wheat farmers of western Canada will be greatly disappointed at the failure to realize the promises so easily made from 1945 to 1949 of the benefits that would result from their accepting losses

running into at least $600 million over a period of years. In return for acceptance of lower prices then they were promised security. There will be disappointment at the nature of the arrangements that have been arrived at between the minister, on behalf of the people of Canada, and the government of the United Kingdom.
It is a far cry from the sure hopes that were expressed over and over again by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as to the benefits that were to accrue to the Canadian farmer in return for the sacrifices that were made at his expense in selling his wheat under the British agreement at a price of from 75 cents to $1.10 per bushel less than the world market.
We on this side of the house-and this applies to His Majesty's loyal opposition alone-warned what the results would be. I remember well on a number of occasions the then leader of the opposition, Mr. John Bracken, reiterated his view that the course being followed would not give to the Canadian wheat farmer an assured wheat market in the United Kingdom after the termination of the agreement. He was ridiculed for that stand.
He and this party supported the British agreement in so far as selling wheat to Britain was concerned at a price below the world market; but contended that the loss thereby suffered should not be saddled on the back of the wheat farmer, but should be assumed by the people of Canada as a whole. The answer always was in effect "Wait and you shall see. After 1950 there will be an assured wheat market in the United Kingdom." The message brought back today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a far cry from the optimistic statements made between 1945 and 1949. Instead of an assured market the minister brings a hope. In place of security he expresses the hope that there will be a market for 110 million bushels or more. That is far from the promises that were made between 1945 and 1949 when the western wheat farmer accepted the low prices that were given him in the agreement in return for the promises made by the ministers of this government that he would be assured of markets after the termination of the agreement.
I shall say no more at this time until the minister elucidates and explains the terms of the negotiations that have taken place. Suffice it to say that after listening to him today disappointment will indeed be expressed, and properly so, by the wheat farmers of this country having regard to the losses they have sustained during the period from 1945 55946-190
Canadian Wheat Board Act to 1949. All they have in return is whatever is provided for under the international wheat agreement.
Apparently there is no compulsory requirement that Britain shall buy any quantity. The only provision is that a large portion of her requirements will be bought in Canada at a price between $1.55 and $1.90, as the minister said today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said $1.54 and $1.98.


John George Diefenbaker: Having said that, and
awaiting further explanations as to the negotiations, I am going to refer to the resolution.
The criticisms that I receive from farmers in connection with this resolution and the wheat board policy are as follows:	First this
resolution, providing for the extension of the pool period to include each crop year subsequent to July 31, 1950, and prior to August 31, 1953, is a continuation almost from year to year of the short term policies that have characterized this government in connection with this matter.
What the farmer objects to is the piecemeal policy. He was promised security not for a year or two but for a considerable period after the expiration of the 1950 period in the British agreements.
The farmer expects a guaranteed market. That is what he was promised. He now feels -and he will feel this more strongly when he reads the announcement that the minister has made-that the sacrifices he endured under the British agreement have indeed been in vain, and that now he has no real guarantee of security. He has the international agreement which is full of the loopholes which were inserted in order to arrive at agreement.
The farmer is asking for a long term policy for wheat marketing, not the piecemeal policy that is being followed now, which is immeasurably deficient when compared with the promises that were made during the period from 1945 to 1949.
Secondly, farmers cannot understand-and this applies particularly in the drought areas of the prairie provinces-why there was a denial on the part of the government and of the wheat board of an interim wheat payment this year. It could have been made applicable to those areas in the prairie provinces subject to drought. There was nothing to prevent it, including the bookkeeping difficulties alleged as an excuse by the government. The farmers are commencing to wonder whether the reason there was no interim payment is that there is little or nothing to the credit of the farmers available for final distribution, much less available for interim payment.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Thirdly, the farmers believe they have the right to expect that the business of the wheat board shall be submitted to the committee on agriculture. We have not had such a submission to that committee for two and a half years. Why? This is one board, one crown corporation, or emanation of the crown, that is not subject to examination by the Auditor General.
Surely the report should be placed before the committee on agriculture to the end that questions may be asked, and accounts in connection with its mammoth transactions be subjected to examination and cross-examination. When we endeavour to get information in parliament, as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said today, we have difficulty in getting answers. If we try to get information respecting the wheat board and its transactions we are invariably met by a curtain that denies any information sought and the house is denied the opportunity of examining wheat board accounts in the committee on agriculture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I stated early in the session that if the committee on agriculture wished to examine the wheat board accounts I would give that committee every facility to do so. I would point out that the committee on agriculture has been set up, as have other committees, but I have had no request from the committee indicating that it wished to examine the accounts.


James Arthur Ross: I happen to be the member who asked on March 6 that the minister refer the 1948-49 wheat board report to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for consideration. I have asked hon. members of the committee about it, and I am informed that it met for the first time today to consider another matter. We have not to this date been able to get any reference so that the report could be studied by that committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a member of the committee. He could have notified the clerk of the house last March that he wished to have the committee called together, just as well as to have done it today. Each member of the committee has equal responsibility. The ministry does not operate committees of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not referring to the committee on agriculture, but some committees become too often a merry-go-round. The minister says that if the committee wants to get information, and wants the report submitted, he will submit it. Just try to get some of these committees, overpoweringly manned by supporters of the government, to do these things!


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did the hon. member ever ask the committee on agriculture to examine the accounts of the wheat board?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the committee is set up for a purpose. The agenda is to examine the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The hon. member for Souris has already stated that these wheat board transactions should be submitted. Surely we do not have to continue to repeat the request for submission. The hon. member for Souris has asked for it. It was asked for last year, during the session of 1949, and was denied. It was denied by inattention, which is just as effective as deliberate refusal.
I am asking now that the wheat board report be submitted to the committee on agriculture to the end that examination may take place. I could say something further on that point. On one occasion when the wheat board report was submitted to the committee on agriculture, some years ago-


James Arthur Ross: It was 1942.


John George Diefenbaker: Eight years ago. On every occasion we in the opposition endeavoured to get information the chairman of the wheat board was invariably supported by government members on the committee, with the result that our requests for information were voted down. But even in the face of that experience, we are asking that this wheat board report be sent to the committee on agriculture, to the end that examination may take place. The accounts are not examined by the Auditor General. Surely they should be subject to examination, however cursory that examination may be, by a committee of parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask this question, for information: How does one send a report to a committee except by laying it on the table of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister has earned for himself the reputation of a man who gets things done. If he wanted that report submitted to the committee on agriculture, I know it could be submitted very quickly.


James Arthur Ross: The previous minister used to do it without difficulty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I do not know how to submit the wheat board report to the committee, then. The hon. member is the Stanley Knowles of your party. Probably he can tell me the rule in this particular instance.


John George Diefenbaker: All that is necessary is for the minister to say that he wishes to have it submitted.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: By laying it on the table of the house I indicate that it is available to any committee.


John George Diefenbaker: He was asked by the hon. member for Souris this year to submit it to the committee, and was asked by him and by other hon. members last year. And I now repeat the request, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not heard it previously, that the report be submitted, so that examination may be made of the accounts.
We cannot get the information in parliament. No department is more difficult to penetrate for information than is the Department of Trade and Commerce. I asked this question on May 22:
1.	How many bushels of (a) feed oats; (b) feed barley, were sold by the wheat board to feed merchants, dealers or brokerage houses in each of the months beginning in December, 1949 and to date?
What was the purpose of that question? Surely the farmers in this country have a right to the information there sought, because in the main they are the producers. The farmers in western Canada are asking what has happened to the barley and oats they produced. Is it a fact that the wheat board has sold a large portion of it to brokerage firms in the United States? They would like to have answers to it and other questions.
The farmers in eastern Canada who feed cattle and hogs want to know why the prices of barley and oats are so high. They want to know what has happened to feed supplies. They want to know whether or not the wheat board has made any provision for the sale of feed oats and barley to eastern farmers engaged in livestock production.
The next question is:
2.	What was the average price received for each of said grains in each of said months?
Eighty per cent of our coarse grain production is fed or disposed of in Canada. What possible harm could there be in furnishing that information? When the people of Canada ask for information, when the farmers in western Canada and in Ontario ask for information, the answer given by the government is:
It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to divulge its sales position within the crop year in which it is operating.
I am not going to deny that position as far as wheat on the international market is concerned, but that argument does not apply to sales of barley and oats within Canada, commodities that are so necessary to the eastern farmer and eastern livestock producer for feeding purposes. The Minister of Finance has said in effect: "Ask and the information 55946-1904
Canadian Wheat Board Act will be given." Yet when a simple question such as that is asked, the farmers, the producers of livestock and the producers of barley and oats witness a brush-off of parliament, a denial by the wheat board of information to which parliament is entitled.
If the wheat board report is submitted to the committee an opportunity will be given to ask these questions and receive the information denied to parliament. I ask what recourse the opposition has against an allpowerful government supported by an allpowerful majority when information is denied regardless of whether or not it is justifiable. Up until recent years information could be denied by a minister of the crown only on the ground that it was not in the public interest, but that has been extended. Three members of the wheat board are able to say to parliament in effect "We just do not choose to answer; that is not a course that we are going to follow, the giving of information within the crop year in which we are operating".
This is the first year in which the wheat board has the exclusive marketing control of barley and oats and there have been difficulties. The western farmer is asking whether the wheat board has disposed of his oats and barley elsewhere than in Canada. He wants to know what prices have been received and whether or not the wheat board in effect is discharging its responsibility of getting the best price for oats and barley rather than doing what it did under the British agreements-secure a political price determined by the government rather than by world demand.
The members of the Progressive Conservative party believe that the farmers should have some say in the marketing of their own products. We have fought for the principle that the producers should have some control over the marketing of their wheat, oats and barley. We believe in the necessity-we think the events of the last few years support-us in this regard-of an advisory board made up of a majority of farmers being set up to advise the wheat board to the end that the best possible prices may be received and so the farm producer will have some say as to the disposal of his wheat, oats and barley. The board should be a producers' wheat board operating for the benefit of the farmers in accordance with business principles.
For the past five years wheat farmers have been deluded by the promise that for the sacrifice of several hundred millions of dollars in prices that could have been secured for their wheat they were to have security of market after the termination of

Canadian Wheat Board Act the British agreement in 1950. The statement made by the minister today is an effective answer to any who were minded to suffer from such a delusion.
The minister's statement occupies but two pages of Hansard. It states that discussions have been carried on in London and that both governments have now reviewed the results of those talks and are agreed that the international wheat agreement removes the need for a contract to replace the existing Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement. That was not the view one year ago. That was not the view six months ago. That was not the view expressed during the campaign just prior to the last election.
Finally the minister said, in summary, that the United Kingdom has made it clear that out of its total wheat import requirements in 1950-51, it expects to buy a large proportion in Canada which, quite apart from the special contractual arrangements for the past four years, is, and it is hoped will remain, the traditional source of supply for the United Kingdom. The minister's speech was an expression of hope, when instead he should have given parliament evidence of the security that was promised during the period of the British agreements.
With these few observations I will conclude. I believe the announcement made by the minister will be received with deep disappointment by wheat farmers, for it fails to carry out the promises made so clearly over five long years that the farmers of western Canada would achieve security after the termination of the agreements in return for the sale of their wheat at prices below world prices. What many farmers are thinking is indicated by a resolution recently sent to me by the Quinton wheat pool committee which reads as follows:
That we the Quinton wheat pool committee feel that our M.P. should back up the resolution of the federation of agriculture, that the farmer be reimbursed1 through the wheat board for the subsidizing of wheat used for home consumption during part of the five-year pool.
That indicates that by reason of the failure of this government and the wheat board to provide the security that was promised, farmers throughout the west are beginning to ask that they be reimbursed for the losses they have suffered in subsidizing wheat used for home consumption.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
IMr. Diefenbaker.l


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Katherine
Madge Samworth Monty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Clara Rosen Freedman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Frances Berman Mellor, otherwise known as Sharie Sinclaire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Rodolphe Durand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Helen Leek Karaszi.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Sadie Chernin Petruska, otherwise known as Sadie Chernin Prince.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Audrey Phyllis Angela Blom Rochfort.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Patricia Ruth Segall Wener.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Sophie Piatkowski Demyk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Hilda Brooks Nangreaves.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Zemelia Katrina Ayoub MacDonald.-Mr. Winkler.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Humphrey Mitchell: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I should like to
ascertain who adjourned the debate.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was the last speaker, but
I did not adjourn it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will take only a few minutes to
do that, for I am glad that the house is prepared to vote on this measure. As I indicated in moving the second reading of the bill, its purpose is very clear and direct. It asks for the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues. It proposes that the check-off shall be brought into effect only when asked for by a union certified under this act; and even then it is to apply only in the case of those employees who request in writing that the check-off for their dues be made from their wages. It is also clear from the provisions of the act that if any of those employees later request that the check-off cease, it shall cease forthwith.
As I indicated in introducing this measure, it is a move for which there is recorded support on the part of all political parties in this house. All parties indicated during the course of the last election campaign that they favoured various measures of union security. This, as I have pointed out, is the minimum measure of union security; that is, the voluntary revocable check-off of union dues. I also indicated the last time I spoke on this measure that the wording of the bill now before the house, as far as this new section which would be written into the bill is concerned, is precisely the same as the wording that was put in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act when that measure was reported back to this house by the industrial relations committee in 1948. On that occasion the bill, after second reading, was referred to the industrial relations committee without this clause in it; but during the deliberations of that committee this clause was written in on the motion of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). As I have already pointed out, the wording proposed in the first instance by the hon. member was later revised at the suggestion of the legal adviser of the Department of Labour. I am not thereby suggesting that the legal adviser necessarily supported the principle of the proposal; but at least, that principle having been endorsed by the committee, it was then put in a form acceptable to the legal adviser.
The bill that came back to the house in 1948, therefore, contained-word for word-this very clause which my bill seeks to write into the labour code. Here on the floor of the house during discussion of the bill clause by
Industrial Relations
clause, on the motion of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little), that clause was dropped out of the labour code. I feel the time has now come when it should be put back in, and I think it well that the house should have had this chance to consider the matter over two or three of these private members' hours. When the vote is called I hope members of all parties will stand by the position they have taken, particularly during election campaigns, by endorsing this minimum measure of union security.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: Just before the hon. member resumes his seat I should like to know if he really feels that the employees are anxious to have this amendment. I am not going to make a speech; but do one hundred per cent of the men themselves want this voluntary revocable check-off? Do they not want a little more freedom of action for themselves?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not suppose there is anything coming within the field of human choice that has the support of one hundred per cent of the people concerned, but-


Joseph Henry Harris: Then any reasonable percentage?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I was asked if it is my judgment that trade union workers generally want this measure, and my judgment is that they do. Many of them want more than this measure of union security, but they do want this minimum measure.	[DOT]


Joseph Henry Harris: One more question; do the union workers want it or the union leaders?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think the distinction the member for Danforth seeks to make is not well taken. The views of trade union organizations are built up from the views of the local unions that are affiliated to the various trade union councils. These resolutions come up in the democratic way, so that when a body like the Canadian Congress of Labour writes a proposed code, and asks parliament to put this measure into the labour code, I am satisfied it is an expression of the wishes of the majority of the trade union members themselves.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".

Industrial Relations


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). In the interests of the trade unionists, had I voted I would certainly have voted "no" on the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald).




[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Messrs:
Adamson	Harris (Danforth)
Anderson	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Arsenault	Harrison
Bater	Henderson
Beaudoin	Hetland
Beaudry	Hodgson
Blair	Howe
Blanchette	Hunter
Boisvert	James
Bonnier	Jeffery
Boucher	Jutras
Bradette	Kent
Campney	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Cannon	Lafontaine
Carter	Langlois (Berthier-
Corry	Maskinonge)
Cournoyer	Lapointe
Dechene	Larson
Decore	Leduc
Demers	Lefrangois
Denis	Leger
Dewar	Lesage
Dickey	MacDougall
Eudes	MacKenzie
Ferguson	MacLean (Cape Breton
Ferrie	North and Victoria)
Fleming	MacNaught
Follwell	Macnaughton
Fournier (Hull)	McCubbin
Fournier (Maisonneuve-	McCulloch
Rosemont)	McCusker
Fulford	McDonald (Parry Sound-
Gauthier (Sudbury)	Muskoka)
Gingras	McGregor
Gingues	Mcllraith
Gregg	Mclvor
Harkness 	McLean (Huron-Perth)
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Noseworthy for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (reinstatement and compensation).
Humphrey Mitchell: If I remember rightly, I adjourned the debate. I will be only two minutes. I just want to correct an impression left by my hon. friend in connection with the application of the labour legislation in Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I realize the minister is not seeking to be out of order, but it just so happens he did not adjourn the debate on this motion. He spoke earlier, followed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and then by the hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote).


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I adjourned to debate.


Clarence Gillis: You adjourned it on my bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: So much the better. I am opposed to the bill anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the approval of the house to say a few words?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Alphonse Fournier: The
minister is speaking on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister desires to speak on a question of privilege it will have to be one involving the privileges of all members of the house. I must point out that he cannot speak twice in this debate. According to the record he spoke the other evening, and I must see that the rules of the house are carried out with respect to all members.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should be the last man in Canada to try to prevent a person from speaking on a question like this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: On a question of privilege, I just wish to deal with the question raised by my good friend, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy).


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hamilton West.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't try to be funny. You are too funny all the time. If you tried to be a good Liberal once in a while it would not be, so bad.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You oan't even be funny.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the house would like to have this information. The hon. member for York South spoke of a case, I think in Kitchener, in which a prosecution took place. He thought it was under the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. It turned out to be under P.C. 1003, which was an order in council governing labour relations during the war. Some criticism was offered of the magistrate in that case. In fairness to the magistrate, in fairness to my hon. friend and in fairness to the people who drafted the legislation, it should be pointed out that the magistrate carried out his duty under the order in council to the full. Under the labour relations legislation of the province of Ontario and of the Dominion of Canada of course that mistake could not be made. We found out the weakness and corrected it by legislation.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for York South speaks now he will close the debate.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two on this legislation. I am not in favour of the bill, and I put it on rather broad grounds. This house has already defeated similar measures on the same grounds that I now bring before the house. I refer to the whole
Industrial Relations
scheme of the act respecting industrial relations, on which some of us at the last session and the one before spent a great deal of time. I think the committee are to be congratulated on bringing out a piece of legislation which received almost the unanimous support of the house. I agree with the argument, which has been used in connection with other measures, that a bill passed with general approbation should be allowed some time to operate without, from year to year, submitting amendments to bring about some result which, in size, is very limited when compared with those broad things accomplished by the bill itself.
The principle behind this measure is one involving judgment in a dispute. It involves the enforcing of judgments by bodies other than those courts which, in the experience of all of us, in times past, have been the custodian of that authority. The bill is brief, and gives to the board the right to fix compensation for persons who have been discharged contrary to the provisions of the act.
My main point is that if someone has done something to someone else and, in doing so, has acted contrary to law, then our courts have always been open and, indeed, are now open, to give that person redress against the wrongdoer. He who is in breach of the law is always the wrongdoer. Without commenting at all on hurry-up methods of dealing with legal matters I content myself with saying just this, that past experience has shown us that when we seek shortcuts we usually get ourselves into more difficulties than we would have had if we had followed the normal, orderly and ordinary procedure.
It may be that the sponsors and advocates of this measure have in mind the case of a discharged person who has felt he was not treated fairly. All of us at times have felt that way. But after all in this country there are courts who are charged with, accept and discharge the responsibility of deciding whether we as individuals have in fact been treated fairly.
This bill seeks to give a board the right to say that so-and-so was treated unfairly, and that therefore compensation as provided by the board should be paid to the aggrieved person. My point is that if a person, to use the language of the bill, has been discharged contrary to the provisions of the act, such person has suffered-and I hesitate to use legal language-a tort, or a wrongdoing. Who is there to suggest that our courts are not competent to take care of any proper claim that a tort has been done against an individual?
In short the bill states that-
The board shall have power to make an order requiring an employer to reinstate any employee

Industrial Relations
discharged contrary to the provisions of this act and to pay such employee the monetary loss suffered by reason of such discharge.
I do not complain very much about the language. But when I see people bringing into this House of Commons bills which are onesided, then I am opposed to them. If the hon. member had said that in the event of an employee doing something by way of injury to his employer such employer should seek equal rights before the board as against the employee, then perhaps I could see at least some fairness and some moral soundness in the idea behind the advancement of this bill. But this business of special legislation and special pleading for the friends of any group in the house must come to naught, unless they are broad enough to be fair to all parties concerned.
I fall back to my original statement, and that is to say that I am aware of criticisms of our courts; I know they are not perfect. I also know that no man-made thing has ever been perfect, and that perhaps such will never be perfect. But I do say this, with some knowledge of my subject, that in so far as we in the House of Commons believe in the administration of justice-and that is what this is- by our courts, we accept it as the best system yet found by any civilized people since the world began.
So I say the minute we start whittling and chiselling at the jurisdiction of our courts, to effect some special thing we have in mind- a _ single-track mind, if you like-at that minute we begin cutting down the jurisdiction of our courts, and immediately find ourselves in trouble.
It may be that the hon. member has something in mind. Perhaps I should modify that statement, because I know he has a great deal in his mind. My meaning was that it may be that he thinks there are some evils that are so general they should be dealt with by legislation in parliament. If that were true I would have a great deal of sympathy, and certainly have an open mind as to how I might vote in respect of a proposal of that kind. But I would need to be convinced that our courts had failed in their bounden duty, that the scales of justice had not been held evenly-which I do not for one moment believe. I would need to be convinced that there was some broad and general difficulty which would prompt parliament to enter into a field of legislation which would take care of some narrow business and which procedure in the end might not result in any good but rather in evil toward the whole structure.
I am opposed to the bill. I go a step further, and in making this statement I know I

am not going to popularize myself with the voters. I wonder if we appreciate that labour today owes its very high position to legislation passed by parliaments and legislatures. I wonder how much the sponsor of this bill appreciates the simple fact that the growth of union organizations since the last war has been tremendous-and, so far as I am concerned, rightly so. I wonder if we all appreciate the tremendous gains which have been made. Why have they been made? They have been made because parliaments, congresses, legislatures, United Kingdom parliaments and so on have said two things: first, that no labour organization may be held liable in a charge of conspiracy. That is the thing upon which it is all founded. We have also said that the treasury

I will admit that there has been an alteration in the United States under the recent legislation-of a labour organization shall be free and exempt from civil action against the organization. I agree with both those things. I think they are the foundation upon which this tremendous growth has been built. But I say to all of these people: Do not work a willing horse to death.
They have made great progress. I have acted for them and I know something about them. I am not one of those who, every time the name of John Lewis is mentioned, use an expression which is quite unparliamentary. I am not blind to the tremendous service which that man has rendered labour on the North American continent. I remember the situation in the coal mines in many places in the United States and even in Canada where there were company houses and company stores and everybody owed the employer money at the end of the month.
Do not let us get personal about this thing and condemn somebody because he has committed excesses. Labour has committed excesses, but so has capital, and lots of them. I think the great thing that has been achieved by thinking people in the Dominion of Canada is that no longer shall industry regard labour as simply an intake product in the factory. A great gain has been made in that connection. With the assistance of the minister and other like-minded people the growth of labour has been tremendous. All we need to do is look at the settlement of that great automobile strike the other day. That would have been utterly impossible a few weeks ago. I am not going to talk out this motion, but I cannot say that I am going to vote against it because my pair is not here. But at least I am making my sentiments known.
I am going to give some advice to my hon. friends who sit to my left. I cannot charge them for it and they would not pay me

if I did. Why not leave well enough alone? Why not flex your muscles and appreciate the wonderful growth you have had? But do not try to rush the growler too hard.


Clarence Gillis: We have listened to that kind of argument in respect to every piece of legislation protecting labour that is on the statute books today.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to say something to my hon. friend that he did not think I would say. Both in this House of Commons and elsewhere I have said that the strike is labour's weapon. There is no doubt about that. But no strike has succeeded unless it has had public support. You people who are anxious to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs will find that the public will rise in revolt against you.
I am proud of your accomplishments, but I am just saying to every hon. member who has some labour votes in his areas-I have them -do not come along and say, "I am going to move an amendment to clause A, B, C, D, of sections 1 to 290," or whatever it is. That is not the way to grow. That is not the way to bring peace. I am proud of the minister. He has made the same speech for the six years I have been here, but I like it. He believes in conciliation.
Look at the Chrysler show across the line. Look at what Walter Reuther went through. They tried to blow his chest off but it was lucky he stooped and got it in the arm. I am proud of our Canadian labour organizations who have thrown out of their midst those people who would destroy, not only labour but us as well. I am sorry to be so impassioned about this, but I rather believe what I have been saying.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for York South speaks now he will close the debate.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I should like to close the debate.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe that the house go into committee on the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, inter alia, to extend the provisions of "Part II-Control of Elevators and Railways" to August 1, 1953; to extend the definition of "pool period" to include each crop year subsequent to July 31, 1950, and-prior to August 31, 1953; to vary the payments by the board to producers selling and delivering wheat produced in a designated area; to extend the provisions of "Part IV-Regulation of Interprovincial and Export Trade in Wheat," to August 1, 1953; and to substitute a schedule of mills and warehouses declared works for the general advantage of Canada for the present schedule to the act.
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I have here an index, published by the dominion bureau of statistics, which sets forth the index for eleven important commodities going into the farmers' costs of production. That index is based on 1935-39 equals 100. The eleven commodities include farm implements, building material, gasoline, oil, grease, feed, fertilizer, binder twine, seed, hardware, tax rates, interest rates and farm wages; in other words, almost all of the important costs of production that the farmer must meet. In January of this year that index was 196-3, or almost twice as much as it was in 1935-39. And so you have the initial price for wheat for the coming year roughly twice that of the initial price in the immediate pre-war period. You have the farmer's costs of production twice as high, so that the farmer, in my opinion, is going back to the pre-war depression subsistence level. Therefore I say without question that within the last few months and the last few weeks and again today the farmers of western Canada have had levelled against them a number of serious blows resulting from the changes in the government's wheat policy.
There are to be no further large initial payments this spring. There is to be a drop of 35 cents a bushel in the initial price on August 1 of this year. There is to be a floor price for only one year at a time. No longer will there be long-term stability. Then there was the announcement by the minister this afternoon that we are going to take a reduction, according to his estimation, of not less than 20 million bushels in the quantity of wheat that we will ship to the United Kingdom this year, and if his lower figure proves the correct one it will be a reduction of 40 million bushels.
I say it is time the government reconsidered its policy, in the light of the sacrifices that our producers have made over the last number of years, when they accepted prices we all knew were below world prices, and were below the prices that could have been obtained from the domestic consumer if prices for agricultural products, as was done in everything else, had been allowed to find their own level.
Instead, the government said: We are going to give you a price stabilization policy; we say to you that we are not going to let you have the highest possible price, but when prices start to fall we are not going to ask you to take the lowest price. The farmer said: I agree that that is a good policy, and even if I make great sacrifices over a few years, I know that I shall have a chance to recoup my losses.

It has been estimated by various members how much the farmer has lost. I do not think anyone will ever know precisely but it runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. We know that the floor price under the international wheat agreement for the coming year is $1.54 in Canadian funds; yet we have the government setting an initial price 14 cents a bushel below the floor price in the international agreement, and that may well be all the farmer will get; I do not know.
Before Easter the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) explained why that might be all he would get. At the end of the 1950-51 crop year the wheat board would very likely have a considerable carryover of wheat that would have to be marketed in the first months of the next year, being a year when the floor price under the international agreement fell another 10 cents a bushel. The government is therefore playing it safe. They are not risking anything in their present legislation. But the result of a drop of 35 cents a bushel in the initial price for wheat, a further loss of our international markets for wheat, along with the loss of a great many other markets for agricultural products, may spell such a substantial reduction in the standard of living in western Canada that it will affect all of the people from one coast of this country to the other.
I think we are getting in a vicious circle. The government adopts certain policies from time to time. We have no industries in western Canada. We have a policy adopted like this one that will mean a lowering of our economic standard. Then we have an exodus of people and we lose some of our seats in the House of Commons. Everyone who sits in this house knows that if any part of Canada wants to get a square deal it has to have an effective voice in parliament. When you lose population you lose seats; and when you lose seats you lose influence with the government of the day. Then when we do have some natural resources like oil in Alberta the first thing the government arranges is to take it out of that area to other parts of Canada and the United States.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government should reconsider its wheat policy. If the present wheat policy is adopted, if nothing is done to arrest the losing of our agricultural markets, all the government will succeed in doing is to establish a depressed area on the prairies, the same kind of depressed area we had before the war. In my opinion, if that should result, it will certainly not be in the
Canadian Wheat Board Act best interests of Canada, and the government should adopt a wheat policy so that such a condition will not obtain.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker,
I am going to be quite brief in my remarks. There are a number of questions that I want to raise but I shall leave them until we get into the committee stage of the resolution.
We in this group support the resolution because we are of the opinion that it is in the interests of the people of Canada, and more especially in the interests of the grain growers of Canada, that the wheat board continue to operate as a hundred per cent marketing agency for all wheat grown in Canada. Moreover we believe that the permit book and quota system is the fairest way of handling deliveries of grain in western Canada. It always amuses me when I hear people commiserating with the farmers for being compelled to sell their wheat to the wheat board, instead of being allowed to choose what market they want, because I have always found that ninety-nine times out of a hundred these people are not farmers and are far more concerned about the welfare of the grain trade and the grain exchange than about the welfare of the farmers.
I always feel that if the day should come when we make the selling of wheat optional, and permit the decision whether it be sold to the wheat board or on the open market, we shall have signed the death warrant of the wheat board. Furthermore I am satisfied that an overwhelming majority of farmers in western Canada are solidly behind the wheat board today, and in my view the personnel of that board is to be highly commended for the efficient way it has handled the farmers' wheat in the past.
It is true that we hear many people criticize the wheat board on the ground that they lost money for the farmers by subsidizing the British consumer and the Canadian consumer during the time of the British wheat agreement. It is unquestionably true that the farmers did suffer heavy losses as a result of that action. But the mistake these people make is that they blame the wheat board for that situation, instead of the government. That action, of course, was forced upon the wheat board by the government. That is to say, the wheat board was forced to sell wheat to Great Britain below the current market price as a result of the government's having signed the British wheat agreement. They were forced to sell wheat to Canadian millers at less than current prices as a result of orders in council passed 1 believe under the War Measures Act.
We in this group take the very definite stand that the government should not use the

Canadian Wheat Board Act wheat board as an instrument of government policy to limit domestic prices or to subsidize foreign countries. If it is government policy to subsidize Canadian consumers or the consumers in foreign countries by giving them cheap wheat, then let them buy the wheat from the wheat board at current prices, sell it at whatever price they see fit, and then absorb the loss resulting from such action.
That has been the stand taken by farm organizations. For instance, let me quote from a resolution passed by the western agricultural conference held at Saskatoon, January 20 to 22, 1949. It states:
That the Canadian wheat board should be an agency operating in the interests of grain producers, with a duty at all times to sell grain for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets, and should not be used as an instrument of government policy to limit domestic prices.
It is well to remember that parliament was' *asked to support the British wheat agreement in part at least as a moral obligation. I recall only too well the discussion which took place *at that time, when it was pointed out that [DOT]Great Britain had made great sacrifices and that therefore we should be willing to help her out by allowing her to have wheat at a reasonable price. The House of Commons was glad to support the British wheat agreement on that basis, but many of us in the opposition of that day pointed out that if it was a moral obligation on the part of the Canadian people to allow Britain to have wheat at reduced prices, then it was the moral responsibility of the Canadian people to stand whatever loss resulted from allowing Britain to have wheat at those reduced prices.
The same thing of course applies in connection with selling wheat to millers at less than the price of No. II wheat. Not only did we let millers have wheat below the price of No. II class wheat but actually we allowed them to have it for less than the price we charged under the British wheat agreement in 1946 and 1947.
Before the bill passes the minister should indicate the government's policy in regard to compensating farmers for these losses resulting from government action. I am not asking the minister to say what the amount of the final payment of the five-year pool will be, but merely to give the assurance that some at least of the losses will be made up in that payment.
I recall that during the last session of the last parliament, in the concluding days, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) what the government policy would be in
[Mr. Quelch.I

regard to meeting these losses. Hansard for April 30, 1949, at page 2802 contains the following question by the hon. member:
X should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is it the intention of the present government, if returned to office after the coming election, to reimburse the farmers of the prairie provinces for the losses which they have sustained under the wheat agreements?
The Prime Minister replied:
I do not think it would be proper for any party to be making promises at this time as to what it will do. I am sure that whatever government is in office at that time will endeavour to reach a decision that will be fair both to the farmers and to the Canadian public generally.
Of course I know some people might say that does not mean very much. But after all when a statement of that kind is made by the Prime Minister I suggest it should mean a great deal. It should mean that the government intends to do the right thing or the fair thing by the farmers in meeting these losses. The wheat pools are suggesting that a 25-cent payment should be made. This of course would by no means cover the total losses, but on the other hand it would compensate for approximately half of the losses incurred during that time; and the balance of that loss could be made up by stabilizing the price of wheat in the future.
It is all very well for the minister to say that the farmers have had better returns in the past five years than in any former period. I would not dispute that for one moment. But at the same time farmers' costs have also been higher in those five years than during any other period; and today while the prices farmers are receiving for their produce are beginning to fall, their costs are still rising.
Let us not forget that in those years before the war farmers were taking very low prices for their produce and were told time and again that they could not expect to receive more than the world market price. So they hoped that when prices went up they would have a chance to recover some of their losses. Yet when the war came and prices went up to a high level the government set ceilings and farmers were not allowed to receive world market prices. It does seem only natural that if in peacetime farmers are told that they must be satisfied with world market prices, then in wartime when prices go up they should be allowed to receive the full benefit of those increased prices. But the ceiling was maintained in the name of stabilization and therefore the government have a definite obligation to stabilize prices in the future and thus fulfil their part of the bargain.
I find it hard to understand why the government considered it necessary to set the initial payment for the next crop year at $1.40 per bushel, 14 cents below the floor

price under the international wheat agreement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) prides himself upon being an optimist and he always tells us on this side that we are pessimistic, but it seems to me that he is taking a pessimistic view of the operations of the international wheat agreement when he finds it necessary to set a price 14 cents below the floor in that agreement. It does not look as though he has much confidence in the international wheat agreement. Although that agreement provides for a fluctuation from $1.54 to $1.98 the minister is not satisfied to keep the Canadian initial payment within those limits; he has placed it 14 cents below the floor established by the international wheat agreement.
If the government feared that by setting the initial payment at $1.54 per bushel some losses might be incurred, they should remember that over the past eight years or so the prices of farm products have been kept down in the name of stabilization. If any losses were suffered as a result of setting a price of $1.54 that would only be helping to stabilize prices as they promised to do during the years when the ceiling was maintained.
We in this group supported the international wheat agreement. If the international wheat agreement fails, in my opinion it will not be because the idea of long-term international wheat agreements is not sound; it will be because of the system of financing international trade that exists. Under the agreement, if a nation is unable to purchase its quota it can be released from its obligation. It will be our responsibility to see that we purchase enough goods from a nation to enable it to buy wheat from us. The international commodity clearing house would have provided a means by which we could have disposed of our surpluses. The government stated at that time that they were in a position to look after their own surpluses so the problem is definitely on the doorstep of the government. I certainly hope that they will not fail in the handling of our wheat problem and I repeat that if the international wheat agreement fails it will be largely oecause of certain international financial and trade policies that are being followed.
Fear is being expressed regarding possible surpluses of wheat in the future, but if you go through history you will find that we have never really had too much wheat. Wheat has accumulated in some years, but over a period of time those surpluses have all disappeared. It is largely a question of providing sufficient storage to carry the surpluses over from one year to another. When you look at the
Canadian Wheat Board Act situation in the world today, when you consider the position of China, India and other countries, you can feel assured that there will be adequate markets for all the wheat we can raise, provided we make satisfactory trading agreements whereby nations can obtain our wheat.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, but first I want to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to say that following the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister' of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the wheat producers of western Canada will be very disappointed. We are now told that the loss under the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreements will be approximately $600 million. It does not need much figuring to realize that that is approximately $1 per bushel loss on the wheat delivered to the United Kingdom under those contracts. As has been pointed out, this party stands alone in having to a great degree opposed that contract, but I want to make it quite clear that we never opposed a contribution being made to Great Britain. On every opportunity we pointed out that if such a contribution were to be made the cost should be borne by all the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Fair:: The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was the first to suggest that, and I was the second.


James Arthur Ross: I accept the statement of the hon. member; we are together on that and we are still of the same opinion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I do
not think it is in order to discuss the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at three o'clock this afternoon.


James Arthur Ross: I simply referred to that in passing and am not discussing it at all. I am discussing the resolution now before the house and pointing out the great loss our farmers will be taking. It works out to about $1 per bushel on the wheat delivered under the U.K.-Canada wheat contracts, or approximately 50 cents per bushel on all wheat delivered by the farm producers over those pool years. We contend that the treasury of this country should to a large degree make good those losses.
There was discussion this afternoon about the fact that the wheat board report for 1948-49 had not been referred to the standing committee on agriculture. Hansard speaks for itself and shows that I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 6 if he would do that. Hon. members heard the discussion that took place this afternoon.
3018	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Suppose you read from Hansard and we will see what the minister said on that occasion.


James Arthur Ross: If my memory serves
me aright the minister said that, if it was asked for, he would have no objection and the department would facilitate it. I think those were his words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not mention objection; I
said that if the committee on agriculture cared to consider the wheat board reports we would give that committee every facility to do so.


James Arthur Ross: If we want to be exact
about this I think we should point out how we would go about getting this matter before the standing committee on agriculture. The minister has handled most departments of government at one time or another and has succeeded in getting business done, at times quite rapidly. I do not know how the wheat board report could be referred to the standing committee on agriculture without terms of reference being set out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I may be entirely wrong, but if I am the officials of the house can correct me. I do not think I will be found to be very far out in making that statement. The minister is not fooling anybody by making that sort of statement. It is entirely up to him to decide on the terms of reference to the committee, and those have not been set out as yet. At this stage I want to repeat the request that the report be referred to the standing committee on agriculture as well as the bill that will follow this resolution.
If we go over the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who I am glad is in his seat, and other ministers, we will see that they have pointed out-I have not their statements before me but my memory is not that bad-that to bring in the reports from the pooling 1945 to date and then decide on future marketing policy would not cost this nation anything. At the end of that period we could decide what was best in the interests of the farmers. I know the ministers will feel downhearted after all that has happened and gone wrong. They took a long gamble. As a matter of fact I think they took a greater gamble in the marketing of our wheat than was ever taken by the Winnipeg grain exchange or anyone else, and things have not broken for them. Surely in the face of these statements they will be prepared to have the chief officials of the wheat board called before the committee on agriculture, where we will be entitled to question them with respect to the wheat board report for 1948-49 before dealing with the bill. Then the same committee will be able to go on and study the merits or demerits


of the new legislation. Surely that is' a logical request in view of the very great loss those farmers are going to suffer, unless the federal treasury is willing to reimburse them to the extent of about $600 million, which I doubt.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to get one thing clear,
at one time the hon. member is speaking of the cost to the nation and at another time of the cost to the farmer. Which is it?


James Arthur Ross: That is very simple; I am talking about the loss to the farmers. I thought I made the point rather clear that this is the loss the farmers ultimately would suffer unless it was made good at least to some extent by the federal treasury, and I said that to cover it completely in my opinion-and this is only an estimate, of course-would require $600 million. Is that clear?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. My hon. friend said a moment ago that some time or other I had said something about the loss to the nation. The losses he has been talking about have been losses to the farmers, not to the nation.


James Arthur Ross: The minister is agreeing with me that because the farmers might take the loss it would not cost the nation anything. Is that it?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not said that.


James Arthur Ross: If we cannot agree I will look up the speeches of the minister and be prepared to quote them at another stage, so we may understand just where we are.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never undertaken at any time that anyone should take care of the losses of the speculators, which I suppose my hon. friend may consider part of the loss of the nation.


James Arthur Ross: In this case the greatest speculators have been the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). They made a terrific gamble when they entered into a contract with Great Britain to deliver six hundred million bushels of wheat over a four-year period, when that wheat had not even been seeded. If anyone ever made a greater gamble in the marketing of wheat I should like to hear about it.
This is the first year the government has had a monopoly of the handling of oats and barley through the Canadian wheat board. In spite of the fact, as has been pointed out by various ministers, that it is not customary to give the trading position throughout the year, I believe we should have that information before we pass the new bill. I am bound to agree with the hon. member who preceded

me that the majority of the people in the west want to deal through the wheat board, but they do not want a political board; they want producer representation. Many of those same people in my neighbourhood, and I think other hon. members will say the same thing, are very dubious about the marketing of their coarse grains this year. I do not sell coarse grains; I buy them from my neighbours and feed the grains on my farm, and I am not sure whether I have been doing that legally for the past year. My neighbours selling grain at the elevator have been paid for good oats only 52 cents a bushel. Mind you, that does not include the freight to Fort William, but their price at the local elevator is 52 cents. In the estimate given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to further payments at the end of the year-and I agree that it was only an estimate-he said they might get 10 cents a bushel. That would give them a total of 62 cents, if his estimate were right. I have before me a speech delivered by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Gour) just outside Ottawa, pointing out that No. 3 C.W. oats were selling at $76 per ton at stations in that neighbourhood, less a subsidy of $6 per ton. A little arithmetic will tell you that this amounts to something like $1.45 a bushel in sacks less the subsidy. You cannot tell me there is that much difference in cost; so I say those farmers are very dubious. I am not making any charge as to where the great difference arises; I am citing this as a logical reason why we should be able to question the officials of the board on the handling of coarse grains before we pass a new bill after this experiment.
At this stage, as I say, I do not wish to take a great deal of time. I am one of those who cannot see why the floor price on wheat, or to be more factual the initial payment, should be only $1.40, when the international agreement provides that for this year the minimum price will be $1.54 and the maximum price $1.98. Surely if the government had faith in that deal they should be able to pay more than $1.40 as a minimum, and I believe that requires some explanation as well.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange how things can change in a few months. I have before me a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press of June 15, 1949, where I see a heading, "Would hurt farmer. Howe scores mention of devaluing dollar." By the way, the minister was addressing a meeting at Portage la Prairie that day, and as quoted in this article he said:
If the dollar were devalued, he said, it would assist certain branches of the gold mining industry ''because the price of gold would be increased by
Canadian Wheat Board Act the percentage that the dollar is devalued." But other sections of the Canadian public, he emphasized, would suffer.
For example, if the dollar were devalued by ten per cent it would mean that the western farmer under the wheat agreement with the United Kingdom would get ten per cent less in net return for every bushel sold and conversely, the cost of living for consumers would go up by ten per cent as Canadians would be required to pay for imports from the United States with a depreciated dollar.
"We have seen what happens in other countries when they try working with a depreciated dollar," he remarked, "and I believe no one is so foolish as to think that a step of this kind is required or wise under present conditions in Canada."
Oddly enough in the same edition of this newspaper there is a press report of a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at Montreal on the same date, in which he said how silly devaluation would be. There is also a report in the same issue of an address by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) at Minnedosa, in which he discussed the very same topic. That was on June 15. We all know what happened on September 19, when we had devaluation by this government. If the statement made on that occasion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was true, by that step the government added to that extent to the difficulties we prophesied the farmers were headed for under that contract.
I hope this government will give very serious consideration to reimbursing these farmers at least to some extent. I know they will not expect 100 cents on the dollar for all they have contributed to the consumers of both Great Britain and Canada, but I can tell you that resolutions have been passed by farm organizations of the west asking for a settlement on the basis of at least $2 a bushel. If that were done I believe it would cost the federal treasury approximately half the amount of the loss I mentioned earlier. Again I want to appeal to the minister to see that the report of the wheat board is referred to the committee on agriculture, and that the bill which will follow this resolution is also referred to that committee for consideration. I think that is logical and good reasoning on behalf of the producers of western Canada.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to make a few remarks before the resolution is carried. I shall be brief, because I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been advanced by previous speakers. I do want to support the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the other hon. members who have asked that this legislation be referred to the committee on agriculture together with the last three annual reports of the Canadian wheat board. I believe that should be done.
While indicating my support for this legislation, I do so with certain reservations. I am
3020	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act convinced that this should not be temporary legislation that we must pass to cover one period after another.
Under this resolution we are extending the definition of the pool period to include each crop year subsequent to July 31, 1950, and extending the provisions of part IV, the regulations for interprovincial and export trade to August 1, 1953. In other words, this government is indicating to the farmers of western Canada that this is temporary legislation. We are just passing it for a period of time, and it is hoped to get rid of it. The wheat producers of western Canada believe in the wheat board. They believe in this wheat board act. They believe it is good legislation, and they would like to see it made permanent legislation by this parliament, not just temporary legislation. The farmers have had sufficient experience of temporary legislation.
During the war there was the War Measures Act, and later the Agricultural Products Marketing Act which was extended from year to year to enable our products to be marketed under the British contracts. Bacon and other products were marketed under that act, with what result? This year our markets and the act are going up in smoke, and we are not likely to have them another year. It appears to me as though, in extending this act from one period to another, we are following the same procedure, with the result that it will likely kill the wheat board instead of making it a permanent feature of marketing in this country. I want to protest that.
I always thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was an astute businessman, but when he brought in a floor price for wheat of $1.40 per bushel and then went over to Great Britain to renew a contract for selling our wheat, after having given notice to the world that we are reducing the floor price to the farmers by 35 cents a bushel, then I believe he was placing himself in a poor bargaining position. I believe it was a mistake to announce a floor price so low at a time when we were trying to sell wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never announced a floor price for wheat. There is no such thing for wheat, so far as I know.


Percy Ellis Wright: An initial price which is, in fact, the same thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An initial payment, it is not an initial price.


Percy Ellis Wright: An initial payment, if the minister wishes to put it that way. I stand corrected. The minister announced an initial price-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not an initial price. I am sure my hon. friend wishes to make a correct statement. He did correct himself once, but it is an initial payment.


Percy Ellis Wright: I stand corrected, but the initial payment was $1.75 before-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The initial payment under the old pool was $1.35, and it was gradually increased during the pool by interim payments until we were paying at the rate of $1.75, but the initial payment in that pool was $1.35.


Percy Ellis Wright: The initial payment in that pool was $1.75 a bushel, and make no mistake about that. The initial payment on last year's wheat crop was $1.75.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The initial payment on the five-year pool was $1.35.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am speaking about the initial payment on the 1949 crop, and the minister has announced that the initial payment on the 1950 crop will be $1.40 per bushel. I do not stand corrected on that, because that is right. I believe the minister was placing himself in a poor bargaining position to sell our wheat, after having announced that our farmers were going to receive 35 cents a bushel less.
I happened to be listening to the radio tonight at 6.30, and I heard a British economist discussing this wheat agreement. I do not know whether or not he was correct, but if he was not correct I should like the minister to correct this statement. He said we were accepting sterling in payment for our wheat next year. For a long time we have been recommending that we should accept sterling or British goods in payment for some of our agricultural products. I should like the minister to comment on that announcement which I heard over the radio. I do say that this type of amendment, which extends the act for a limited period of time, is not the type of legislation the western farmer expects from this government.


Major James William Coldwell: shall say a word on this resolution because of the discussion we had on the wheat agreement when it was brought before this house. It would repay hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house, and particularly those who were not here at the time, if they were to read the debate on that occasion. If they did so, I am quite sure that they would find that the wheat agreement was supported in principle from all quarters of this house. It is true that there were some reservations

made regarding the possibility of increases in the cost of production, and perhaps increases in the supply of wheat over the period. None of us knew that the world price of wheat, or what was called the world price, which was really the United States price, would go to the heights to which it went. Indeed some expected a fall in grain prices.
I well remember speaking in that debate on behalf of the party with which I am associated. We suggested to the Minister of Agriculture at that time that if the costs of production rose, the same sort of thing should be done for wheat as it was proposed to do for other farm commodities. The minister stated that, just as we had set aside $200 million to assist the prices of other agricultural commodities, so a similar thing might be done for wheat. It was not done, of course. I do believe, however, that the method of marketing as outlined under the resolution is one that has almost unanimous support from the farmers in the prairie provinces. Consequently, we are supporting this particular piece of legislation.
I, too, heard the broadcast this evening to which my hon. friend refers, although we did not hear it together. At about 6.40, I think it was, a British economist was discussing the announcement made today in this house and in London, concerning the understanding between the government of Canada and that of Britain about the purchase of wheat for the ensuing year. I noted that he did mention the $1.40 initial payment this year as an indication that Canada and the United Kingdom expected the price of wheat would; in the near future, be lower than it had been for the past number of years. I believe there is good reason to suppose that there will be a larger supply of wheat available for consumption across the world in the next few years than we have seen for the past several years. Let me refer hon. gentlemen also to tonight's evening paper, the Ottawa Citizen. If one cares to look at the front page of the home edition, one finds a story from Europe to the effect that the Soviet union has approached the nations of western Europe about supplying them with a considerable amount of grain. When we know that lands are being brought under cultivation in Europe and North Africa in order to increase the supply of cereals, it is essential that our farmers shall be protected against low grain prices, not only during the coming year, but over a period of several years.
If the farmers were asked to accept a wheat agreement which, in its working out- again I remark that it was supported by all
Canadian Wheat Board Act parties in this house, and what was going to happen was quite unpredictable-resulted in a loss to the farmer, then something should have been done about it. No one foresaw that during the period of the agreement wheat prices would rise to such great heights. Many of our farmers look at the Chicago price of wheat, and naturally believe they lost a considerable amount of money. We always thought that if that bccurred during the period of the wheat agreement in the postwar years, when we were assisting the rehabilitation of the United Kingdom and other countries, in the further post-war period, if one can call it that, our farmers would be entitled to consideration for the sacrifices that they made during the earlier period of an agreement.


James Arthur Ross: It was written into the agreement.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, it was written into the agreement. That was pretty much the understanding in the house at the time. I quite agree with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) in that regard. Since most of the nations of the world seem committed to government purchase of these great basic commodities of food and so on, it seems to me that we should accept that situation and should try to make satisfactory agreements extending over a considerable period of time if we can do so.
I noticed that the minister in his speech, when he introduced this legislation on April 20 or thereabouts, made the statement -and I am speaking from memory-that some 85 per cent of the wheat sold in the world today was bought through government agencies. That fact indicates that we are in quite a different position from the position we were in before the war. When I look back to 1935, 1936 and the years right up to the war, I remember the amount of time spent in this house in discussing the marketing of wheat; and I remember how strenuously the idea of agreements of this description was opposed by members on the government side of the house, and how hon. members on that side of the house were certain that the only way to market was through the grain exchange or open market operation. The hours that we spent in this house in discussion of that method of marketing remain fairly clear in my memory. But in spite of all the criticism, of the wheat agreement, none of us in 1946 foresaw what would be the price of wheat received by American farmers during the post-war period.
Let me add this. Had the whole of the Canadian crop been available for sale on an open market, perchance the price of American
3022	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Wheat Board Act wheat would not have reached the heights it attained. It is altogether possible that the large quantity of Canadian wheat thrown on the open market might have reduced the price of American wheat considerably. It is all very well for us to have hindsight, but I believe the principle of the agreement was sound. What I am saying tonight is this. I think the farmers in this further post-war period are entitled 'to protection. They should have an initial price sufficiently high to give them a reasonable and decent return, and by that I mean a reasonable and decent standard of living comparable at least to that of people of moderate means in the urban centres. I think that should be the fundamental principle upon which we should approach not the initial price but the longterm price of wheat. We must remember that in the minds of many of our farmers there was an understanding that if the costs of production rose during the period of this agreement, then some compensatory adjustment would be made; and that was not made. I have risen tonight to draw these few facts to the attention of the house, and I hope that the present method of marketing wheat through the wheat board on a stabilized basis, with a reasonable initial price, will be continued and will be the long-time policy of this government and of this parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before my hon. friend sits down, may I ask one question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether he intended to say this or not, but just in the last few sentences he suggested that no compensation was given for the rise in costs.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think he will agree that the price to the British was $1.55 to begin with and that it rose to $2.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was that much compensation for any rise in costs.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not want to argue that point with the minister, but I was not looking at it quite from that point of view. What I meant was compensation when viewed in the light of the prices of wheat obtained by the United States farmer. That is what I was thinking of.


James Arthur Ross: The world price was still a good deal over $2 then.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just on a matter of privilege, the minister corrected me a little while ago

when I used the term "initial price." I find that I was in good company in using that term because on April 5 the minister, when announcing the initial payment for this very year, stated as follows, as reported at page 1562 of Hansard:
The government proposes, therefore, to establish the initial price for wheat for the crop year 1950-51 at $1.40 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. Initial prices for grades other than No. 1 northern will be fixed by the board with the approval of the governor in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one makes more mistakes than the minister.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this matter. I had intended to say more, but the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) has already said many of the things that I had intended to say. The question I wanted to put before the house is this, and possibly some of the spokesmen for the Winnipeg grain exchange could answer it. When the wheat board took over all wheat during the war-I think it was the year 1943-we could not have shipped wheat to Great Britain had we had no board. No one has answered this question, and I should like to have it answered: just what would we have got as wheat producers for our grain at that time, and what would our loss have been? It is all right to talk about what we have lost under the wheat board. But if we had not had the wheat board I should like to know what we would have lost. I do not think even this Free Press that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) reads, which I always figure is the spokesman for the Winnipeg grain exchange, has pretended to answer that question. Maybe the hon. member can do so.


James Arthur Ross: I do not speak for the Winnipeg grain exchange.


John James Smith: I am glad to hear that.


James Arthur Ross: If you had been here before, you would know that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.


John James Smith: However, we are going to have either a wheat board or the open market. If we do not have the wheat board, we are going back to that speculation. And I think when we criticize this program that we have under the wheat board we should remember that we are going to have the wheat board or the alternative, and that is the exchange. My memory is not so short. We are told about what we would have got if we had not had the wheat board. But back in the years when we had the pool, the pools tried to hold the price for the farmer.

In 1930 what happened to our market? There was only one way to hold that market, as far as the pools were concerned, and that was to go into the Winnipeg grain exchange and buy options to hold the market. That is what the pools did. That is the only way they figured they had to hold the market. If that is the way we have got to hold the market, I think we had better watch our board; because under the board we get a stable price over the years. We have farmers who will argue that they would sooner have the Winnipeg grain exchange and that they would get a better price. It is easy for the farmer who was able to hold his wheat until March. Say he has harvested in the fall: if he can hold his wheat until March, he can get a better price than his neighbour who had to sell from the mill. But if he has to sell his wheat, as the average farmer does, in the dumping period in the fall, he will take the low price. I think the farmers, even members, should realize that as the thing is now we will all get the same price because you have your initial price, and whatever the wheat brings, we will get. If we went back to the exchange, I think that if the farmer was in a position to sell grain in the first week that we started to thresh-all farmers will realize this-he always got about ten cents a bushel more than the man got when the threshers started to run. I think that is correct. Then if he could quit selling his grain and hold it until March or later he got another ten or fifteen cents. That farmer might be in favour of the exchange; but the farmer who is starting up or who financially could not hold his grain, who had to sell his grain, got fifteen or twenty cents less, on an average of years, than the man who was able to hold his grain. In an average year he got about 15 cents or 20 cents less than the man who was able to hold his grain. The good thing about the board is that we are all treated alike.
With regard to oats, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said that we got 52 cents a bushel. That is true. The minister said we would get another 10 cents. He did not say that that was all we would get. I think we can all pretty well calculate that, if the eastern farmer has to pay a dollar for oats, we shall get more than 62 cents because it takes only 10 cents to get the oats to Fort William and they are freighted free practically all the way from there down here. I think what is happening in oats is this. Some of the exchange people have got hold of them. There has been some speculation in oats. What has happened is that the speculators have got hold of oats and they are speculating between the western and eastern farmers.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Arthur Ross: Why don't you find out from the wheat board?


John James Smith: It may be
that the wheat board sold to the fellows in the east and they sold to somebody else.
When we are talking about what we have lost we should remember that we are going to have either a board or an exchange, one or the other. If we are going to be too critical of the board then we will get the exchange. So far as losses are concerned we should ask ourselves this question. What would we have got for wheat if during the war years we had had no board?


James Arthur Ross: Will the hon. member permit one question?


John James Smith: Yes, but I will not guarantee that I will be able to answer it.


James Arthur Ross: Does the hon. member think that the wheat board should account to the producers for the handling of their grain?


John James Smith: Yes, I will agree with that. Furthermore I would like to know if it is our producers who are on this board, or if it is somebody who does not know what it costs to grow a bushel of wheat.


James Arthur Ross: I agree with that.


John James Smith: I do not
know who they are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: If the
minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to clear up only one or two brief points. First I should like to deal with the charge that the government is resisting an inquiry into the affairs of the wheat board. That is perfect nonsense. The wheat board is badly overworked. One man has to be stationed in Europe to attend to Canada's representation on the international wheat committee. The other two are handling not only wheat, as they have in the past, but coarse grains, which is a new departure, and they are exceedingly busy. However, I said last March and I repeat: I will be very glad to bring the wheat board here if the committee will indicate that they seriously wish to hear the board. I say that because I think the house has gone committee mad. So many committees are meeting now that we have almost no one in the house to meet as a committee of the whole.
The hon. member said that the committee on agriculture is meeting tomorrow.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Arthur Ross: No; we met today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not meet tomorrow and seriously consider-


James Garfield Gardiner: They cannot find rooms; there are too many committees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -and seriously consider-


James Arthur Ross: The chairman would have to call a meeting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a member of the committee. One member is in the same position as any other.


James Arthur Ross: To call a meeting?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Not to call a meeting.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are so many committees meeting we cannot get space.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the committee on agriculture will meet and advise me that they wish to hear the Canadian wheat board I will summon the board to Ottawa with their proper officers, and if the committee wishes to discuss any report that has been tabled in this house in the last fifty years the wheat board will be there with the information on it.
I do resent the implication, which I think was made quite clear in the remarks of the hon. member for Souris, that the wheat board is doing something which cannot be explained and the government is covering it up.
I just want to make it clear that the wheat board has absolutely nothing to hide. I think it is a disservice to the whole marketing procedure of wheat to send out the implication that there is something wrong about the action of the Canadian wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: I never said there was something wrong. I said we wanted to study their report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be made readily available if the committee wishes to give it the time; but they must not keep the board here for a month to do a week's work. I think that is only fair to the situation we are facing in the marketing of these grains at this particular period of the year.


James Arthur Ross: May I ask the minister whether this bill will be referred to the committee as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a question that is worth discussing. There is nothing in this bill that is new. Most of it is extending the period during which certain parts of the act will be operative. We could send this bill to the committee and have public hearings, and have the grain exchange down here for four or five days, and have any other witnesses who want to come to complain about the


terms of the bill, and keep it in committee until the end of the session. I do not believe that is necessary. I am quite prepared to send the bill to the committee, but I suggest that the nature of the amendments is such that they could very well be disposed of in committee of the whole. I hope that will carry the judgment of the house as far as the provisions of the bill are concerned.
Some comment has been made on the announcement made today. The idea has been advanced that this is a let-down, a complete let-down in what we could expect in the marketing of wheat. That is not my feeling; that is not the feeling of the wheat board. We are very glad to know that we have a sure sale for more than half of Canada's normal exportable surplus. We have a sale to a market that has been ours for a great many years.
Hon members may ask, what is remarkable about that? Why should not we have that? The situation is this. If the United Kingdom buy the North American supply of wheat from Canada they have to pay cold hard dollars for it. If they purchase the same supply from the United States they do it under Marshall aid, which is not a drain on the United Kingdom dollar situation. Does anyone say that the assurance that they are going to buy these supplies from Canada is not a very valuable concession? I may say that when I got that far in the discussion I was quite ready to come home. We can accept too that we have a sure market for that proportion of Canada's export wheat.
Some say that there is no agreement as to price. Well we have an agreement as to price. We have an international wheat agreement that was made by the government, assisted by a very strong committee of producers. We bad representatives of the three pools, representatives of the United Grain Growers, representatives of the individual farmers. They were unanimous in recommending that agreement to the Canadian government, and the Canadian government was unanimous in believing that that agreement did give security to the farmers of Canada.
In my opinion one agreement at a time is about all we can handle. Last year we had two agreements. The reason was that the international wheat agreement overlapped the period of the bilateral United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. Next year wheat will be marketed under the international wheat agreement that provides for a maximum price of $1.98 a bushel and a minimum price of $1.54 a bushel. Under the international wheat agreement Canada will receive the North American price. I am

optimistic enough to believe that the price, under the conditions which I think may prevail in the next marketing year, will be at or near the maximum price. Someone who is pessimistic may take the opposite view and say that it will be at or near the minimum price. However, it will be within the terms of the international wheat agreement, and that under present circumstances is about all that I think we should attempt to do about price at this time.
Ordinarily it is considered gambling to make a short sale of wheat, and we will remember that we are talking about the sale of wheat that is not even planted yet. I think we are much safer in allowing the normal law of marketing to prevail now that we are getting away from the abnormal situation of the reconstruction period, and that is what we intend to do then within the limits of the wheat agreement.
Something has been said about an initial payment. As I said, we are getting back to more normal practice and, in setting the initial payment at $1.40, we are following normal and sound pooling practice. The practice for the prosperous years of the pool, or the successful years of the pool, was to set the initial price at 60 per cent of the price of cash wheat in the month of July. That practice was followed in 1923, when the first pool was organized in Alberta, and in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928.
It was not followed in setting the price in 1929. The price was set well above the 60 per cent of the cash wheat price of that day. What happened? Pools went bankrupt, and some of them have not yet finished paying off debts they incurred as a result of having set that initial payment too high. However, that debt was taken over by the provincial governments, and the pools were allowed to pay off the debt over a period.
What happened in 1930? Again, the 1930 initial price was set well above the 60 per cent of the cash wheat price for July of that year. The initial payment was set at $1, and within a month or two it was reduced to 90 cents. The federal government of that day took over at that time, and Mr. McFarland handled the liquidation of that pool for the account of the federal government, with results that farmers in the western provinces are not too anxious to remember.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question? Does he consider the present situation is analogous?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there not in the world
agreement a maximum and minimum price?
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but what is the world
agreement? The world agreement is that within a certain twelve months-it is not for the sale of a particular crop, but rather within a twelve-month period-we will have a certain minimum price. That price is $1.40 United States funds. So long as the Canadian dollar is devalued, in terms of the U.S. dollar that is $1.54 for that particular year. But all the wheat is not sold in the year in which it is grown. The price drops 10 cents, and it is $1.30 United States the next year, which is $1.43-provided the dollar is still devalued. Will my hon. friend guarantee what the value of the Canadian dollar will be two years hence?


Major James William Coldwell: The minister could guarantee it better than I could.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not prepared to guarantee, except to see the pooling operation stands on its own feet. That is what we are trying to get back to. And that is why the people in pooling, who have had connections with pooling in Canada, will not challenge the wisdom of the government in following the practice of going back to an initial payment of 60 per cent of the cash wheat price in the month of July just preceding. Those are the points I wish to cover.
I could cover other points, but I think I have touched on the important ones1. I was glad that I did not have to bring forward a new contract at this stage. The attitude of this House of Commons seems to be to approve a contract when it is entered into, but immediately to start criticizing it as soon as it comes into operation. The unfortunate thing about making a contract is that you have to decide whether it is good or bad when you sign on the dotted line. People who wish to reverse their principles when they see how a contract works out are not very popular in business circles.
I hear people get up and say they were very critical of the contract in 1945. I sat through the debate, and I did not find anyone rising and taking a decided stand against it. There were several opportunities to vote against it but only one man., the then member for Parkdale, did so.


James Arthur Ross: 1946?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, 1946.


James Arthur Ross: I would ask the minister to produce Hansard to show where I voted in 1946 in connection with that contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whether it was 1945 or 1946, I looked up every vote, and my hon. friend from Souris voted yea on every occasion. The only nay vote was that registered by the

Canadian Wheat Board Act hon. member for Farkdale, who made himself so popular with his colleagues that he resigned his seat in the House of Commons two or three months later.


James Arthur Ross: That is hardly true, either.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Are we going to accept sterling in payment for wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All wheat has been and will be paid for in Canadian dollars.


Major James William Coldwell: From what I heard over the radio tonight, the wheat would be paid for in sterling which would be used to buy British goods which, in reality, would be paid for with the wheat we are selling to Great Britain. As a matter of fact, in a sense that is pretty much what is done. We get British goods. Our wheat is priced here in dollars, and their goods on the other side of the Atlantic are priced in pounds. After all, we are using terms that are a bit confusing, because we speak of our receipts in dollars while they speak of their exports in pounds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We pay for anything we buy from Britain with dollars and they pay us for anything they buy from us in dollars. This is a dollar country.


Major James William Coldwell: The British company does not receive dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the dollars are held in Canada. He is paid in pounds by his own government.


Victor Quelch: At what price will wheat be sold to Canadian millers during 1950-51? Will it be the same iprice as in the international wheat agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that has not been considered, but I would expect that to be so.


James Arthur Ross: In view of the statement made by the minister that there was a vote on that United Kingdom-Canadian wheat agreement, a statement which has been made several times in other debates, I must point out that the minister has never produced Hansard to show that vote. I will help him to clear it up. That agreement was

announced by the previous minister of trade and commerce on July 26, 1946, I believe it was, and there was no opportunity even to debate it until the minister's estimates were brought down later. The vote to which he refers, I suggest, was in connection with amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1947.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To make the agreement possible.


James Arthur Ross: True, to fulfil the contract, a year later. But there never yet has been a vote on the agreement as such.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 252, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 249, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite prepared to accept the second reading of the bill at this moment, and I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 249, to amend the Canada Grain Act; Bill No. 250, to bring the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act into force in Newfoundland; Bill No. 180, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act; and, if there is time left, Bill No. 89, to provide for the publication of statutory regulations.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 4.30 p.m., May 31, 1950.

Wednesday, May 31, 1950



QUESTIONS