1950-06-12

Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have before me the Brantford Expositor of June 10, 1950, which has on the front page a photograph and under it an article, under the caption of the Canadian Press, dealing with Dr. Francis Scott MacKenzie, moderator of the seventy-sixth general assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. In all fairness to Dr. MacKenzie, and not wishing to defame him at all, I think it should be clearly understood that the photograph is not that of Dr. MacKenzie but of myself.



REFERENCE TO REPORT IN WINNIPEG &quot;FREE PRESS&quot; OF JUNE 8

Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have before me the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, June 8, in which there is an article headed: "The wheat agreement-Mr. Howe's explanations"; and the last paragraph of that article, in the third column, reads as follows:
It is a matter of record in and out of parliament that the Conservative and C.C.F. parties were just as blind as the Liberal party to the weakness of the wheat agreement. Both the Conservative and C.C.F. parties have voted for this agreement on every occasion when it has been put to the test. . . .
That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement as such has never been voted on in this House of Commons. The agreement was sanctioned by order in council, under extension of the War Measures Act, in July, 1946. As reported at page 4833 of Hansard of August 15, 1946, I said, with respect to the present Canadian-British wheat agreement: "I am absolutely opposed to it." I stated my reasons, and quoted a portion of the Winnipeg Free Press editorial of August 1, 1946. I trust that the Free Press will make the proper correction or explanation.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On June 5, a week ago today-Hansard, page 3172-in my absence in western Canada, a question which stood on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was by inadvertence passed as an order for return. The question read as follows:
1.	In each department or branch of government or board or corporation set up by the government, how many employees, if any, have been discharged or been in any way released for reasons having to do with security?
2.	What was the effective <Jate in each such case?
3.	What were the position and duties of each such employee at the time of his discharge or release?
I discussed this matter earlier this morning with the hon. member. On the basis of that discussion I should like to move that the order for return be rescinded and that the question be restored to the order paper, and I shall answer it later when the questions on the order paper are dealt with.


Mr. E. D. Fulton. (Kamloops):: I understand that the minister is making a motion that my question be restored to the order paper. In the light of the earlier discussion, may I say a word? I should like to confirm what the minister has said, that I have no objection to the course he suggests being followed, on the understanding that the question will be answered today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Andre Bergeron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Thelma Leggo Chicoine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Anna Kathleen Olga McCone Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Martin Luke Marlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Helena Wilhelmina Thornburg Lawton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Bonnie Ruth McNab Sarrasin.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Lyndia Betsy Mayes Bernier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Sarah Modlinsky Markis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Anna Patiris Sarakinis.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Julia Ann Ramsell Blane.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Cyrile-Orance-Horence Presseau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Paul Edmond Meerte.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Charles George Storey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for ther relief of Mary Muriel Inez Larman Jarry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Mary Zilda Alix Runice.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Aili Esteri Kankaanpaa Toebben.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Pierre Bouchard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of William Aubrey Ricardo Aird.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Marguerite Carmen Samson	Wrigglesworth.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Andrew Cerat.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Marie Lucille Giselle Roy Veilleux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Mable Pearl Speirs Lazor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Lena Grace Connolly Hibberd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Lilian Ferguson Gardner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Marion Leonard Ryan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Joseph Georges Neville Poirier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Marie Gisele St. Laurent Therrien.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Norah Nichol Meighen Allan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Dora Eleanor Chalmers Grisley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Ruth Desiree Morrissette Chevalier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Richard Martello Johnston.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Ernest Beliveau.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
C.G.S. "alberni"

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Did Mr. T. S. Hunter, district architect of the Department of Public Works, recently (between May 1 and May 18, 1950) visit Woodstock, New Brunswick, for the purpose of investigating possible sites for a new post office building in the town of WToodstock?
2.	Did Mr. Hunter confer with Mr. D. R. Bishop?
3.	If so, did such conference relate to the possible site for a new post office building in Woodstock?
4.	Who is Mr. D. R. Bishop and what official position, if any, does he hold in relation to federal government matters?
5.	Has Mr. D. R. Bishop been a candidate in any federal election campaign for the electoral district of Victoria-Carleton? If so, for what party?
6.	Does he have anything to do with federal government patronage in or for the electoral district of Victoria-Carleton?
7.	If so, is the patronage he handles restricted to matters relating to the Post Office Department and the selecting of sites for post office and customs buildings, etc., or does he handle patronage for other federal government departments, and if so what departments?

Questions


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	5, 6 and 7. Not known.


BONAVENTURE, QUE., BREAKWATER
Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Was any work done by the Department of Public Works in the construction of a breakwater in Bonaventure parish, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during December and January last?
2.	If so, what was the cost of same?
3.	What is the name of the foreman?
4.	What salary did he receive?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.


DOMINION STEEL AND COAL CORPORATION-MACHINE SHOP AT GLACE BAY, N. S.
Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Was government assistance given the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation for the purpose of expanding the machine shop of that corporation at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, in what amount?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


VETERANS AFFAIRS BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: With regard to the demolition and general excavation work for the east office building for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Wellington street, Ottawa, bids received May 11, 1949:
1.	To whom was the contract awarded, and what was the amount of the tender?
2.	(a) How much has been paid to the successful tenderer; (b) how much, if any, still remains to be paid?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1. Taggart Construction Limited, 588 Sussex street, Ottawa, $159,000.	2.	(a)
$164,940.09;	(b) nil.


OMEMEE AND OAKWOOD, ONT., POST OFFICES
Mr. Hodgson:: What was the revenue of the post office (a) at Omemee, Ontario; (b) at Oakwood, Ontario, during each of the years 1948 and 1949?


Mr.. Rinfrei:: (a)	1948, $3,365.08; 1949,

(b)	1948, $2,261.08; 1949, $2,199.40.


GANDER, NFLD., AIRPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mr: Higgins:
1.	Have arrangements been made to increase the length of the runways at Gander airport?
2.	If so, when will the work be started?


Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Did the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation borrow money under the provisions of Bill No. 217, an act to assist the producers of coal in the Atlantic maritime provinces in the year 1949 and to date in 1950?
2.	If so, what amount and for what purpose?
3.	What steps are taken by the government to see that the purpose for which the money was borrowed is carried out?
4.	Has the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation submitted any plans to the government or the dominion coal board for the purpose of (a ) expanding the steel industry; (b) expanding the coal industry?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	No.
2. See answer to No. 1.
3. See answer to No. 1.
4.	(a) No; (b) Yes; the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation did submit plans to the dominion coal board with respect to the mechanization of its mines in connection with their application for a substantial loan, the negotiation of which has not yet been completed.



MANITOBA FLOODS


Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many houses does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation own in the flooded areas of Manitoba?
2.	How many houses have been sold by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the flooded areas of Manitoba and (a) are fully paid for; (b) have a balance still owing?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	631.
2.	(a) Nil; (b) 28.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

[Stage Direction]
SCREENING Or


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	In each department or branch of government or board or corporation set up by the government, how many employees, if any, have been discharged or been in any way released for reasons having to do with security?
2.	What was the effective date in each such case?
3.	What were the position and duties of each such employee at the time of his discharge or release?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I should answer now this question of the hon. member for Kamloops, which had earlier been passed as an order for return but has now been restored to the order paper. The hon. me-'ber's question should be considered in relation to

Questions
two other sets of questions standing in his name on today's order paper as Nos. 9 and 10, as follows:
1.	In each department or branch of government or board or corporation set up by the government, on what date respectively was any security screening first completed?
2.	Are there any such departments, branches, boards or corporations where no such screening has taken place? If so, what were the reasons?
1.	What were the positions in the national research council held at the time of their discharge by the two employees who were discharged for security reasons in March of 1946?
2.	What was the nature of their respective duties in these positions?
These questions all have to do with what has been referred to as screening of civil service personnel for security reasons, and I think it is desirable that I should answer them orally, all at the same time, in the following terms:
Those who serve the state should be loyal to the state. The loyalty of civil servants is expected by the government of Canada as a routine condition precedent to their employment. The responsibility for ensuring that civil service employees are loyal rests upon the head of each department, or agency, usually the deputy minister. It also rests in part upon the civil service commission. The departmental head and the civil service commission is each expected to take such steps [DOT] as may be considered necessary to make sure that this responsibility is properly discharged.


Mr. Harris (Danforlh):: All of them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To this end a minister or deputy minister, where he considers it necessary, may refer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a report on any civil servant doing work in connection with which it is necessary that there should be no doubt whatever as to the civil servant's loyalty. When the names of such civil servants are referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a check is made and the information thereby secured is reported back to the deputy head of the department concerned. In this report the mounted police do not in any case express any opinion as to whether a given civil servant should be retained in employment, or should be discharged. They provide merely a factual report concerning the civil servant reported upon; and it is the head of the department who decides whether, upon the basis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report or otherwise, the civil servant in question should be retained in employment or discharged.
The standard by which the loyalty of a given civil servant is judged depends in an important measure upon the degree of trustworthiness which is required in the work
[Mr. GarsonJ
which he is doing. In some cases entire departments have been designated by the cabinet as vulnerable departments which require from the civil servants operating them a special degree of trustworthiness. In other cases sections or branches of departments dealing with secret matters have been declared as vulnerable. In still other cases, departments or branches of departments which had not been dealing with secret work previously are declared vulnerable upon being given secret work to do.
The civil servants employed in vulnerable branches or departments must have such a high degree of trustworthiness as to be beyond any doubt whatever. The government cannot wait for actual cases of espionage or sabotage or other offences to take place; the government cannot safely employ or continue to employ in secret or unusually confidential work persons about whose trustworthiness there is any doubt whatever. Thus, in considering the report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and data from other sources, the head of a vulnerable department must resolve all doubts, even the slightest, in favour of the government. He should therefore refuse to continue in employment to do secret or confidential work any person concerning whom doubt exists.
This being so, it would be most unfair to the civil servant whose trustworthiness is perhaps no more than in some slight doubt that in addition to refusing to continue his employment, the government should, without proof, brand him as an untrustworthy person. The government considers that it would be quite unwarranted in taking any overt action which would injure such person's reputation or interfere with his chances of alternative employment in positions not of the same secret and confidential character.
The two employees of the national research council

and I am referring now to question No. 10 on today's order paper-who were discharged for security reasons in March of 1946, were two who, having been mentioned in the report of the royal commission on espionage, had been convicted of offences under the Official Secrets Act. Therefore the government had no objection to disclosing information concerning them in reply to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops on May 22, 1950, and will answer in due course the question No. 10 on today's order paper, in -the name of the hon. member for Kamloops.
In connection, however, with each of the other civil servants who have been released for security reasons, the government feels it would be unjust to disclose the information sought by the hon. member's question with regard to the date of discharge and the position and

duties of such civil servants at the time of their release. Such information would in almost all cases disclose their identity.
It will be seen, moreover, from the foregoing that the security responsibilities of the departmental head and of the civil service commission are such that the checking or screening of all government employees in the Canadian civil service, with or without the assistance of factual reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is a process which never ends and which, therefore, is never complete as of any certain date.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I realize that answers to questions are not debatable, but perhaps Your Honour will permit me to make two or three observations to indicate my point of view.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is improper at this time to debate the answer to a question. The hon. member may have an opportunity later.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister two questions. First, does he not feel it would be possible to give some factual information as to the number of persons affected, without disclosing their positions? Second, will he give a full opportunity to discuss this matter, despite the fact that other departments are involved, when the estimates of his department are under consideration?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It goes without saying that even if I were disposed to do so, there is no way in which I could refuse to discuss this matter when the estimates of the Department of Justice are being considered. However, I have no desire not to discuss it; on the contrary we shall be delighted to do so.
With regard to the second question, I would prefer not to answer a hypothetical question of that kind. What we have done this morning is to answer a question on the order paper. If my hon. friend has any further questions, and will put them on the order paper, we shall endeavour to answer them as they come.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that my question has not been answered, because it contains a separate part asking information merely as to the number that might have been released, quite distinct from the part touching upon the positions they held. I am asking whether the minister could not give that information in reply to the question on the order paper.


Mr. Coldwell:: In view of the statement made by the minister, and the fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police make a
Questions
report to the officials, has consideration been o'ive-i to allowing accused persons the right to appeal to some committee which would review each case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is
scarcely a supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. member would withhold it until the minister's estimates are being considered.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no objection to that.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to make one or two observations on a question of privilege. It is pretty nearly time in this most highly civilized country that the significance of the remarks of the Minister of Justice should penetrate into the minds of the Canadian people. Nowhere else in civilization is there an opportunity to live as we live. I am asking the House of Commons this day to respect and honour the observations of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Supplementing the answer given by the Minister of Justice, I should like to give the answer to question No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What were the positions in the national research council held at the time of their discharge by the two employees who were discharged for security reasons in March of 1946?
2.	What was the nature of their respective duties in these positions?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Junior research engineer and assistant research engineer respectively, in the electrical engineering and radio branch.
2.	Both worked under supervision on the development of radar equipment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, may I point out that I have already drawn the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that certain factual information is not contained in the general terms of his reply, and, as that information has not been given, I suggest, with respect, that the questions have not been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The questions may not have been answered to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Kamloops, but I must declare that they have been answered.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Knowles:: 1. Has any department of the government any reports or detailed information with reference to

Inquiries of the Ministry
the construction and maintenance of the by-pass which was built to carry part of the waters of the Missouri river around Kansas City?
2. If so, what department has the same, and what are the titles of any such reports or documents?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Goode:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, maps and other documents from January 1, 1949, to date, exchanged between the dominion government and the province of British Columbia, dealing with the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Prudham:: On behalf of the Minister of Resources and Development I should like to say that there is no objection to producing the maps, letters and correspondence asked for, when approval has been received from the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the remarks of the parliamentary assistant?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of the record of the conviction and evidence taken at the trial of Mrs. Bessie Ellis-Reid of Ottawa on two charges laid under the provisions of the wartime leasehold regulations and prosecuted by the enforcement branch of the wartime prices and trade board under complaint dated 29th of March, 1950.


Mr. Abbott:: There is no objection to this order passing, but I am informed that by agreement between the parties no written evidence was taken in this case. However, the order can pass for the rest of it.
The hon. member asked for the costs in the two cases referred to. In one case the costs were $36.20, and in the other, $39.10, a total of $75.30.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport when I may expect a reply to a question standing in my name which has been on the order paper since May 16, and which asks merely for factual information which I presume would be readily available. I certainly would appreciate it if the minister could expedite the answer.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: All questions that have to do with Canadian National Railways must of necessity

be referred to them. I must inform the hon. gentleman that notwithstanding certain representations which I have made that answers be not unduly delayed, I have not yet the answers. I shall ask them to hurry the matter.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: On
June 7, as reported on page 3305 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
In the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has yet reached a decision with reference to the suggested introduction of an amendment at this session to the Official Secrets Act.
To this the Acting Prime Minister replied:
I am unable to answer that question. I will make inquiries and answer it tomorrow.
I wonder if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice can answer that question now?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I may inform my hon. friend that a draft bill is in the possession of my deputy for consideration by him and by myself at the first opportunity. It will then go before the cabinet and, if approved, will be introduced in due course.



PRICE SUPPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked two questions of the Minister of Agriculture, and in view of his absence on that day I suggested that they be taken as notice to be answered as soon as possible. Is the minister going to answer those questions today?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The first question asked by the hon. gentleman was this:
Has any decision been made with reference to the continuation of the price support program for bacon after July 1, 1950?
The second question was:
How much bacon has been purchased to date by the board for the purpose of filling the requirements of the Anglo-Canadian bacon agreement?
With regard to the first question, may I say that I have read the statement which was issued on January 3 and I am not at all certain that any further announcement is

necessary. I am having the matter looked into, and if a further announcement is necessary it will be made.
With regard to the second question, the figure as to marketings of hogs from January 1 to June 3, 1949, was 1,785,003, and for 1950, 2,196,081. Shipments of bacon on contract for 1949 were 16,906,075 pounds, and for 1950, 12,625,944 pounds. It will be noticed that the marketings are higher in 1950 and the shipments to Great Britain are lower.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a question of privilege, I did not ask for the 1949 figure. I asked for the 1950 figure, and my question of privilege is this: On June 9 of this year there was an article in the newspapers saying that the support of bacon price may continue after July, and that that information had been given out on that day toy an informed official.


James Garfield Gardiner: I see these articles in the press from time to time about what informed officials have said, but I have not been able yet to find the well informed official who gave that statement.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to a question of mine which is No. 25 on today's order paper, and which refers simply to a communication from the council of the city of Winnipeg with respect to the flood situation. I hope it can be answered soon. The question was placed on the order paper on June 2. On that day I had thought of asking it on the orders of the day, but I put it on the order paper so that it might be looked into more carefully. It has been there now for ten days. I should like to have an answer as soon as possible.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I shall seek from the proper quarters the information asked for in the question, and endeavour to have an answer given soon.



IRON ORE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is in position to make a statement with respect to the sale of iron ore from Newfoundland.
Foreign Insurance Companies Act


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, sir.



FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 268, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
He said: As the house is already aware, this bill and the companion bill to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act were passed in the other place. Since the original insurance acts were passed in 1868 they have necessarily had to be revised from time to time, and the last substantial revision was in 1932. While there have been certain amendments made since that time, the acts have stood substantially unchanged.
Several desirable amendments have been accumulating for a good many years, including especially a revision of the investment provisions in order to bring them up to date. The purpose of this bill, and of the companion bill, is to bring the acts into closer conformity with current conditions and to remove certain anomalies in the treatment of Canadian companies as compared with the treatment of British and foreign companies.
The bills were prepared in collaboration with the superintendent of insurance, and it would be my intention after second reading is approved to have them referred to the banking and commerce committee in order that the clauses may be given detailed consideration and the superintendent of insurance may be available to explain the different provisions. I think I should say that there are no amendments of great moment; none that will arouse any particular controversy.
The investment provisions have been amended to bring these acts, as I have said, into line with modern conditions. I do not know that I need to go into the changes in detail. They include such things as authorizing investment in equipment trust certificates, which have become a common vehicle for railway financing. Provision is also made for investment in revenue producing real estate which is subject to lease-in other words, the lease option agreements with which hon. members of the house are familiar, and which have become extremely popular in recent years, both here and in the United States. Since it is a relatively new departure under the Insurance Act, the amount which can be invested under that category is limited to five per cent.
Then there are some changes in connection with the qualifications for investment in common shares. The criterion at present is
3472	HOUSE OF
Foreign Insurance Companies Act that investment may be made, within the limitation provided under the act, in the common shares of any corporation that has in each of the seven years preceding the date of investment paid dividends of at least four per cent of the par value, or $4 per share if the shares have no par value. It is proposed that in place of the $4 test for shares of no par value, the dividends in each of the seven years must have been equal to at least four per cent of the average value at which the shares were carried in the capital stock account of the corpora'.ion. That is an illustration of the type of change provided to bring the legislation in line with modern conditions.
The other important change in connection with the investment provisions is that what is known as the amortization principle will be allowed in connection with the bonds of the dominion, any province of Canada, the United Kingdom, or the United States of America. At the present time, as the house is aware, all insurance companies registered under the act are required to take their securities into account at market values in the annual statement deposited with the department. In practice, however, Canadian companies have been taking them into account at the market values or book values, whichever was lower, and since this is a conservative practice it has been encouraged. It is now proposed that life insurance companies be permitted to carry securities issued by the government of Canada or of any province of Canada, or of the United States or the United Kingdom, at values not exceeding the "amortized" values, that is, values calculated mathematically having regard to the purchase price, the actual interest payments, the date of maturity, and the amount to be received at maturity. I think that basis is used in almost all of the states of the United States.
Then there are other provisions, such as a clause which would permit a company to reduce the par value of the shares below $100 if desired. The house will recall that in the last revision of the Bank Act an amendment was introduced permitting the shares of banks to be reduced to not less than $10. There will be a similar provision in the insurance companies act.
There are a number of other provisions of perhaps no general significance. They are technical in some cases, although important for the efficient administration of these companies.
As I say, the bill will be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, and in that committee detailed consideration can be given to the provisions to which I have referred.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I only want to say that I welcome the minister's suggestion to send the bill to the banking and commerce committee. It seems to me we have there the double advantage of the presence of officials of the department and representatives of the insurance business.
I think the minister has given an adequate resume of the reasons for the changes. It is to some extent a tidying up and consolidating process. There is perhaps one comment which might be made. I think one of the reasons for the changes, which are comparatively minor, is that our own companies found that United States companies were coming in here and were able to carry on business and to do certain things, which I am sure will carry the approval of the committee and of the house, which in fact it was not possible for our own companies to do.
I do not think it is necessary to say more. I welcome the statement that the bill is to be sent to the standing committee on banking and commerce. As the house is aware, it has already been before the other place, and I understand the work of the department was so satisfactory that the amendments made there were trifling in degree.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 269, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
He said: As I indicated, this is a companion bill to the one we have just dealt with. Our insurance law is in two parts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill, cited as the Defence Supplies Act, to empower the Minister of Trade and Commerce to buy or otherwise acquire and deal with defence supplies: construct or otherwise acquire, projects: acquire, store and otherwise deal with material entering into the manufacture of defence supplies or the development, repair or maintenance of projects; arrange for the performance of commercial and professional services; require priority in delivery or construction and to

require persons who have received offers, fair and reasonable in his opinion, for supplies, projects or services to meet the requirements subject to an appeal to the exchequer court on the question of price; also to empower the minister to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence; also to empower the governor in council to appoint assistants to the minister and advisers and advisory boards and to fix their remuneration and expenses; with provision also for the approval by the governor in council of contracts except in emergent cases and where the sum involved does not exceed a certain specified amount.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the defence supplies bill to be based on this resolution will make new provision for the procurement of munitions and defence supplies. At present provision for procurement is made in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, 1939, as amended to date. The existing statute was drafted at the outbreak of war, and revised in the light of experience and to meet changing war conditions. It well served its purpose, both during the war and after. It was, however, designed primarily to deal with a state of war and with the aftermath of war. We consider that the time is fitting to replace it with legislation which will be more closely suited to the conditions of the day.
Clearly this is no time to take any action that would hamper the defence of the country; for we are not free from the threat of aggression. Indeed we must devote much of our energies and our resources to deterring aggression. We must strengthen ourselves so we may be able to resist the aggressor and overcome him if we fail to deter him. Hence we have endeavoured to frame the legislation so that we shall not lessen our ability to provide for the needs of defence. We have aimed at retaining such powers, and no others, as will under present conditions safeguard the interests of defence in the field of procurement of supplies.
The bill grants the minister the general authority to procure defence supplies, to stockpile strategic materials, to construct defence projects, and to let contracts for shipbuilding and ship repairing for government departments. We consider that it is highly desirable to continue to vest in the minister the procurement authority for the requirements of the armed services. Our experience has shown that the method which we have adopted of centralizing defence purchasing in civilian hands is efficient and economical.
During the war we developed in the department of munitions and supply one of the best methods of procurement of any of the allied nations. We built up an extremely efficient civilian purchasing agency for the services. Many of the key personnel involved in these activities during the war
Defence Supplies
carried on as employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and we have been able to secure in peacetime much of the efficiency, economy of effort and concentration of purpose that we secured during the war. In the last fiscal year, the Canadian Commercial Corporation made purchases of over $200 million for the services, at a cost of less than one-half of one per cent.
The minister is also given the powers which may be necessary to enable defence contracts to be completed. I well realize how greatly we can rely on our own people and how little we need rely on mandatory powers. I have had a good deal to do in the past years with the industrial aspects of war and defence. Some of those years have been bitter and trying, but throughout them all we have been heartened by the ready co-operation that every section of Canada and every sector of Canadian life have given to the tasks that faced us. Nevertheless, even with the best good will and co-operation on all sides, circumstances may still arise where some mandatory powers are needed. A supplier may be unable to meet an essential defence need because of prior commitments at home or abroad. A contractor may be unable to make delivery, on schedule, of defence supplies because of conflicting requirements, domestic or foreign. Hence the bill grants the minister power to obtain a priority for defence contracts over other contracts, and power to ensure the delivery of materials essential to the production of defence supplies and to the completion of defence projects.
Before the minister enters into a contract, the approval of the governor in council must be obtained, except:
(a)	where in the minister's opinion the contract must be executed immediately in the interests of defence;
(b)	where the estimated expenditure does not exceed $15,000;
(c)	where the estimated expenditure does
not exceed $50,000 in cases where competitive tenders have been obtained and the lowest tender accepted.	.
The minister, however, shall report to the governor in council contracts involving more than $5,000 which have been entered into without the latter's approval.
The minister is granted authority to enter into contracts without calling for tenders as required under section 36 of the Publio Works Act in four cases:
(1)	Where the disclosure of the specifications would, in the opinion of the minister or of the Minister of National Defence, be prejudicial to the interests of defence.
[Stage Direction]
Defence Supplies
(2)	Where the supplies are to be acquired from, or the project executed by, a crown company. This provision is intended to extend to crown companies an exception already contained in the Public Works Act for works to be executed by government employees.
(3)	Where the contract covers ships or ship repairs.
I shall deal for a moment with the special provisions relating to ships. The bill gives the minister authority to place contracts for shipbuilding and repairs to meet the requirements of the Department of National Defence and of other government departments. He is authorized to let such contracts to any shipyard specified by the governor in council. The purpose of these provisions for allocation is to ensure the continuance of shipbuilding facilities in Canada adequate to the needs of defence. In the last war tremendous demands were made on Canadian shipyards, and they met their task magnificently. If there should be another war, we can be sure that they would be again called upon to make a great contribution. Although we have undertaken what is an extensive shipbuilding program for defence, it does not utilize the full capacities of our yards. We consider it is therefore desirable that such shipbuilding as we are undertaking be allocated with the object of sustaining in Canada a nucleus of facilities strategically located. The bulk of such contracts would be placed to meet the requirements of the Department of National Defence.
There is in addition a comparatively small amount of shipbuilding for other departments, such as the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. It is considered practical that the minister be given authority to place such contracts so that the full benefit of allocation may be obtained. We intend to consult the Canadian maritime commission and to obtain the advice of the commission as to the yards in which contracts should be placed to best further our general objective.
The fourth case in which the provisions of the Public Works Act would not apply is when in the opinion of the governor in council the contracts should in the public interest be exempt from that act. This provision is designed to meet the situation that can arise in our defence works in remote areas. A contract is let to a contractor for works in the north. While he is at work new factors may enter into our defence planning. As a result we may find we need more buildings than we contracted for. The practical course is to come to terms with the contractor already at work and on location. Or again we may need to place a contract for a project which calls for very highly specialized technical
IMr. Howe.]
knowledge where we have no choice of contractors. We would be able to cover these cases under this provision after the approval of the governor in council had been obtained.
Hon. members may be interested in a brief comparison between some of the main features of the bill and of the existing authority, the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
The proposed bill relates to the same defence field as the present act; the definition of defence supplies is what is defined in the present act as "munitions of war" and "supplies". "Project" has the same meaning in the bill as in the act.
The provision which gives the minister the exclusive authority to procure for the Department of National Defence corresponds with the provisions in the present act.
The minister's powers respecting production and the delivery of supplies are a curtailment of his powers in the act. The power to compel manufacture of supplies or the construction of projects has been removed.
The bill does not grant the minister the authority to mobilize, control, and regulate any branch of trade or industry; or to issue orders, permits and licences; or the authority to do such things as the minister deems incidental to or expedient for the exercise of any of his powers.
The provision has been dropped which permitted the minister to exercise his powers without restriction or limitation by any other legislation. In the proposed bill the specific cases in which it is intended existing legislation should not restrict or limit him are set out.
The mandatory powers-that is, those dealing with priority and with delivery of supplies-are a considerable curtailment of the present powers in the act. The priority authority is effective only in respect of persons who actually contract to deliver defence supplies or to construct projects, and the powers relating to the delivery of supplies are effective only in respect of persons in the business of dealing in materials used for defence supplies or projects. There is a difference, too, in the terms and conditions. Under the present act the minister may specify such terms and conditions as he deems to be fair and reasonable, whereas in the bill delivery is to be at current market prices, which in case of dispute may be determined by the exchequer court.
Unlike the present act the bill does not authorize the minister to ascertain fair and reasonable cost and profit and to direct repayment of excess profit.
The bill also calls for the repeal of the Defence Purchases Act. In wartime we had

to set up in great haste to produce munitions and supplies which had never been made before in Canada. There was no fair way of determining in advance what the cost should be, and no time to negotiate. Legislation was enacted to control profits and to provide for the renegotiation of contracts. We then got on with the job, placed contracts and settled the financial outcome later, invoking where necessary the legislative authority. A few of the old contracts are still under examination, or are the subject of pending litigation. There is provision in the bill that in these cases the effect of the present act is preserved.
We consider that in the peacetime conditions of today the control which the government, as a purchaser, exercises over a contractor's profit should be the control which a buyer can exercise in the course of the negotiation and execution of a contract. On this subject I would underline that the proposed bill is designed to meet today's conditions. Emergency conditions would call for new legislation and for an approach to this and other questions in keeping with emergency conditions. As part of our general planning we have draft legislation in readiness for an emergency.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution
raises a question which goes far beyond the mere carrying forward of the legislation which has been referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). While it is, according to his statement, similar to the legislation known as the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, there are certain variations and certain curtailments which would appear to limit the mandatory authority of the minister in this case. It will not of course be possible to examine these details until the bill is before the house. Nevertheless in this resolution itself, there is sufficient before us now to enable us to consider the principle involved in declaring that it is expedient that such new legislation be introduced as has been described this morning by the minister.
On several occasions during the past year and a half-and I mention a year and a half because that period embraces the three times that the house has met-we have been informed that the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence is the Canadian Commercial Corporation. This does more, therefore, than merely give to the minister in peacetime powers similar to in many respects but less in others than those contained in the wartime Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
One of the questions which immediately arises is this. If the purchasing is to be taken
Defence Supplies
from the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and if that device is not to be employed, why should this function be under the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Why should it not be under the Minister of National Defence himself in peacetime? We are not now talking so much about the individuals concerned as about the principle involved. Except in relation to matters that would normally come under such a broad and embracing department as the Department of Public Works, it has been the general practice for departments to deal with their own requirements. I think that this house should have a great deal more information before it approves in principle the declaration that it is expedient that there be introduced legislation with the wide powers contemplated in this resolution.
I think it is important to indicate the scope and effect of the resolution in peacetime. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to present a bill, cited as the Defence Supplies Act, to empower the Minister of Trade and Commerce to buy or otherwise acquire and deal with defence supplies; construct or otherwise acquire, projects; acquire, store and otherwise deal with material entering into the manufacture of defence supplies or the development, repair or maintenance of projects; arrange for the performance of commercial and professional services; require priority in delivery or construction and to require persons who have received offers, fair and reasonable in his opinion, for supplies, projects or services, to meet the requirements subject to an appeal to the exchequer court on the question of price; also to empower the minister to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence; also to empower the governor in council to appoint assistants to the minister and advisers and advisory boards and to fix their remuneration and expenses; with provision also for the approval by the governor in council of contracts except in emergent cases and where the sum involved does not exceed a certain specified amount.
If the wording of this resolution is to be interpreted in legislation, then without waiting for the bill we are being called upon to declare that it is expedient to turn over to the Minister of Trade and Commerce functions of parliament itself and transactions which will not be subject to the ordinary protection and restraints which over many years have been regarded as important for the protection both of government itself and of the use of the people's money.
There is the provision that the contracts are not to be subject to the requirement of calling for tenders in certain specified cases, four in number. The first of these is when the details are such that the disclosure of them would be regarded as contrary to the public interest. We have seen a great many surprising demonstrations of what is regarded as contrary to the public interest. Hon. members of this house-I am basing this statement on what I have read in

Defence Supplies
Hansard and elsewhere-were obviously reluctant to examine too strictly procedures which, as they stated from time to time, would not be acceptable in peacetime but which in the dreadful emergency of war they were prepared to approve with some concern and with some reservations.
The second specified case is that of this crown corporation which by its authority can deal in activities of this kind; the third is where the contract affects ship repairs and the preparation for the construction of ships; and the fourth, cases in which the government decides that it is contrary to the public interest that there should be any disclosure even of the existence of such a contract because of the danger of conveying to possible enemies knowledge of steps that were being taken; and also certain other cases illustrated by the minister in his remarks.
These are wide exceptions-so wide, in fact, that they would make it possible for the minister to deal in almost any case with projects of this kind without tenders being called for or there being taken those other steps which over long years of parliamentary practice in this country, in Great Britain and in other countries in which there is a similar parliamentary system, have been found to be essential in the public interest. Indeed they have been regarded as so essential that in the case of the Department of Public Works they are explicitly covered by statutory provision.
We are asked to declare that it is expedient that this legislation should replace the Canadian Commercial Corporation as the purchasing agency for the Department of National Defence. With whatever limitations and reservations the bill may contain when it is presented to us, substantially we are being asked to declare as a matter of principle that it is expedient to confer these extremely wide powers in peacetime upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
One of the things that must surely impress itself upon the mind of every hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between the sense of urgency which seems to be implicit in the presentation of this resolution at this time, and the lack of any sense of urgency which was implicit in the position taken by the Minister of National Defence in the discussion of his estimates and in his definite statement that there was nothing new to announce to us in regard to the plans for national defence. The two do not go hand in hand. Either the Minister of National Defence is not disclosing to us all the information in his possession, or there is no immediate need of this resolution and the bill which would follow

it. If there is the need which is indicated by this legislation, then the government should insist that the Minister of National Defence come before us and make a statement as to what the circumstances are that require a revised attitude toward our whole defence problem.
One of the arguments which has not been made, but which could well be made if it has validity, is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might have referred to the clear statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that an historic agreement was made in London a few weeks ago, by virtue of which it had been decided to determine which nation could best produce certain things, best build battleships or aircraft or guns or tanks; that the nation or nations which could best perform that task would be called upon to do the job and that the others would rely upon those nations to supply them.
The Minister of National Defence said something that was not suggested by any member of this house, namely, that the reference to this was an attempt to represent that there was a cleavage between the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If such a cleavage exists, it is only in the mind of the Minister of National Defence, or to his knowledge; but it certainly is not in the knowledge of any member of this house, because we have no knowledge yet of what the Minister of National Defence wants.


An hon. Member:: He has not either.


George Alexander Drew: I heard someone remark that he has not either, and I am inclined to think that is right.


James Arthur Ross: It is quite evident.


George Alexander Drew: It may well be that the Minister of Trade and Commerce thinks that he has not, and that is why he is presenting this resolution. Perhaps he is going to give the Minister of National Defence the same treatment that the Minister of Justice got.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is his nasty day.


George Alexander Drew: No. Whether we are judging a horse race or anything else, we have, after all, to try to study the form.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't let me interrupt you.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of National
Defence was critical of any attempt to find out what issue was raised by this new principle so clearly stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a week ago today. I should like to refer to the words of the

Minister of National Defence, as reported at page 3457 of Hansard of Friday, June 9. He said, in reference to what I had been asking:
But "Let us know what is needed," he said.
Referring to what I had said, he went on:
And I ask, "Let us know what is needed, where, when, by whom, and with what?"
That is exactly what we were trying to find out. Under this new principle, what is needed, where, when, by whom, and with what? In view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence has told us that there are no changes which he has to announce affecting the general program during the coming year ending March 31 next, surely it is wise for us to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and also perhaps to suggest that the Minister of National Defence ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in relation to this legislation:	Let us know what is
needed, where, when, by whom, and with what? We do not know. The Minister of National Defence indicates that he does not know. He explained to us that it was impossible for him to indicate even anything in the future when the bases of decisions have not yet been reached.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce says to us:	Yes, there is a crisis; these are dangerous days; we must prepare ourselves, I believe most hon. members would agree with that, would agree with measures which would expedite the general activities of this country in relation to every aspect of our defence measures-and obviously the preparation of defence material and the production of defence supplies are almost as vital, if not as vital, as the training of men. Perhaps in some ways it is more fundamental, because, until we have the defence equipment and the defence supplies, much of the training cannot be so carried out on a practical basis as to simulate that measure of realism which prepares men to go into battle if it should become necessary so to do. There certainly must be a measure of urgency indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the complementary activities are to be regarded as having the urgency which calls for a resolution of this kind. The minister has explained that whereas the act which this is to replace was for the purpose of dealing with an actual state of war, this deals with a period of peace, which nevertheless must be regarded as a period of emergency. He tells us that in this period of emergency circumstances may arise in which mandatory powers will be required. I suggest that if such mandatory powers are required, the simple course to follow is that which was followed in other emergencies-immediately
Defence Supplies
to assemble this parliament so that it may give such mandatory powers as the emergency then apparent demands.
I find it difficult to agree, when the Minister of National Defence tells us that the London decisions presented situations that offer reasons for his projecting changes which a measure such as this would be intended to implement, that the House of Commons has any right in principle to say that it is expedient that these broad powers be conferred upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
After all, the house has retained, and the government has made it clear that it has retained, the authority to declare war. Most certainly emergencies far short of war might arise where it would be necessary to deal with such emergencies. It is the hope of each one of us that by recognizing emergencies as they appear, and dealing with them as such, peace may be preserved. I have no doubt the Minister of Trade and Commerce would tell us, and tell us sincerely, that in his opinion the granting of powers of this kind is part of a broad plan to do those things which are essential if we are to play our part in the effort to preserve peace.
In other words, the very name of the act, which abandons the earlier term related to war, does indicate that concept; and I am sure it is a concept of the broad situation in the world today that must meet with the approval of every member of the house. But these wide powers-and they are extremely wide-as explained by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are powers which to a very considerable extent once again would place a large segment of our industrial and other economy beyond the control of parliament, except by way of subsequent examination, and give to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government powers which could only reasonably be asked for in a time of war.
The minister has stated that certain mandatory authority will be continued, but he points out that such mandatory powers will be restrained to the extent that the minister does not have power to compel any industry to produce a particular thing. Nevertheless he can establish priorities; and each one of us with any knowledge of what took place during the war years and since knows perfectly well that from the practical standpoint the control of priorities has a mandatory effect upon industries concerned in the exercise of such authority.
The answer may be that these powers are to be exercised only in those cases where industries have voluntarily agreed to produce certain types of equipment or defence

Defence Supplies
supplies. But we all know that from the practical point of view the authority of government over industry today is such that few industries would at any time place themselves in a position where it would be necessary to use compulsion to have them carry out certain tasks. The very fact that these wide powers exist, particularly the power to enter into certain contracts which are not subject to the ordinary provisions of publicity under the four headings explained by the minister, indicates the extent to which a considerable segment of our industrial and other economy would once again come under this very general authority.
In any remarks I am making I am not suggesting that there is no emergency. On the contrary I was taken to task by the Minister of National Defence on Friday for seeking to emphasize the extent of the emergency. I do believe there is one. I believe there is an emergency which has been in no way admitted by the government in the statements made by the Minister of National Defence. The extent of that emergency is indicated by press dispatches such as this one from Washington on May 5:
Defence and state departments of the United States have decided that western powers have at most four years to build up their combined military strength for defence against Russia.
If anything I would think that a generous estimate of the time factor involved. If that is so, then the proper sequence of events to deal with an emergency of that kind is for the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister to state to us what the effect of these London agreements really is, and to answer the very question posed by the Minister of National Defence: "Let us know what is needed, where, when, by whom and with what?" Let this parliament know, and then, having let this parliament know, present a resolution of this kind when the members have been informed of the extent of the emergency and of the way in which the emergency is to be met.
Of course most of us read this morning that this is not the business of the opposition. Most of us read this morning the remarkable speech made on Saturday by the Prime Minister, a speech remarkable in its childish arrogance, a speech which said in effect that the role of the opposition was simply to get up and say, "Please, Mr. Speaker, may I make a little suggestion?" and beyond that just to sit and learn. [Inaudible interruption.] Obviously, the Prime Minister, like some other hon. members whose voices are not loud enough for the reporter to hear, which is a pity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Some of the voices that are heard indicate a measure of impatience and an unwillingness to discuss matters involving the very survival of this nation. [Inaudible interruption.] I do wish the reporter had heard that one, because I cannot imagine anything-I shall not repeat it-that more clearly indicates the intelligence of the member who used it. Without quoting it, I will repeat the word to him and say that it applies to everything he has done in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is necessary that the Speaker should hear all the words that are used. If the word is on Hansard of course I shall know what it was. I did not hear the word, and I do not think many other members did.


George Alexander Drew: A number of members around me heard it quite clearly, as I did, and as the member knows perfectly well, because he was speaking in this direction and not toward you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the word happens to be unparliamentary, I shall order it expunged from Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: I shall tell hon. members the word afterwards.


An hon. Member:: Let us have it.


George Alexander Drew: I am mentioning this merely because it is of interest only to the hon. member who used it. These sounds are indicative of the thought behind the speech of the Prime Minister on Saturday. After less than three and a half months, great impatience is being shown that this parliament is still seeking to find out the business of many of the most important departments.
One reason why hon. members should be reluctant to pass this resolution is that it is intended to give wide powers of this kind without explanation either by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence of some of the details of the emergency which calls for these wide powers. The powers which the same minister possessed on an earlier occasion should be placed under real control by this parliament without renewing other powers.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred to the magnificent job of war production which was done by the people of this country. It was a magnificent job. The reason why tremendous production was carried out in the fields of industry, mining, agriculture and forestry was that the citizens, with great personal skill, both in management and in the technical aspects of these many problems, were ready to serve unselfishly in time of war.
The minister showed one quality which deserves a great deal of commendation in

that he gave authority to these men. May I say that the men who did these jobs were certainly not doing the jobs because of their political point of view, as their identity will indicate. When the minister did give jobs to these men, he delegated authority as well. That was a quality which had a great deal to do with the success of this effort. While questions may be raised about the way in which some of these things were handled, there is no doubt that that quality permitted those men to go ahead and perform the tasks that were allotted to them.
As a result of the wide powers conferred by the munitions and supply act a good deal of public property came under the control of the government which was not the kind of property a government ordinarily handles. The time is long overdue when parliament should reassert its authority and insist that the same standards of protection of public property and public funds be applied to the handling of properties acquired in this way as would apply to the handling of other properties by other departments of government.
We are not dealing with imaginary cases. We are dealing with a situation where many properties of considerable value have been disposed of by private negotiation without any notice to the public that they were being offered for sale. In some cases those properties had great value. In one case a.property which had a stated value of $32 million, according to the figures supplied by the government itself, was disposed of by private negotiation and transaction without any of the ordinary notices being given that such property was for sale. In another case a mine in British Columbia was sold without any notice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not true. That mine was advertised.


George Alexander Drew: The official who explained that was not aware of it at the time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to file the advertisement.


George Alexander Drew: If that is so, it indicates the difficulty we have to face, because in the explanation given, that information was not available. If that mine was sold after due notice, we learn it only now, because the information was not previously given to us.
There are a number of other cases. We find, for example, that in the case of one crown corporation under the authority of the same minister-and in this instance the head of the corporation stated that it was done on the authority of the corporation itself-mining stock held by the Eldorado Corporation was disposed of by private transaction without public notice. The stock was sold last
Defence Supplies
December at one cent a share without notice, and today it is being quoted as an unlisted stock at from 13 to 15 cents a share.
These are merely incidents which indicate the importance of bringing back under normal control and procedure the corporations and the properties which have been acquired. They also indicate that we should be most careful about passing a resolution that it is expedient that property which would be acquired under circumstances of this kind may be dealt with in a similar manner. The broad terms of the resolution would of course imply authority not only to acquire but to dispose of the same property. In the broadest possible terms the resolution places powers under the Minister of Trade and Commerce which can only be related to an emergency that has been stated to us in general terms but not in any definite way by the Minister of National Defence, who is the minister responsible for the preparation to which these activities would relate.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if this emergency is such that it requires wide powers of this kind, let the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence answer the questions that were asked to the point where a number of members were expressing a great deal of impatience. Having given us that explanation, then let them say why it is necessary to create a new procurement agency instead of the one outlined in the last white paper of the Department of National Defence, which has been regarded as so satisfactory by the Minister of National Defence in any statements that he has made. I suggest also that the resolution involves something that would have a profound effect upon our whole economy in peacetime. It comes so close to the passing of legislation which can only be justified by a war emergency that I believe it should not be agreed to until the emergency can be stated explicitly by the Prime Minister or some other member of the government.
Furthermore, it should be remembered how wide the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce already is over some aspects of the economy of our country. By P.C. 5700 of December 8, 1948, the following were transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce: the atomic energy control board; Canadian Arsenals Limited; the dominion coal board; Eldorado Mining and Refining 1944 Limited; its subsidiary, Northern Transportation Company Limited; incentive bonus to industry; liquidation of contracts; the national research council; the Polymer Corporation Limited; research and development of jet engines and aircraft; subsidized production and transportation of

Defence Supplies
iron and steel; Trans-Canada Air Lines, and War Assets Corporation. One might almost go on and say, "all this and heaven too". Certainly if we give these wide powers or express our belief that it is expedient that these wide powers be conferred, without any clear declaration as to what the emergency is, we are giving emergency powers which can only be justified by an emergency which has not been defined.


Major James William Coldwell: With the last remark of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) I find myself in pretty substantial agreement. The resolution seems to visualize an emergency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a peacetime bill.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister shakes his head, but let me say that I was here in March, 1939, when we had a prolonged discussion on a resolution and bill to set up a defence purchasing board. At the present time we have the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which, so far as the house is aware, has been doing a satisfactory job for the department concerned. Consequently the introduction of a resolution such as this seems to indicate a change in the point of view of the government with regard to the present international situation, a change which, from what I have been able to read, is not warranted.
By chance I was reading, in the British Hansard over the week end, the debate on the defence measures of the United Kingdom. Incidentally I found how different that debate was from the debate which has been proceeding in this house during the past week or so. From time to time the questions asked in this house, and even the answers given, have led me to believe that if I were an agent of the Soviet union all I would do would be to take the Hansard of this House of Commons and send it to Moscow. Indeed it appeared to me that the responsibility in the British house was such that some members were asking for a secret session in order that the kind of information asked for and given in this house during the last week or so could be obtained by the members of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The resolution before the house differs substantially, and I think gravely, from the resolution preceding the bill of 1939 when there was an emergency foreshadowed. Hon. members will recall that just a few days before the introduction of that measure Hitler had broken his agreement, had overrun Czechoslovakia, was threatening Poland, and

the people of Canada were gravely disturbed. The national defence purchasing board resolution read in part as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a defence purchasing board with exclusive power, subject to approval of the governor in council, to enter into all contracts for the purchase of munitions, equipment, materials and supplies required by the Department of National Defence in cases where the expenditure exceeds $5,000;-
Then I should like to draw the attention of the house to the following:
-to provide safeguards to assure that such munitions. equipment, materials and supplies shall be purchased at a reasonable cost to the government and without unreasonable profit . . .
The bill subsequently introduced made good the outline given in this resolution. At that time the government was conscious of the fact that public opinion in this country was determined that if we were to engage in an armed conflict and required supplies for our men, those supplies should be provided at least without undue profit to those engaged in their manufacture. While that point of view has not been particularly vocal lately, I believe it still remains substantially the feeling of the Canadian people. Yet under this provision, and after our experience during the war, there is no assurance that this point of view will be recognized in dealing with the appropriations and purchases that may be necessary after this legislation is brought in. As a matter of fact I have before me Hansard for March 10, 1939, when the then minister of national defence, the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie, who introduced the resolution and the bill, went into this aspect of the question very thoroughly. At page 1764 he said:
The bill that is to be submitted to this house consequent upon the adoption of the resolution I am now discussing provides that maximum profits upon defence contracts shall not exceed five per cent per annum on working capital actually utilized in the performance of the contract, and this is to be achieved by the simple, clear and definite process of taxing away the excess.
And at page 1767 he went on to say:
The government, if I may speak for them, believe in the principle of equality of sacrifice; that in wartime men should not be required to offer their lives and limbs while those- who provide the weapons of destruction have even the possibility of reaping undue profits.
After the outbreak of war the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was then the newly appointed minister of munitions and supply, made the statement that this five per cent limitation had been found unworkable; none the less the government shortly afterward introduced an excess profits tax in an attempt to prevent undue profits from being made during the war. Of course in my opinion-and we may hold and express different opinions in this matter-the minister

did a remarkable job during the war, a job that I believe did him great credit which can never be taken away, no matter what may be said or thought in the future. In doing that job, however, and in cutting through the provisions laid down by parliament, Canadian business did acquire great properties and in that respect made enormous profits out of the war. I am not saying that was done deliberately, but it is a fact. When you examine the capital equipment of industry at the close of the war and for a year or two later, and the manner in which that capital equipment was obtained, you can only conclude that industry in this country did very well out of the war, as indeed was the case in the United States and other countries. But the right hon. gentleman who in 1939 introduced the defence purchasing legislation made it abundantly clear that the government and people of Canada did not expect that when men were called upon to risk their limbs and lives, undue profits would be made by industry. I have before me Hansard for September 12, 1939, where at page 179 the minister said, in reply to a question as to why we were not proceeding under that legislation:
The provision of five per cent was put in the last act after a good deal of consideration as a minimum return for the. service rendered. . . .
I think that word should have been "maximum".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; maximum.


Major James William Coldwell: It is "minimum" in Hansard.
. . . but it was one which men of considerable experience believed to be unworkable. I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis. To carry that provision into another bill would be out of the question at this time. That part of the act we can consider as having proven to be unworkable.
That was because of the immediate onset of war. While it may have been unworkable at that time, however, if we may take the assurance of the minister that there is no present emergency, we are now discussing this matter in a period of peace. That being so, while a similar provision may have proved unworkable because of the immediate impact of war, I believe we should consider how best we can limit the possibility of profits by munitions industries during this regrettable period of preparation.
I should say the first way in which we might limit the possibility of profit is by nationalizing the straight munitions industries of this country. Where the manufacture of armaments is the main or principal
Defence Supplies
part of an industry, any possibility of profit should be removed by nationalizing that industry. If the present Minister of Trade and Commerce were in charge of the nationalized industry engaged in the manufacture of munitions and supplies I would have no hesitation in saying that a good job would be done. We saw what he did with the Polymer plant; we saw how he built up Trans-Canada Air Lines, and so on. So where there is a determination to do a job we know it is possible for a public authority or a public institution to do that job well.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Before lunch, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing what I believe to be the fundamental difference between what is proposed now by the government in this resolution and the bill which was adopted in March, 1939, immediately prior to the outbreak of the second world war but of course before we knew absolutely that war was imminent. I was saying, as I say now, that the idea behind the defence purchasing board bill of 1939 was one to which I think this house should give quite serious attention. I do not intend to discuss the various clauses in that bill but when the new bill is before the house I think that hon. members might look into that previous bill and might also read the debate which preceded its introduction in 1939.
I was also saying before lunch that I think the people of Canada, though lately not vocal about it, believe that in the preparation for the defence of our country the motive of private gain should be eliminated to the greatest possible extent. In order to achieve that objective I suggest again that we should see to it that industries which are primarily engaged in the manufacture of munitions should be under national ownership and control. I am well aware of the fact that, should war occur, and in preparations for defence, there are many industries which can be converted into munition industries but which are not primarily and fundamentally munition industries. When such industries are engaged on defence contracts or in supplying war materials of every description, in our opinion their profits should be strictly scrutinized and indeed limited. The purchasing board which was set up in 1939 of course had the obligation of limiting profits to 5 per cent on the capital employed in the production of munitions. In looking over the address of the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie who

Defence Supplies
at that time was the Minister of National Defence, and from which I quoted to some extent this morning, I find that he said this: The government is determined that in peacetime, where private industry must be utilized, there shall be the strictest possible regulation of profit both in the interest of the taxpayer and in deference to public abhorrence of profits made from products which involve destruction of human lives and misery among nations.
That will be found at page 1767 of Hansard of March 10, 1939. I am sure that that is the opinion of the Canadian people at the present time.
The resolution before us does not foreshadow a bill in any respect resembling the bill that was before the house in 1939. When we look at the amount to be spent in 1939, namely $63 million, in warlike supplies and the amount to be spent now, and when we analyse the $425 million for defence appropriated this year, we realize how much more we are spending on the various types of equipment and on munitions, in the equipment of our forces, than we were spending in 1939. I of course regret, as I have always regretted, that the government at the end of the war saw fit to hand over .to private industry many of the wartime industries that had been set up to make much of the equipment that was made so successfully during the war, and that today we are in many respects without the facilities owned by the people of Canada. To bring the industry again under public control would, and indeed I think should, require that we should repossess ourselves of these particular munition industries.
I do not propose to prolong the discussion at this stage. When the bill is before us I think that the house could go into the matter carefully. I want, however, to express the point of view that we in this party hold, that if we are going to build up defence forces for our country-and we must do so under the conditions that now exist-and if our men are to be properly equipped, I think they must be equipped without any section of the Canadian population, or indeed any population outside Canada, obtaining huge profits from the manufacture of the essential equipment for the defence of our country.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word on this resolution, but it is not my intention to go over the points that have been brought before the house thus far by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. party. I find myself quite surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), for whom I have a high regard, would subject himself to the criticism that will be heaped upon him for bringing in a bill of this kind; I do not believe that it
[Mr. Coldwell.l
is coming to him. Although he has not told us the reasons why, it is evident that the present procurement agency, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, is not able to do a job efficiently in the purchase of defence supplies. That is implied in the minister's statement this morning, although he did not say so. What I should like the minister to do on rebuttal in this debate, if he sees fit, is to tell us if that is right, if the present Canadian Commercial Corporation is not able to do the job of purchasing defence supplies efficiently and well, and if so, in what respect it has not been able to do so.
The bill which is to be brought in, based on this resolution is, according to the minister, to replace the Defence Purchases Act. I think that is understandable, in the light of the fact that the old Defence Purchases Act was drafted hastily during a time of high pressure, and doubtless a good many improvements could be made in it. But I cannot quite square what the minister said this morning, namely, that this bill was not meant to meet emergency conditions. I think these are the words he used:	"It is not meant to meet
emergency conditions at all." He said that he had another piece of legislation ready if an emergency did arise. These things hardly square in my mind. It seems to me that it would take an emergency of some sort to induce the minister to bring in a bill naming himself and his department as the purchasing agent for defence material, rather than to allow the purchases to continue under the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
The Social Credit group, like the other two groups on this side of the house, are opposed to any corporation making undue profits out of the supply of war materials. We want to see a strict limit placed on the profits that can be made out of such industry. But at the same time we cannot feel that we can subscribe to the nationalization of all these industries which do contribute to the process of defence by supplying materials that are needed for our defence. I am satisfied in my own mind that because of the way industry is organized today it would be impossible for the people of Canada to own and operate such industries efficiently and well and without a great deal more cost than they have to bear now to supply the defence materials. I am all for having this done by private industry, but under the strictest possible kind of scrutiny and regulation in regard to profits.
I wish the minister would make it very clear to us why he feels that he must have mandatory powers at a time like this, unless he does see some sort of emergency. These

are questions which went through my mind, Mr. Speaker, and while, as I said, I do not wish to speak at any length at this stage, yet we are opposed to the idea of bringing in a bill of this kind unless it is to meet an emergency. We will await the minister's further statements before we take a definite position one way or the other, hoping that he will make it more clear to us, either in closing this debate or on the second reading of the bill, exactly why it is necessary to make the radical change that is being made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two brief observations. The first thing I want to say is that we should be very clear on just what this resolution forecasts. What we are really being asked to do is, to all intents and purposes, to restore the Department of Munitions and Supply Act. I am not overlooking the fact that the minister made some distinction between them, and was at some pains to indicate that the powers were not as great. But quite frankly to me that was most unconvincing. The minister can make a little power go a long way. If you give the minister the power contained in this resolution I suggest again that there is nothing he could not do. I was not sure that he nodded his head.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not to your remarks.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That raises the question whether now, in peacetime, which we admit is a kind of qualified peacetime, nevertheless in what is described as peacetime, we have to submit to these extraordinary powers.
I think it is undesirable that we should do so. Nobody will grudge these powers when it is perfectly clear that the emergency is on; and nobody has ever grudged praise to the minister for the way in which he exercised them in wartime. We are not quite sure, therefore, that we like the minister exercising so many powers in peacetime. I am not going to give a long recital, which would be as long as my arm, of the powers which he does exercise now. I think it is very hard to make people realize that unfortunately when danger is very great for those who live in free countries, when we are in the very act of defending our freedom, we may do things which so curtail it that we eventually find it has passed out of our control. That has happened, as we all know.
I just want to make this one point. The suggestion has already been made by the hon. member who spoke last. He says this very pertinently raises the question whether in fact it means that the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been a flop. I think it is a
Defence Supplies
pertinent question, and I would put it in just a little different way. I say that before we can be asked, or should be asked, to give any such power as these we should know exactly what kind of difficulties are facing the minister at the moment. What are the things that cannot be done under the powers of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the other authorities which do exist? Nothing has been said yet to indicate that. I am quite sure that I can speak not only for myself but for those in our own party that when we are satisfied that there is an emergency there will be nobody readier than we to concede the necessary powers. But at the present time it seems that this is just a measure to restore to the minister virtually all the war powers of the munitions and supply act.
I just make this one last observation. Power is a very pleasant thing. I have never had it, but I have known people who have had it, and I am sure they liked it. I am sure they could never get too much of it. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that they are quite able to convince themselves that power in their hands is a very desirable thing from the point of view of the country. I am quite sure they feel that way, and as time goes on they feel that way more and more. Therefore I just make this observation. To an extent which perhaps the minister does not even know himself this is a suggestion, these broad powers, which I consider will enable him to do anything that he wants to do. With respect to these broad powers, however pleasant they may be to him, however satisfied he may be that they will be exercised in the public interest, I think it is our duty to try to bring to the realization of this house, and I hope to the country, that every time unnecessary powers are handed to people they are themselves to that extent endangering the freedom that we talk so much about and often do so little about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no right of reply on this motion, unless with the unanimous consent of the house. I think it is customary for the minister to reply when the house goes into committee.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is relatively a small nation-; certainly, it is in so far as her manpower resources are concerned. It seems to me that a deficiency in manpower can be made up by the utilization of our natural resources to the fullest possible measure, thereby providing a reserve which can be made available to ourselves and our allies in an emergency, in case any of those allies of ours should be attacked.

Defence Supplies
Therefore a ready-to-go mobilization plan would ensure that these natural resources would be available the instant an emergency arose. I think that during the past there has been a lack of direction on the part of the government to indicate where industrialists should concentrate their efforts in order that the resources of the country might be made available if and when an emergency arose.
Earlier this year the president of the industrial preparedness association made a nationwide tour. Upon his return he reported that the industrialists in western Canada had complained bitterly that they had not received sufficient information to enable them to do the necessary planning so that, if necessary, they could convert their plants to a point where they would produce those things which would be essential for the supplying of warlike materials to ourselves and our allies. The importance of that planning has been enhanced by the recent decisions made in London within the last month, upon which occasion the means of forestalling the catastrophe of war were examined, and where the new scheme for the collective peace-securing force was initiated, rather than having all the allied powers working on their own and preparing their own limited defence forces.
We have been told also that during the conference great emphasis was placed upon not only the means of preventing war but ways to help in the recovery of Europe. It was urged that there should be collective economic planning so that the various states would be able to direct their resources in the most economical way and in the most effective manner to help in the general recovery.
As I said at the outset of my observations, in many respects Canada is a small country. We cannot spread our endeavours in too many different directions. It is going to be very much a matter of specializing. Therefore one comes back to the question asked last Friday by the leader of this party, "Let us know what is needed." I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to give notice to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that the very first question he, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, must ask the Minister of National Defence is this: "Let us know what is needed." To that the Minister of National Defence can give a more effective answer than merely to say, "Let us know what is needed-where, when, by whom and with what."
There is not much use proceeding with this legislation-because it would not be very effective-until the Minister of Trade and Commerce can get those very definite answers. He must be told by the Minister

of National Defence, and perhaps also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what is needed; because we cannot just go ahead producing everything and dissipating our efforts in that way. It will have to be specialized planning, and direction will be required. I do not think it is up to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say what will be produced; he will be told what is required by the Department of National Defence. When the minister replies I would ask him to tell us the system of liaison which will be in operation between the Department of National Defence and the authority now being placed in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate here that I am opposed to the resolution. After listening to the remarks of the various speakers thus far I gather that practically all opposition members are opposed to it, although it may be that we will not oppose it by a formal vote at this stage, when we. have not the details of the bill before us. I do think it is essential that we indicate to the minister that, from the terms of the resolution, our only conclusion can be that the legislation will fulfil our fears in that it will be legislation of the type that should be opposed.
My remarks will be confined chiefly to the fact that at present it appears the legislation contemplated by the resolution is entirely unnecessary. According to the statements made by responsible ministers on those occasions, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, a body which has been discussed on numerous occasions since 1945, was set up to do the very thing we are now asked in this resolution to empower the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to do exclusively, or with the assistance of such boards and advisers as he in his discretion may see fit to set up.
Remembering, as one can if he reads the debates of the past, the objections taken to the principles embodied in setting up the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and giving it the wide powers it now has, it surely must be obvious that those of us who held those views must be opposed to duplicating the work of that corporation by setting up further agencies and bodies and giving them the same overlapping and, in some cases, even wider powers than those allotted to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
I should like to refer to the debates of the last few years so as to remind hon. members what it was intended to do when the Canadian Commercial Corporation was set up, and the powers which in fact were given

to it. On the basis of the statements made by the various ministers who outlined the purposes of that corporation, it appears perfectly clear that with proper direction, it can do all the things this new bill would hand over to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In 1947 when the amendment was before us to enlarge the powers of the Canadian Commercial Corporation the then member for Carleton, Mr. Boucher, had this to say as reported at page 4949 of Hansard for July 2, 1947:
The amendment now before the house in effect asks the government to give to that company

That is the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
-the power to produce goods, to manufacture goods, to procure goods and to construct articles in Canada or elsewhere. By this amendment the scope of the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation is widened beyond anything comprehended in the original act. The amendment gives this crown company the power to do almost everything possible in the industrial, the economic and even the financial life of our country.
Those were some of the objections which we had at that time to the amendment to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, but it goes without saying that the government, having a majority in the house at that time, as they have at the present, saw no merit in our objection to the granting of the powers referred to in that amendment. We find that in the further discussions the powers of the corporation were more specifically defined by the ministers themselves. For instance, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxtonl is reported on page 4958 of the same day as saying:
The Canadian Commercial Corporation was created, not only for the purposes of purchasing for the Department of National Defence, but for the other purposes that parliament or the government might provide for it.
Up to that time the purposes of the corporation had been fairly exclusively confined to purchasing for the department of defence, but the Minister of National Defence said that the government had in mind that the corporation might well have its powers enlarged and if it was found necessary to enlarge the scope of government purchasing to include matters not immediately connected with defence, such as the stockpiling of strategic materials or materials for construction and so on which might be needed in a war, the power to do that would be given to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Incidentally, while we are discussing this question of the advisability or otherwise of giving wide powers to the minister without specific limitations, may I remind the house that we were told this
Defence Supplies
morning by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we know perfectly well that he will not use them in an improper manner.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I beg the minister's pardon. I understood him to say that, but if he did not, I think he might well have said it. If he says that he did not, I accept his statement. But when we have pointed out the tremendous authority granted by different pieces of legislation to individual ministers we are told, "It is true that this authority and power is granted, but we are going to use it only for certain specific purposes which we have outlined and you need have no fear that it will be used for any other purpose." It is interesting to note that in the debate to which I have just referred, when the Minister of National Defence said that the Canadian Commercial Corporation was created, not only for the purposes of purchasing for the Department of National Defence, but for the other purposes that parliament or the government might provide for it, when we pointed out to him that the corporation had not been set up for the purpose of exercising those enlarged powers he went on to say:
It may not have been made known when the corporation was set up by statute that that purpose was envisaged, because we had not reached that stage in the process of reconstruction; but that purpose was in mind at the time the corporation was set up.


Mr. Fraser:: Why was not parliament told?


Mr. Claxton:: Because the time had not come for parliament to be told.
That is the attitude taken with respect to these powers given to ministers or to various corporations or agencies of the government. We are told that they are set up for one purpose, that the powers will be used for that purpose only, but then a couple of years later, with an astonishing disregard for parliament and for what has been said earlier, we find that the powers are being used for different and wider purposes. When we ask why we were not told that when the corporation was set up the answer is given, "We do not think it was the time to tell you all those things when we set up the corporation."
I for one, and I know I am joined in this by many members, am very reluctant to give ministers or boards or corporations powers without there being the clearest limitation in the statutes upon the extent to which those powers will be exercised. I find no such limitation in this resolution and I cannot subscribe to a resolution which seems to confer such wide powers when it is not indicated that certain limitations will be set out in the bill itself.
We are left in the position of having the Canadian Commercial Corporation set up to exercise the powers which the Minister of

Defence Supplies
National Defence described in the debate to which I have just referred. Later in the course of that same debate the same minister described the advantages of using the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and I quote from pages 4974 and 4975 as follows:
Under this bill the Canadian Commercial Corporation will be primarily responsible for obtaining tenders for contracts. In addition, there are other functions in connection with the procurement of munitions which are just as important and which, together with procurement, form part of the whole complex of industrial organization for war.
Which embraces the very things the minister is talking about and which are contemplated in this legislation. As I said a moment ago, the Canadian Commercial Corporation could be used for the purpose o* stockpiling. The Minister of National Defence continued:
There are four main aspects of that: standardization, industrial organization, inspection and procurement, and all must work very closely with research. We are setting up a series of agencies whereby the Department of National Defence, Canadian Arsenals Limited, the Department of Trade and Commerce through one agency or another, the defence research board, and industry, probably represented in part through such agencies as the Canadian Standards Association and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps Association, will all be linked into co-operating groups which will enable industry to know what is likely to be expected both in peacetime and in the event of an emergency, and which will enable the Canadian Commercial Corporation to know where it can get the materials, and which will enable the Department of National Defence to know that it oan get the equipment and materials which are needed either in peacetime or in war.
That is the set-up which was envisaged and which presumably has been put into effect for the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and is the actual set-up which is envisaged by this resolution. Unless we are told that the Canadian Commercial Corporation, far from realizing the tremendous results expected, has in effect been a dismal failure, then I can see absolutely no justification for this resolution which would bring about a complete duplication of what we already have. The minister said this morning during the course of his remarks-I do not pretend to quote him accurately, but I think I am giving the effect of what he said -that many of the personnel engaged in the purchasing branch of munitions and supply had been absorbed into the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That is certainly the case on the evidence of the earlier debates, and in fact that was one of the justifications put forward for extending the functions of the Canadian Commercial Corporation in order to keep in being that group of men who it was said, and said accurately, had made such a great contribution to the wartime work of the department of munitions and supply.

Then in the debate in 1948 on a further amendment and discussion of the corpo.udon, we find the advantage was stressed that all the people of munitions and supply who had been engaged in defence purchasing were now being absorbed into the Canadian Commercial Corporation. At page 5901 of Hansard for June 25, 1948, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) spoke as follows:
The Department of Munitions and Supply, which had done our purchasing during the war, gradually contracted; but it has preserved its records and some of its key personnel, and they have been incorporated into the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which has been entrusted with the job of acting as agent for the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in doing purchasing for the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And that position is unchanged.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that. The
minister will find that a little later he himself said that it also acts as the purchasing agent for foreign governments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of National
Defence went on to say:
We find that it does not lead to delay: that the corporation uses its resources of information and trained personnel to ascertain from whom we should procure supplies. By and large we are finding that it is working out very well.
So that a great number of people who did our defence purchasing during the war for the allied war effort are in the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Why then do we need some other body, some other minister, some other advisory board established with this enormous and unlimited power to do all over again the very work which the Canadian Commercial Corporation was set up to do, and for which it has the qualified personnel? So far it might perhaps be objected that everything that has been said has been confined to the domestic situation, providing for our own defence requirements and stockpiling. Under the Atlantic pact we are going to pool our resources. We have subscribed to the principle of balanced forces, and of collective pooling of resources, so that we may have to purchase for foreign governments, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is on record as saying just last year that the Canadian Commercial Corporation acts also as the government agent to carry out such purchases for foreign governments. At page 1952 of Hansard for March 24, 1949, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in discussing the corporation, said this after referring to the function of purchasing for our own Department of National Defence:
The other function is that of procurement for foreign governments purchasing in Canada or for

Canadian agencies purchasing abroad. In the case of foreign governments purchasing in Canada it may be necessary, for example, to finance the building of a ship which would be paid for on delivery.
The minister went on to outline how the Canadian Commercial Corporation acts in that respect as the agent for foreign governments in procuring supplies necessary for defence purposes. Earlier the minister was the one who took the lead in defending the corporate structure of the Canadian Commercial Corporation as the one most ideally suited to the work of defence procurement both for our own and for foreign governments. As a matter of fact, some of us criticized the fact that this purchasing agency was being set up as a crown corporation. and the minister rejected those criticisms and said this was the best way to do it. As reported at page 1894 of Hansar l for March 23, 1949, he said:
One of the primary purposes of this corporate agency cf government is to meet the needs of international trade. It has been, and continues to be, the policy of the government to provide for the procurement of the needs of the defence services by a civilian department rather than direct procurement bv the services themselves. This purchasing function could be performed by a department of government rather than a corporate body-
As the minister intends to do under the resolution now before us.
-although the corporate form provides certain positive advantages, not only to the government but also to those who supply the requirements. However, a corporate form is almost essential in connection with certain foreign trade transactions, and it has obvious advantages to have but one buying agency rather than two separate organizations, one a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the other a crown company.
Could anything be clearer, Mr. Speaker, than the fact that if the resolution and the bill based upon it pass we will have two separate agencies-


George James McIlraith: That does not follow at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -one the minister and the Department of Trade and Commerce and such boards and advisers as he may set up, and the other a crown company, namely, the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my hon. friend has been speaking for fifteen minutes on something that is not contained in the resolution at all. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that the relations of the Canadian Commercial Corporation with regard to anything are changed in the slightest, and I can tell him they are not changed in the slightest by the bill that is based on this resoltuion. It is a very interesting speech, and I am glad to have his endorsement of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, but he is entirely out of order when speaking on this resolution.
Defence Supplies


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking distinctly and had made my point distinctly, but apparently the minister has not appreciated it at all. I certainly did not understand the minister to say that the Canadian Commercial Corporation would be ended, that the act would be repealed or anything to that effect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He did not say that it would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is my whole point. We now have the Canadian Commercial Corporation qualified to do all these things that I have been describing which the ministers of defence and trade and commerce said it should do in the field of defence procurement. All these things were to be done by the Canadian Commercial Corporation and, as the minister himself has said, done very much better by that corporation than they could be in any other way. The point is that under the resolution in addition we have it clearly contemplated that the minister will be empowered to act in exactly the same way as the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and to set up boards and advisers to help him to act in that same way. I am not saying that the act creating the Canadian Commercial Corporation should be repealed. I am not discussing that at all. What I am discussing is the fact that here we will have a duplication of agencies, and we are going to have a body set up to do the very things which the minister said last year could be much better done by the Canadian Commercial Corporation in its form as a crown corporation. That is the point I am making.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are not making any point at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There could not be clearer words than those used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Defence in describing first the initial powers and then the extension of the powers of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and the advantage of having it done that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend one question? Did he not say a few moments ago that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is the agent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the procurement of defence services? He read those words in the quotation he gave earlier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not remember whether I used that exact word, but that certainly is my understanding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are and they will continue to be the agent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Defence Supplies


Edmund Davie Fulton: The agent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the agent of foreign governments which wish to purchase here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That describes the relationship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I come back to the words that the minister used last year. If that relationship is going to continue why is he taking a separate power under this new legislation? The minister said that a corporate form was almost essential in connection with certain foreign trade transactions, and that there were obvious advantages in having one buying agency rather than two separate organizations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has asked a question, and perhaps I may answer it. Eesponsibility for buying for the defence services has rested in the past and rests at present upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in carrying out his duties, uses the services of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. He has done so. in the past and will continue to do so in the future, and there will be absolutely no change resulting from this legislation. If -there is any change I wish my hon. friend could tell me what it is.


George Alexander Drew: If there is no change why do we need this legislation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will explain that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it makes no change what is the need for the legislation? It seems to me a purpose would be served only if some change were contemplated in the set-up. Presumably that change is conceived by the government to be necessary, so we have this resolution; and that is what we are objecting to, thb fact that a change is being made. Now the minister says this is entirely unnecessary, that no change is being made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is to be no change.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If there is to be no change, what is the need for this legislation? Either it means a new agency and new powers being taken, or it means nothing at all. The minister says it does not mean new powers or any change, so we are left with the conclusion that the resolution means nothing at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Maybe that is right and it means nothing at all. It means nothing to you, I am sure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says that is right. That is very interesting. Before this we have heard the minister make statements which later on he admitted meant nothing, that he had nothing in mind at the time he made them.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: That is your story.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, that is based on the records of one of the committees of this house. The

minister said he was not concerned with what he said last year, that what he said last year did not mean anything at all. He is on record as having made that statement in the committee on railways and shipping. We are accustomed to the minister making statements which later he finds mean nothing at all, and I am quite convinced that later on he will find that he did not mean the statement he made a moment ago. I am quite convinced the government would not have placed upon the order paper a resolution meaning nothing at all, as the minister has said; so I intend to continue to deal with the resolution as a serious piece of legislation, though one to which we are opposed.
After having said it was more desirable to have these things done by a corporate body than by a branch of the department, the minister went on to point out that the Canadian Commercial Corporation could indulge in many other activities such as stockpiling, and so on, which in fact it was carrying on at that time, in March of 1949. Let me read what the resolution says:
... it is expedient to present a bill, cited as the Defence Supplies Act, to empower the Minister of Trade and Commerce to buy or otherwise acquire and deal with defence supplies; construct or otherwise acquire, projects; acquire, store and otherwise deal with material entering into the manufacture of defence supplies or the development, repair or maintenance of projects-
So under this legislation the minister is given power to control the whole realm of industry in this country. He can control the mining industry; he can control the lumber industry, because lumber enters into the construction and maintenance of projects. Yet in 1947, 1948 and 1949 we were told on numerous occasions that under this act, which contains surprisingly wide powers, the Canadian Commercial Corporation is authorized to do all these things and is in fact the best agency that can be devised to do the very things the minister is now being empowered to do under this new legislation.
At the moment we are not discussing whether or not any agency, whether it be the minister or a crown corporation, should in fact be given these powers. In the past we have opposed giving such powers to the Canadian Commercial Corporation; nevertheless that corporation has those powers today. Perhaps the minister is right; perhaps it is a meaningless waste of time to put on the order paper a resolution giving the minister the same powers, particularly when he says this new legislation makes no change. If the minister is prepared to justify the action of the government in placing upon the order paper and bringing before the house a resolution which he says has no meaning, I shall leave that difficult task to him.

Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. McCulloch in the chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, seldom have I heard a debate go so far afield and miss the point of the resolution so completely. This is not legislation to add to the powers of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it is legislation to take away from his powers. The munitions and supply act is still in force and on the statute books today. I do not know how many hon. members have read that act recently, but if some contractors were to read it now I am sure they would be reluctant to enter into contracts with the government. The munitions and supply act was wartime legislation which gave the minister the widest possible powers; power to renegotiate contracts, power to order a man to accept a contract at prices fixed by the minister, and various other arbitrary powers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Was that legislation not regarded as dead, in effect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has it been availed of recently?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not been invoking it recently; nevertheless that is the statute under which the Minister of Trade and Commerce operates today in making defence purchases. The purpose of this legislation is to repeal the munitions and supply act and replace it with legislation limited to powers required in peacetime. These emergency powers we have heard so much about are not new powers; they are a mere fraction of the powers the minister has today. The powers being retained are two in number. One is the power to obtain priority of delivery from a contractor who has signed a contract to supply war materials. We are giving up the right to order a contractor to produce war materials, but if he does contract to produce them and fails to deliver on time, this legislation gives the minister the right to demand priority from that contractor for the delivery of defence projects as against peacetime projects, in the event that the terms of the contract are not being lived up to. The other mandatory power that is retained is the power to requisition materials required to carry out a defence contract. If there is a shortage of lumber and lumber is needed for defence purposes, the Minister of Trade and Commerce can requisition lumber. If there is a shortage of copper and copper is required for defence purposes, the minister can requisition copper. In other words the two powers are first that he may require a government contractor to give priority of delivery under a defence contract he has already signed,
Defence Supplies
and second to requisition material necessary for the carrying out of a government defence contract. I could give you the list of powers that the minister is giving up, but it would take considerable time, and would perhaps shock hon. members to know that powers so arbitrary can still be used in peacetime.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We knew that even the minister would not exercise them in peacetime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The leader of the opposition said there must be an emergency to justify this legislation. If there were an emergency, we would not be passing this bill. The reason we are passing this bill is that we believe the emergency is past and that we are operating in peacetime. We are operating under the threat of war, but we believe that peacetime is restored to the extent that wartime powers should now be given up and replaced by peacetime powers. The peacetime powers that are being retained in connection with defence purchasing are fewer than those retained by any other country that has defence purchasing legislation. They are far fewer than those under the defence purchasing acts that govern in the United States and fewer than the powers that apply to the Ministry of Supply in the United Kingdom. The point I want to make is that this is a divesting bill rather than a bill adding to the powers of the minister.
The leader of the opposition asked the question:	Why is defence purchasing not
returned to the armed services? I think that the principal reason is that the armed services prefer to have defence purchasing left where it is. They have found that the principle of civilian buying works well, and to the satisfaction of the Department of National Defence. It is rather significant that those countries that resorted to civilian purchasing of defence materials during the war have not returned those powers to the services. In the United Kingdom we had the Department of Supply buying for the army during the war period, and the Department of Aircraft Production buying for the air services.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister remember when the Department of Supply was set up in England?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It was set up just before the outbreak of war, as I recall. Those two United Kingdom departments of government are now combined in the one ministry, the Ministry of Supply; and the purchases for the army and for the air services continue to be made by a civilian department.

Defence Supplies
A good deal has been said about some changed relationship between the armed services and the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I should like to correct a few remarks made in that connection. The Canadian Commercial Corporation was not established to purchase war materials. It was established about 1943 for the purpose of assisting foreign governments to purchase in Canada. It was not until 1946, I think, when the Minister of Munitions and Supply was attempting to wind up his department; and, as this agency was working efficiently, it seemed logical at that time to transfer responsibility for the purchase of military materials from the Minister of Munitions and Supply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That transfer was carried out by legislation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has made use of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to carry out the responsibilities which have been his, just as the Minister of Trade and Commerce in future will use the Canadian Commercial Corporation to exercise the responsibility that is his, namely to make purchases for the armed services. There has been no change in that relationship from the beginning, no change is contemplated, and absolutely no change is suggested in the resolution that is before the committee at this time.
Someone said that if legislation of this kind is needed we should assemble parliament when the emergency arises. Again I say that this is a divesting bill which is being enacted because no emergency confronts this country at the moment. Should an emergency arise, parliament of course will be assembled. A purchasing bill suitable for wartime is in hand and that bill would be placed before parliament at that session. I am sure that parliament would enact that more drastic bill into legislation. But I repeat that what is before parliament now is a bill to govern peacetime purchases.
The leader of the C.C.F. party referred to the Defence Purchases Act, which is also being repealed by the bill that is based on this resolution. The Defence Purchases Act might be described as a noble experiment.
The difficulty came about in attempting to put the legislation into practice. The legislation provided that defence purchases would be made on the basis of 5 per cent on the capital employed in carrying out the contract. If it had been 5 per cent on the cost of the goods, it would have been understandable, and the act might have been effective at least in the vast majority of purchases. The ordinary contract during the war, or rather, the

average of all the contracts placed during the war, varied a profit factor of about 4J per cent. But the act did not say "5 per cent of the cost of the article". It said, "5 per cent return on the capital employed in turning out the article".
How could the amount of capital required be determined? For example, a $100,000 contract might be placed with the Canadian General Electric Company which has a capital of a great many million dollars. How much capital would be required to carry out that $100,000 contract? How could anyone determine that? The government certainly could not determine it, and I doubt if the contractor could determine it. Unless it was agreed that a certain capital would be set aside for the purpose, no one on earth could tell how much the government owed the contractor when that particular contract had been carried out. I think that explains why the Defence Purchases Act, as experience determined, was not an act that could be made operative. It was for that reason that the munitions and supply act was passed shortly after the outbreak of war. It is for that reason that the bill that is based on this resolution repeals the Defence Purchases Act.
I think my statement fairly well covers the points raised in the discussion on the resolution, but I shall be glad to answer any other questions that may be in the minds of hon. members while we are in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister whether it is not a fact that the Canadian Commercial Corporation at the present time operates under its own empowering statute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly it acts under its own empowering statute, but there is nothing in that empowering statute that makes it the agent of the Minister of National Defence; it is the agent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Exactly; and it is a defence procurement agency, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Only to the extent that the Minister of Trade and Commerce cares to call on it to assist him in carrying out his function as the procurement agent for the Department of National Defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Exactly; and it is available there for that purpose.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is available, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Last year the minister told us, I think, that it had already exercised that function under his direction in connection with the stockpiling of tin.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It will continue to do that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So that it is a corporation or an agency which is now empowered to buy or otherwise acquire and deal with defence supplies, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but only as directed by the minister. There is a separation of its duties. The Canadian Commercial Corporation was established with certain powers originally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Later I think enlarged by an amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Later enlarged by an amendment, to enable it to assist the minister in obtaining defence supplies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But the responsibility in the one case is with the corporation, and in the other case is with the minister. In other words, requisitions do not go to the Canadian Commercial Corporation from the armed services; they go to the minister, and the minister asks the Canadian Commercial Corporation to exercise his powers in Ailing those requisitions. But it is working for the minister, and it is the agent of the minister, and it will continue to be the agent of the minister for that purpose. There is absolutely no change in the position of the Canadian Commercial Corporation as a result of this legislation.


George Randolph Pearkes: In the third line of the resolution, as it appears on today's order paper, there are the words: "construct or otherwise acquire, projects." When the Canadian Commercial Corporation was Arst brought into being it had the power to construct projects, but I think last year that power was withdrawn. It has not been found practicable for the Canadian Commercial Corporation to do construction work. I think that the construction work contemplated is now to be done either by the Department of Public Works or under the Minister of Resources and Development.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. The construction projects are carried out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He does not build them himself, as my hon. friend would know, but he procures the building of such projects. He procures the building by calling for tenders and awarding a contract to an organization capable of carrying out that particular project. But he is the sole procurement agent for structures, just as he is for materials for the armed services.


Mr. Gillis:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion and to the minister's explanation. As I understand the matter now, this bill will replace the munitions and 55946-221
Defence Supplies
supply act. In effect the minister says that this new legislation will restrict powers that he had under the munitions and supply act. We will have to take the minister's word for that. On reading the resolution upon which the bill is to be based, I think the powers are unlimited.
As many hon. members have indicated, this is peacetime legislation. We are not living in a peaceful world. I assume that the powers are delegated here, having in mind that in the event of an emergency the machinery that is ready can be put into operation to take care of the emergency. It might mean that the powers are emergency powers. Personally I am not objecting to that. My reason for rising was to say I trust that both in peacetime and in the event of an emergency these powers will be exercised a little more realistically with regard to the placing of our defence projects than they were during the last war. During the last war there was a' complete concentration of our munitions industries, and generally our war industries in the two central provinces. They were pretty well bundled together, to the extent that in Ontario a power shortage was created as an aftermath of the war.
When the war ended, of course, all the industries were handed over to someone for very little money. The matter of decentralization of industry in the event of another emergency is a live issue in the United States today, and it should be a live issue in Canada.
The minister has been working through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and he says that he intends to continue to do so. The machinery is not changing at all. All they are doing is changing the name of the body that is to do the purchasing under the same minister. Apparently that organization has been functioning for some time. I think the same trend that has been apparent over the years, namely, the concentrating of everything in the two central provinces, is. being followed. This matter has been the subject of inquiry and investigation. The Dawson commission report on this very question is a strong indictment of this thing, with particular reference to the denuding of the maritimes and western Canada. The Agures are there. I am not going to repeat them. Anyone can look them up.
What I am disappointed in is this. Recently the minister put out a report on private and public investment in Canada, outlook for 1950. On page 4 of the introduction to the report he sets out that there is a forecast of public and private investment amounting to $3.6 billion for 1950. In looking over the report I And that so far as Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are concerned, their share, the total maritime share of that potential investment, is around 6.67 per cent-practically nothing.

Defence Supplies
In the light of international complications today we are wise in providing legislation that is workable in peacetime and could be used in an event of an emergency. I think the efforts of the department of munitions and supply in the concentration of industry in one spot that could be knocked out with a few bombs was unrealistic in the last war. I think too it was bad for the whole economy of the country. The terrific public investment made during the war in plant and industry across the country was lost in the aftermath of the war; it was practically given away to private industry. I am not objecting to this machinery. I am in hopes that, with the experience of the past and with the machinery that is being set up having to do with the regulation of public investment, in the event of an emergency some regard will be had to keeping the major industries decentralized so far as that may be possible, not only because of power and other factors, but because I think in the event of war you are going to be hit quickly from the air with something pretty powerful. If you have too much concentration in one spot it will be easy to knock it out overnight. The forecast of public and private investment for 1950 certainly does not indicate anything along these lines, because the same old concentration is taking place in the same two provinces.
I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had to say in emphasizing government ownership. You can call it nationalization, socialization, or whatever you like; I believe that the munitions industry, which will be created largely by government funds, should be in large measure under government control. The government should have control over the munitions industry in the event of wars and prior to war, because I believe there will always be wars as long as there is money to be made out of them.
I am not going to emphasize that matter now. We have discussed it time and time again. I have always been convinced that nobody should make any profit out of war. We are all in it together. You requisition the lives of the young people and send them to fight for the institutions of the country. Why should the fellow who stays at home make a lot of money? When the war is over, the blood, sweat and tears employed in it should be the payment in full. There should not be interest charges. But that is not the issue at this time. I wish to leave that thought with the minister when he proceeds to his discussions with those who are going to set up in this country plants and industry which may be used for defence purposes. That should be decentralized and scattered across the country to the greatest possible extent.
[Mr. Gillis.l
When we build plant and equipment for an emergency I think we should keep in mind what can be done with that plant and equipment after a war, so that we might level off the economy of the country. I am not opposed to the resolution. I believe that under circumstances such as exist today we must be ready for emergencies. It is not good enough to begin doing that after something hits us. The machinery should be ready now. I am accepting the minister's statement that this is merely a process of transferring the operations under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which seems to be doing a pretty good job.
I am not objecting to that; but I do object to the concentration of industry in the two central provinces. I say that is bad planning for defence, and I have risen at this time to focus the attention of the minister on that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with the explanation given by the minister a moment ago, I would suggest that the logical way to proceed would be to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. The minister has said there is no duplication, and that there is no change intended from the existing situation. Surely the existing situation is that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is at the present time the procurement agency, or the agency which makes contracts and enters into agreements with suppliers for acquiring and dealing with defence supplies, and for constructing or otherwise securing projects.
Those actual arrangements are entered into by the Canadian Commercial Corporation as agent, admittedly, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the present situation. In order to enable the present situation to continue, or to enlarge upon the pertinent provisions, some further legislation is necessary; surely that further legislation should be legislation modifying or enlarging or otherwise dealing with the powers of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. All one has to say is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce shall be responsible for the supervision of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, as obtains today.
However the corporation is the agency which does all these things. When it has those powers under the act that set it up, and then the same powers are given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under a separate act, I do not see how it can be urged that there is no duplication.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have great difficulty because I find I am to be condemned for doing either one thing or the other. I have been condemned

by the opposition many times for establishing bureaucracy in this country. Under the present arrangement-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, may I make myself clear. I said that I was not questioning the merits or demerits of having the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Now we are discussing what to do with it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But the hon. member is suggesting that the responsibility for the procurement of defence supplies be transferred from the minister to the corporation. Surely not if the hon. member is not advocating that there is no change required at all. The responsibility for the procurement of defence supplies rests with the Minister of Trade and Commerce today. Now, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce wishes to obtain the help of the Canadian Commercial Corporation in carrying out that responsibility, doing so does not relieve him of his responsibility. But if my hon. friend wishes to place the Canadian Commercial Corporation in the same relationship to the defence department as it now holds with respect to foreign governments, then he is creating a bureaucracy for the carrying out of a responsibility that is now carried out by a minister of the crown.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When we discussed this matter the Minister of National Defence told us that the Canadian Commercial Corporation entered into contracts for the procurement of defence supplies required by his department. We were told that during the course of the discussion-and I am sure if I had time to do it I could find the place in Hansard where that was said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A few moments ago the
Minister of Trade and Commerce made comments with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar concerning the profit limitation in the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939. I listened with interest to the explanation the minister gave as to why he felt that that particular formula for the limitation of profits in producing munitions and other war supplies was unworkable.
I would remind the minister that in 1939 the government itself took a very strong position that profits in war supplies should be controlled. The late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie, then minister of national defence, who introduced the bill, went out of his way to make it clear that that was the government's position. He argued that the provisions of the bill then being presented to the house were stiffer in that regard than anything he could lay his hands on, and that the government was proud of that fact because it wished to make sure that profits would not be made in munitions and other war materials.
Defence Supplies
If the minister contends that that particular formula for limiting profits in war supplies is unworkable, is that any reason for throwing out altogether the principle of limiting or controlling profits in respect of defence purchases and supplies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Far from doing that, the best protection the government can have is an experienced purchasing staff, a staff that knows the capacity of the country and its capacity for turning out anything the government wishes to buy, as well as the cost of operation of any industry. We are putting the ability and experience of Canadian Commercial Corporation in the position of safeguarding the public purse; and I can assure the hon. member that it is quite capable of carrying out that responsibility.
We give the government of 1939, of which I was a member, full marks for good intentions; nevertheless they attempted to legislate arbitrarily something that was not capable of being arbitrarily restricted. Had the act of 1939 governed buying during the war period there would have been no munitions effort in Canada, because in practice that legislation was found to be entirely unworkable-and not unworkable because of the greed of industry, as has been suggested by my hon. friends, but because it set up a formula in which there were too many unknown factors.
It was found impossible to determine the amount of capital required to carry out a given contract, or to devise a way by which it could be determined. For that reason the act proved unworkable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the minister's
explanation as to why he regarded that particular formula as unworkable. My question is this: Is there any other formula being put in the legislation, or do we depend entirely upon the ability, interest and concern in these matters of the men appointed to the defence supplies board and to the board of the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is the best, most practical and surest safeguard we know. That is the safeguard relied upon in the present act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister gave figures a while ago as to the over-all percentage of profits made during the war in relation to the cost of war supplies. I think the minister gave a figure of four and a fraction per cent, something under five per cent. Has he the comparable figure for the defence supplies purchased since the end of the war or for the period during which the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been doing this work?

Defence Supplies


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. It would be difficult to arrive at that unless you could work out the cost of every contract. We could do that during the war when the contracts were for large sums and when we had the machinery to put in cost accountants and determine the cost at the factory. When the profits were found to be excessive the contract was renegotiated and the profits recaptured. We have no machinery to do that today. Practically everything that is bought for defence purposes now is bought by tender.


Mr. Adamson:: I gather from what has been said that if the Minister of National Defence wished to have a building constructed it would be done under this measure. Would that apply also to the construction of such works as radar screens and other _ purely military projects? As I recall, during the war there was a branch in the Department of National Defence which dealt with fortress construction because I used to know the colonel in charge. If that is so, this would appear to be a new departure in connection with national defence under which this agency would build all works for that department even though they were fortresses or for purely military purposes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Trade and Commerce would place the contract for the construction of radar screens and for all other works for the defence services, as it did during the war, except such works as were carried out by arrangement with the Department of National Defence by its own troops. There was a construction battalion during the war, I think in both the army and air force, which did a certain amount of work by arrangement with the Department of Trade and Commerce. That would still be possible, but the act requires that all construction be procured through the agency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce except by special arrangement.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 302, respecting defence supplies and projects.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE REGULATIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 89, to provide for the publication of statutory regulations.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on May 31, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved the second reading of this bill, he explained the bill. I think it is only proper to say that we in this party are in agreement with the intentions of the bill as indicated by the Prime Minister. We feel that a real attempt has been made to place statutory orders, regulations, orders in council and so on, on a footing where it will be more feasible than it has been in the past for members and others interested to ascertain what is in the orders and regulations and how they are affected by them. However, there are one or two reservations which we have with respect to the bill and which I should like to indicate, and there are certain questions we would like the Prime Minister to answer when we are in the committee stage.
Although we now have a statute which as I read it provides for the consolidation of all effective orders and regulations up to the present time, and of which the Prime Minister tabled the first volume in the house recently, the bill goes on to provide for a system of consolidation of subsequent orders in council and regulations but the method by which that publication and consolidation is to be carried on is in turn to be left to order in council. We would have preferred if it had been possible to have had some specific provision in the bill as to how this was to be done and the basis upon which it was to be carried out. As the situation is at present, under section 9 there is provision for the future publication and consolidation, but that is left to the governor in council by regulation.
I do not refer to the fact that there are statutory requirements for publication in the Canada Gazette, for the laying on the table of parliament within certain statutory periods of regulations and orders in council, except such as may be excepted by order in council, but rather to such regulations governing future consolidations along the lines of the volume already tabled and which are to be left to order in council. I think it would have been desirable if at least an outline of that system could have been incorporated in the bill itself.
It is appreciated that this task of providing adequate publicity for orders in council and regulation and ensuring that all those who are affected shall have a chance to know what they are before they become law is a difficult one, and the whole problem of delegated legislation under present-day conditions of carrying on government is bound to be a difficult one. Therefore I think the Prime Minister and the house will appreciate the import of my remarks, that it would be

desirable if we could have a statutory definition of how these things are to be published.
One will recall that in the past orders in council and regulations did not have the effect of law until they had been passed by the house in the form of a bill, not simply being tabled. Orders in council that had been laid upon the table were given second reading and it was only after they had been formally approved by the House of Commons that they had the force of law.
My authority for this statement is to be found at page 2382 of Hansard of May 22, 1918, where the following is to be found under the heading "Concurrence in orders in council":


Sir George Foster moved: that the orders in council laid on the table of the house on the 2nd April, 1918, be concurred in. He said: The orders in council which have been issued and laid on the table form a long list of two pages. They are formal to a certain extent, but the law requires that these orders in council when passed shall be laid on the table of the house within a certain time.
That is the situation at the present time. Orders in council have to be laid on the table of the house generally fifteen days after they are passed, or if parliament be not then sitting, within fifteen days of the commencement of the next session. Then Sir George Foster continued:
I think they are not law until they are so laid on the table of the house, and thereafter if approved by the house.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied:
These orders in council, as I understand the law, have to be submitted to the house and ratified by the house.


Walter Edward Foster: Yes.


Sir Wilfrid Laurier:: So I would suggest that my hon. friend allow this motion to stand until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
That understanding was confirmed the next day when the matter again came before the house. The discussion is reported at page 2479 of Hansard for May 23, 1918, and reads as follows:


Walter Edward Foster: I move, seconded by Mr. Carvell:
"That the orders in council, copies of which were laid on the table of the house on the 2nd of April, be concurred in."


Elphège Marier: As a rule these orders in
council are considered in committee of the whole because it is more convenient to discuss them in committee than with Mr. Speaker in the chair. I have looked at the orders in council referred to in the motion and I see nothing of any importance in them, so that possibly we can approve of them without going into committee, if my hon. friend will call attention to any particular one of them which may be of importance. As I am advised at present, and from a cursory glance at them, I see nothing objectionable. They appear to be in most respects merely technical orders in council.
I refer to that to show that the discussions we have had on the practice of order in
Regulations Act
council government and the dangers inherent therein are by no means to be passed over lightly because so seriously was it regarded at the end of the first world war that these orders in council and regulations, which were laid on the table of the house in pursuance of statutory requirements, did not in fact become law until concurrence of the house had been formally moved and granted. I am not going to go so far as to move an amendment to the bill at this time to incorporate in it any such provision, but I think it gives force to the suggestion that it would have been desirable if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), while going as far as he has, after a great deal of careful study and consideration, to provide that orders in council and regulations will be fully known and understood so that those affected may know what laws they have to operate under, had gone a little further and provided in the bill he has introduced actual statutory provisions governing their publication and consolidation instead of leaving that in turn to be made the subject of an order in council. With these observations, however, I say that we concur in the bill and approve its objectives. We would like more information as to the classes or types of orders in council which it is intended to exempt by regulation from the provisions of this statute with regard to consolidation and publication. We would also like more information as to the method which it is proposed to follow in the future to provide for that consolidation and publication.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment or two because generally speaking this bill strikes us as a piece of good legislation. Indeed anything that makes it more clear to parliament and to the general public just what the laws of the land are is all to the good. We have got to the situation where regulations passed under statutes are far more numerous than the statutes themselves, and in the very nature of things they, are a part of the law of the land. The two or three reservations mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) have been in my mind as well. I shall not take time to spell them out. He used almost the exact language that I had intended to use when he said he hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would give us a little clearer statement as to the classes of regulations which the government has in mind with reference to the clause providing for exemption from the requirement that all regulations be tabled and published.
In fact I noted when the Prime Minister made his speech on second reading of the bill he said that the publishing and tabling of

Regulations Act
all regulations would now be made compulsory, and I took it at the time that was an unequivocal statement. There is in the bill, however, the exemption clause, which we would like to have explained fully at some stage of the debate today. The other comment I should like to make is that I -trust the bill will be passed in time for its effect upon a great host of statutes to reach the commission revising the statutes of Canada. I note that a good many statutes will have sections repealed or a few words struck out of a section, and I think it would be desirable when the Revised Statutes of Canada appear that those changes should be incorporated therein.
The Prime Minister might also say a word when he replies, or when we get into committee, with respect to the tabling of reports. When the legislation was first forecast, as a matter of fact by comments made by the Prime Minister during the last session, I thought it was going to cover both regulations passed under statutes and reports of departments that are laid on the table of the house each session. The same lack of uniformity applies in connection with those reports as in the case of regulations. The period of time within which a departmental report must be laid upon the table varies from ten days in some cases to fifteen in others, and longer periods in others. As a matter of fact I believe there are some departments which are not required by statute to place their reports on the table of the house, although I believe in most cases they do. It would seem to me that it is desirable that there should be uniformity in that regard as well. I would appreciate it if at some stage of the discussion the Prime Minister would indicate whether that matter has been given consideration, and with what result. I need not take longer because, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, generally speaking we think this is a piece of good legislation.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it is said that order is the first law of heaven. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on introducing this measure which is designed to make the parliament of Canada a little more heavenly. With the reservations that have been made so far, I want to tell the Prime Minister that we think this is a good piece of legislation. We certainly congratulate him on introducing it, and we support it.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker -


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to refer to a matter mentioned in the speech of the Prime Minister in which there appears to be some contradiction which might be cleared up. At page 3039 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman said:
This procedure was established by order in council P.C. 4876 on the 26th of November, 1946, under authority conferred by section 30 of the Public Printing and Stationery Act.
At that point he was referring to the procedure of publication in the Canada Gazette. In the next paragraph the Prime Minister referred to the consolidation of such statutory orders and regulations in effect on December 1, 1949, as having been prepared and in the hands of the king's printer; that is the volume now before us. He then went on to say:
The order in council to which I have just referred is known as "The statutory orders and regulations order, 1947."
In trying to follow the discussion I find myself at a loss because I am not sure whether there were two different orders in council, the one of November 26, 1946, and another fti 1947, which I could not find, or whether the reference to the statutory orders and regulations order, 1947, should have read "1946".


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I think 1947 is correct. It was called the statutory orders and regulations order, 1947, because it was intended to operate as from January 1, 1947, and at that time it was intended to separate the ordinary notices in the official gazette from the statutory orders and regulations which were published in a different form.
With respect to this definition, I want to state again that we found it would not be possible or prudent to make statutory exemptions with respect to the application of this statute. We wanted it to include everything, to make it necessary for us to call attention to anything that was not going to be governed by it. So we said we would make it as sweeping as possible so it would apply to every kind of order that has legislative effect, made
Regulations Act
under authority given by parliament; and if we wanted to take anything out of that general, sweeping declaration we would have to call attention to what we were taking out so if there should be any controversy as to whether it should be in or out the matter would be brought to the attention of hon. members and the public. This would apply to a great many things if we did not make exceptions. It would apply, for instance, to all the orders given from time to time from the control towers at our airfields. Of course no one would want those published in permanent form, for they operate once and are spent. We have quite a variety of things of that character which are spent immediately, and which will be excepted from the application of this act.
This legislation will apply not only to the regulations made by the government, either the governor in council, treasury board, or boards or commissions set up by parliament. It will apply to regulations made by railway companies, for instance, if those regulations, by virtue of federal legislation, have the sanction of a penalty in the form of a fine or imprisonment. Railways make bylaws for the proper conduct of their passengers. If those bylaws are sanctioned, by virtue of a federal statute, by a penalty in the form of a fine or imprisonment for violation, they will have to be registered and published. We thought it desirable to have something comprehensive, that could be relied upon as containing the complete picture of the things having the force of this parliament behind them, and that we would have to specifically indicate everything that was not going to be included in the general, sweeping assertion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the Prime Minister tell us why it was decided to exempt from the definition of "regulation" the classification under subparagraph (v)-
-a rule, order or regulation governing the practice or procedure in any proceedings before a judicial tribunal.
I imagine those of greatest interest would be the rules of procedure in the Supreme Court of Canada and the Exchequer Court of Canada, and I wondered why it was decided to exempt them from publication.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are required to be published otherwise, and are available in a separate booklet from the king's printer. That is the reason these rules of practice are made by the supreme court, by the exchequer court, by the board of transport commissioners and by the income tax appeal

Regulations Act
board, and they are available separately for the convenience of those who practise before those tribunals; they can be obtained separately. It was felt that they would not be of general interest to the public at large. They are of special interest to those who practise before those courts but they are not of general interest to the public at large.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then they have not in
the past been published in the Canada Gazette? Is that the case?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are published
in the Canada Gazette, but they will not be treated in the same manner as the ordinary statutes and regulations that are of general interest to the public and they will not be put into the consolidation of those orders and regulations.


Solon Earl Low: They will continue to be published?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; they will continue to be published.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can appreciate the fact that it would not be necessary to put them in this consolidation, they having appeared in the Canada Gazette and being, as the Prime Minister says, generally available to those who are in practice before the courts in question. But as I understand it the effect of providing that a regulation does not include a rule, order or regulation governing the practice or procedure or any proceedings before a judicial tribunal, or in other words of providing that the rules of procedure and practice in the supreme court and in the exchequer court are not regulations, will exempt them now from the provision of section 6 which provides as follows:
Every regulation shall be published in English and in French in the Canada Gazette within thirty days after it is made.
What concerned us was whether the effect of that will not be to prohibit them from being published in the Canada Gazette or to make it questionable whether they should be, since they are not now classed as regulations which must be published in the Canada Gazette.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Those orders and rules of practice have to be published under statute at the present time, and the provisions of the statute requiring their publication are not being repealed in this schedule. This schedule does not repeal the existing law requiring the form of publication for these court orders or rules of practice.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can make a little bit clearer to me the reason why the

conjunction "or" comes at the end of section 2(a) (i) and not "and"?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because there are orders that we wish to have come under the provisions of this statute which are not made by government agencies such as, for instance, those made by the board of directors of a railway company with respect to the conduct of the passengers on their trains. Suppose they are regulations the infringement of which is punishable by fine or imprisonment under a section of the Railway Act. We want those included. If we used "and" they would not be included unless they were orders made by the kind of government agency described in one of the subsections.


William Joseph Browne: That is what puzzled me. Would you not call a railway company a "corporation"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not thfe Canadian Pacific
Railway.


William Joseph Browne: Oh, I
understand.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not a corporation
representing the government.


William Joseph Browne: Now I
understand. Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Publication in Canada Gazette.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister
indicate what will be the situation as between the Canada Gazette, part I, and the Canada Gazette, part II, after this bill passes? Will part II continue to be published? Will it be under that name or some other name?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: That has not been determined. I would not like to commit the government at this time to what will be found to be the most practicable form to carry out the provisions of this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose the same answer
would be given, when we get over to it, with respect to the regulations and classes of regulations that are exempted from the provisions of the bill and which are thereby required to be published in the Canada Gazette; that is a matter to be worked out later, I take it. It might be in the main volume or it might be in a supplementary volume.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In a supplementary
volume.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Subsection 3 of this section
6 provides:
No regulation Is invalid by reason only that it was not published in the Canada Gazette . . .

Then it goes on to provide that no person shall be convicted of an offence unless it was proved that the regulation was exempted from publication, and that reasonable steps had been taken to bring it to the notice of the person affected. I would not ask the Prime Minister to tell us or to attempt to tell us here what would be accepted as evidence of "reasonable" in a court of law. That is not the implication of my question. I would ask him, however, if he would tell us what steps are considered reasonable by the government and what steps are in fact taken to bring to the attention of the persons affected such regulations as are not published?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because of the sweeping
terms of the definition "regulations", it will include all sorts of orders; and it may be that, for instance, some regulation of a railway company had not been published and the penalty for infringement sanctioned by a section of the Railway Act is fine or imprisonment. If it had not been published, and there had not been, to the satisfaction of the court, the publicity given to it that made the offender a voluntary offender, the court would not convict.
In these matters I think it is better not to attempt to bind the courts down too tightly. I think this statute will show that it was not the intention of parliament that everything be published, and that considerable discretion should be left to the court, if one was prosecuted under an order that was not published, in determining whether or not the offender should be looked upon as having done something that he knew was wrong. I think it is preferable to leave that.
Then the circumstances may vary. There might be an occasion when there would be a question about the regularity of registration and publication. The hon. member will notice that we require the order to be sent to the clerk of the privy council to be recorded, and then the publication is required to be made within a certain time after that is done. A question might arise, although it had been published in the official gazette, as to whether it was done within the proper time after the recording in the privy council office. I think it is better to leave it to the courts to apply in a manner that will make it workable rather than to be too specific about it. If something had been published simultaneously with the recording or if it had been sent to the official gazette at the same time at it was sent to the privy council, and if as a matter of fact it were established that the clerk of the privy council had not recorded it until the day after it was published in the Gazette, the question might
Regulations Act
arise whether that was compliance with the statute. I think those matters should be left for the common-sense determination of those presiding over the courts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the principle that the Prime Minister has suggested. What limited experience I have had does suggest that courts, on the other hand, have great difficulty in interpreting the word "reasonable" in a statute such as this. I am thinking particularly of an instance where a regulation is in the exempted class, and it is not necessary to publish in the Gazette. It will be difficult to say what are the reasonable steps which should have been taken to bring it to the attention of the person affected. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister would consider putting the onus more upon the authority publishing the regulation to bring it to the attention of the person affected. If the words "all necessary steps" were substituted here for the words "reasonable steps" so that it would read:
Unless
(b) it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention all necessary steps had been taken-
-and so on, that would bring the matter to the attention of the person affected. I think these words would clearly establish not only the onus of proving that it had been brought to his attention but the necessity of taking the steps necessary to bring it to his attention would be on the body making the order or the regulation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Let me suggest this case. An order goes out from a control tower in an airfield to a plane that is coming in, and the apparatus in that plane is not in a position to receive the message; and because of the neglect of the pilot, or of the owner of the plane, he is not in a position to receive the message. Well, the sending of the message would not be all the necessary steps to bring it to his attention. What would have been necessary to bring it to his attention would have been an inspection of the plane to make sure that there was a private receiving apparatus in his plane. Well, that would not be reasonable. Today if one attempts to use public airfields one is supposed to be in a position to receive the directions that come from the control towers. I think that no court would find it difficult to say that it would not be an excuse for him to say: "Well, my receiving set was out of order and that is why I did not comply with the order I got from the control tower." These orders from the control towers will certainly be in the exempted class.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
3500
[Stage Direction]
Regulations Act
On section 9-Governor in council may make regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to subsection 2 of section 9 which deals with exemptions, may I ask the minister this question? Am I correct in assuming that when an order has been passed exempting a class of regulations from being published, that order is published in the Canada Gazette once and that is the end of it so far as that class is concerned? For example, if an order is passed which prevents the control tower messages from being published, that will hold for all time or until a change is made.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But in the case of individual regulations which may be of a temporary character, every time an order is passed exempting that particular individual regulation from being published, that exempting order will have to be published.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So that about all it amounts to in these individual cases is that you are publishing it in a way that is not permanent; you are publishing it in the Canada Gazette rather than in the consolidated volume.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; the exempting order will be published, and it may be merely a temporary order. For instance, at Chalk River there may be an order made that a certain area for a certain number of weeks would be out of bounds. It might be felt that for security reasons it was inadvisable to call the attention of the general public to that. No one could be prosecuted under that unless it had been brought to his attention. But if it were at Chalk River, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I as member for Quebec East would not be interested at all. It would have to be shown that there had been indications in the immediate locality bringing that order to the attention of those who might be affected by it.
We had quite a discussion over the necessity of even publishing the order made exempting such things because of their security implications; but the decision was that we wanted to give as complete information as possible, and that we would have to take the risk. If there was something of a legislative character that was not going to be published we would have to take the risk of describing it as an excepting order, and we would have to make the excepting order public so that all members of parliament could question the propriety of our doing it. We wanted in no way to call attention to everything that was not going to come under the general provisions of the statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So that it is clear that there cannot be any completely secret regulations. The regulations themselves can be secret, but only by virtue of an order in council passed under this subsection which exempts those regulations from being published?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, and you will have to make the exemption public. It may be that in certain cases we will have to use terms perfectly innocuous to attract as little attention as possible to anything that we think should not be talked about; but nevertheless it will be on the table of parliament, and if hon. members choose to talk about it, it will be their privilege to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister does not want to tie his nor the government's hands with respect to future plans; but I wonder whether he can indicate the type of program for consolidation and publication he has in mind. In his speech on May 31 he said, as reported at page 3039 of Hansard:
A consolidation of such statutory orders and regulations in effect on December 31, 1949, has been prepared and is in the hands of the king's printer.
Then he refers to the fact that not all of them are to be published in the form of the volume which was tabled. With respect to the future he said:
Then we would have a systematized regular form for publishing anything new, so that it would be easier for all those who ought to be informed to know that, if it is not in such and such a place, it does not exist, and there is no need for taking into account anything that is not in this consolidation or that has not been published in the form called for by this bill.
That seems to me to indicate that the Prime Minister had in mind a form of publication. If I am right I should like to ask him what is the form? Is it the same as the one which I hold in my hand, and at what intervals is it proposed at present that they should be published in the future?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no decision in that regard. It has appeared to me that it would be desirable to have yearly, for a certain number of years, supplements to those five bulky volumes. I do not think it would be a. proper expenditure of public money to republish these things too frequently; but I think there should be an annual supplement referring to the first consolidation just as we have in these indexes of case law every ten years or so a new issue and then yearly we get a supplement referring to such a page of the last publication and adding to or commenting upon whatever change has been made with respect to the matter disclosed on that page. I am not putting that forth as something that has as

yet been decided upon by the government, but it has been considered and it is the desire to do something practical.
One suggestion has been that we follow what has been found to be practicable by those law publishers with respect to consolidated digests of case law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Once a year.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Once a year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will not be in any sense a new consolidation; it will be a supplement bringing it up to date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to say that it will be this or it will be that. We are considering at the present time doing something which will not involve republishing too frequently these bulky volumes, and which nevertheless will be a handy instrument at the disposal of those who wish to see what has happened to whatever is contained in the bulky volumes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
259. General administration, $1,687,155.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $293,670.
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to pay a compliment to one of the staff of the Department of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: The minister?


James Arthur Ross: I am never too uncomplimentary about him, although I do entirely disagree with his policy.
On this occasion I refer to Dr. Archibald, who was honoured recently, and who is head of the experimental farms throughout Canada from coast to coast. He has had a long record in the public service. When he was designated a year ago as the No. 1 farmer in Canada some difference of opinion was expressed from different parts of the nation. I have known this gentleman for a number of years; indeed I was associated with him in connection with P.F.R.A. before coming to Ottawa, in some of the very good work that 55946-222J
Supply-Agriculture
organization did. I say without fear of successful contradiction that Dr. Archibald has earned for hifnself, without any argument, the title of No. 1 farmer in Canada.
He has been either head of or associated with the experimental farms for some thirty-three years. As most people will understand, these farms carry out research in connection with agriculture, and have performed a great service for the country. I have never known a public official with a greater knowledge of the problems with which he has been working, or one with more zeal and energy than Dr. Archibald.
In addition to the valuable work he did in connection with P.F.R.A. one must not forget the great service he has given in connection with the exhibitions held in the different provinces of Canada. Most people realize that those exhibitions are the show windows of agricultural communities. We have the Royal Winter Fair, which is recognized as the show place of Canadian agriculture, held every fall in Toronto.
As we have learned through the newspapers, this splendid public servant is due for retirement this year. I make this urgent request of the Minister of Agriculture, that while Dr. Archibald may be due for retirement, because of his vast knowledge of agriculture and the work he has done to assist that industry, his services be retained for some time to come. I make that request of the minister because I am sure Dr. Archibald could render a very useful service in the department, with that zeal and energy he has always applied to his task. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to retaining the services of this most valuable public servant who is now in his department.
Having said that, I turn to a matter in which I shall have to be somewhat more critical. This has to do with a question I placed on the order paper which was passed as an order for return. That return is contained in sessional paper 4E of Tuesday, May 16, and is 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?
The attached information has been received by the Secretary of State of Canada from the Department of Agriculture.

Supply-Agriculture Department of Agriculture
Answer:
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 suggest this need not have been a motion for return; rather it could have been answered by the minister. Was not question No. 4 properly drawn? If it was, why was it not answered?


James Garfield Gardiner: My recollection was that
there were names attached to the answer. However I shall look into it, and if it is not complete I shall complete it after the dinner recess.


James Arthur Ross: I have never received an answer, despite the fact that I raised the question in debate on another matter to show that we have had difficulty in securing answers to our questions.
Since that time I have been checking the public accounts as they are set out in the Auditor General's report for the year ending March, 1949. In that part of the report dealing with the Department of Agriculture I have found the following statement of expenditures for freight assistance since the inception of the policy:
1948-49 Total to date
Grain shipped to:
Eastern Canada ___ $16,015,428.67 $109,622,840.10
British Columbia ...	1,705,387.51	12,318,958.27

Refunds credited to previous years' war and demobilization
expenditures	 22,551.56

These figures do not answer precisely the question I asked, because they refer to the fiscal year, whereas I referred to the calendar year. There will be a great deal more since that time because this policy has been continued since over a year ago. It will run well over that figure at this time.
I checked further down on the page to see what companies received the larger amounts and it is rather strange that these companies are the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, rMr. Ross (Souris).]
Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited, Purity Flour Mills Limited, Quaker Oats of Canada Limited, Robin Hood Flour Mills Limited and a number of smaller companies. Here are some of the amounts received, according to the Auditor General's report:
Ogilvie Flour Mills	 $781,231.78
Purity Flour Mills	 727,462.08
Robin Hood Flour Mills	 817,934.50
Quaker Oats	 597,844.01
Lake of the Woods	 622,165.50
Maple Leaf Milling Company	 1,221,038.00
Toronto Elevators	 1,695,256.78
Then payments were made to the Hiram Walker Grain Corporation, Walkerville; the St. Lawrence Flour Mills, Montreal, and many others. I do not suppose there is any connection, but the first four names I have mentioned happen to be the first four milling companies mentioned in the report on the flour milling industry by the combines investigation commissioner.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only because they are the largest mills.


James Arthur Ross: I pointed out that they were the large mills and I am not saying that there is any connection. There is some rather interesting evidence in that report about these companies quite apart from the fact that they are the largest. I well recall early in September, 1947, when the price ceiling was still on, that dairy people and livestock feeders in my part of the country found it impossible to purchase feed. It is interesting to point out that one of these officials happened to be the controller of flour and feed at that particular time. Immediately the price ceiling came off on September 15, 1947, these people were able to get all the feed they wanted by the carload. That was the situation where I lived.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, I have no objection to what my hon. friend is saying but I think he should say it on item 30. It is a little difficult to keep on hand all the information with regard to every item so that it will be available when we are dealing with the administration item. A general discussion is quite in order on this item and this is the third day that the general discussion has been going on. It is going to be rather difficult if we are going to have a discussion on each item at this time.
It is quite evident that these are the large milling companies who deliver feed to other persons and naturally they send in vouchers and the payment is made to them on account of freight, which they pass on to the individual who secures the grain. I think it would be much better to take up the items in order and as we come to them I shall be glad to answer the questions.


James Arthur Ross: I raised this because it was a matter of administration. This practice has been followed in connection with other departments. I worded my question very pointedly and I did not receive the information.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is quite all right on this administration item to ask why you did not get the information, but I would only have to guess at the answer if you start to discuss matters which should be taken up on a particular item.


James Arthur Ross: I shall give the minister an opportunity to have these facts before him and at hand when we come to that item. I have simply quoted what is a matter of public record. I should like now to refer to a newspaper article which I am not going to say is authentic because we do get newspaper reports that are not correct. There has been nothing less than consternation over the cost of feed. This matter has been raised by eastern members and I want to put the figures on record. If this matter has been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture or other ministers I am surprised that nothing has been done about it. I quote from the Financial Times of April 28, 1950, as follows:
What has been described as a nigger in the woodpile was handed us.
And again:
Here is how my Montreal expert, Dr. Bose-Schlecht, describes the manoeuvre:
"This week a grain merchant in Montreal shipped one carload of oats to Newfoundland. Drawback on the freight over $700. Dealer is reimbursed by the government-but is the consumer benefited?
The dealer declares that the whole thing is one of the biggest scandals of recent years. Dairies, paper companies, purchasers of feeds all benefit. But does the small stock raiser who was supposed to get assistance ever get it? That is up to the retail dealer."
Then later on it goes on to say:
Dr. Bose-Schlecht goes on to say: "The big thing as I understand it is that Montreal millers making oatmeal, etc., bring down supplies as 'feed'. A well known Montreal figure runs the lobby with his old pal (name omitted) and it is all for the farmer at both ends of the line, the grower in the west and the stock feeder in the east."
I want to make it quite clear that I do not suggest that the "name omitted" refers to the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The obvious answer to that question is that the gentleman who is apparently giving the information is himself the culprit; he must have been the man who puts in the vouchers.


James Arthur Ross: The article goes on:
But as I heard it, at least at the receiving end- most of the benefits, that is to say, dollars, are going to people who can rebate to the party campaign fund. Liberal party that is.
Supply-Agriculture
And of course it was only justified in the first place as a wartime measure to increase production of meat in eastern Canada and now Newfoundland is in it. And the war has been over for years.
We all know that it has been over for some five years.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend knows also
that that is just ordinary, rank political twaddle because there is no way in which any money of that kind could get into the campaign fund unless the farmers who receive it are using it to elect a government which has done something they wanted done.


James Arthur Ross: I made it quite clear that I was not taking any responsibility for the article, but it is a newspaper article which people have read. The facts and figures I dealt with are to be found in the report of the Auditor General or in the report on the flour milling industry by the combines commissioner. I took no authority for those figures. I come back again to my original question to the minister as to why I did not get the definite answers I asked for and which have a direct bearing on the figures I gave.


James Garfield Gardiner: The proper answer under
the rules of this house would be to refer the hon. member to the documents he has mentioned. Hon. members are not supposed to ask questions of that kind, to ask for information which can be obtained from a government blue book.


James Arthur Ross: That would not have
been a proper answer because the report of the Auditor General only takes us up to March 31, 1949. If the minister will read my questions he will see that I asked for information covering the calendar years 1948 and 1949. You cannot get information with regard to the calendar year 1949 from any book. The department would be the only place to get that.


Mr. Catherwood:: Could the minister give
the details of the $10,000 for the delegation of technical agriculturists to Canada from the United Kingdom?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a return visit of
British technical men. We sent over a delegation of seven last year. They examined activities over there and reported back. This year the British are sending seven to this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What international agricultural conferences is it expected we will attend this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know just which we will attend. I could probably give some information about those we might be expected to attend. Of course one would be

Supply-Agriculture
FAO, and there are others. The continuing committee, which has an agricultural representative on it, will be meeting shortly in London. We will probably have a representative there but we do not send representatives to all the conferences that are held. We will probably send delegations to the usual number, which is not more than five or six.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You said that you will probably send delegations to the usual number. Did you actually spend the $16,000 last year? Perhaps we could get away with a little less this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand not all of it was spent last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How much?


James Garfield Gardiner: As to FAO I am told that the amount of $16,000 was allotted to this department, but we must pay the expenses of all those who attend that particular conference. They may not all be people from the Department of Agriculture. Finance, fisheries and a number of other departments are represented at that organization.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What has happened to the director in chief of agricultural services? Has there been any change in the classification or have the services of that officer been disposed of?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is the new deputy minister who happens to be sitting at the table.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2.	Information service, $318,495.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Referring to the details of this item at page 73, may I ask the minister what is the reason for the inclusion of an amount of $45,000 for the production of films?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was in supplies and materials last year, and it is set up as a separate item this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that paid to the national film board? Do they produce your films for you?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Since this item deals with the information service, I wonder if it would be an opportune time to ask the minister if any part of the extra expense is owing to the fact that Newfoundland is now the tenth province? Have you any such establishment there?


James Garfield Gardiner: A small part of it will be for Newfoundland, but there are other things as well. For greater efficiency in administration the information service was established by order in council P.C. 12/4847 of September 21, 1949, to take over the work of the former publicity and extension division, the departmental library, and such other units as might

be assigned. The former publicity and extension division had thirty-eight permanent and seventeen temporary positions, making a total of fifty-five, while the departmental library had five permanent and ten temporary positions, a total of fifteen. This made a grand total of seventy positions in the units so grouped. The present authorized positions for the information service number seventy-three, indicating a net increase in positions of three, as follows: bilingual information officer; exhibits technician transferred from national film board; and exhibits technician appointed new.
Those are the changes that have been made in organization. Comparing the estimate with that of the former publicity and extension division, there is an apparent increase in the estimate of the information service of just under $74,000. This is made up as follows: (a) increase in printing and stationery vote to cover general increased costs of paper, etc., and to provide for payment of 8 per cent sales tax not formerly charged, $5,000; (b) transfer from general administration of the vote covering the library's purchase of books and periodicals and costs of binding, which for 1950-51 is estimated at $13,000; (c) salary increases due to (1) transfer from general administration of the library staff; (2) provision for salaries of the three new positions above; (3) increases in salary provisions for the service as a whole due to ordinary statutory increases, reclassifications and salary revisions, $57,000.
As to the change in setting out the item for films, the new item for documentary film production is $45,000. This actually represents a reduction of $2,000 for this purpose from the previous fiscal year, as it was formerly part of the item for acquisition of material, which now stands at $5,000 compared with $52,000 last year, a net provision in that year for film production of $47,000. In other words, the total amount is reduced by $2,000 but it appears here as a new item although it is expended elsewhere.


Mr. Bryce:: I do not know whether I am on the right item, but I want to talk about advertising in Great Britain. Does that come under the Minister of Trade and Commerce or would it come under this item? I refer to the advertising of agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not do the advertising in Great Britain. That is done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. It does not come under any item in this department.


William Scottie Bryce: I think we should convince the people of Great Britain that United States bacon is not Canadian bacon, and that Canadian bacon is a far superior product.


James Garfield Gardiner: When I came here fifteen years ago I had the idea of trying to put that into effect. The house and others raised the kind of objection that has been raised during the present session, namely, that there was an overlapping of expenditure, that it ought to be done by the department. It was put under trade and commerce, and I have not had anything to do with it since.


William Scottie Bryce: It is absolutely necessary that it should be done in order to help us to sell our agricultural products in the British market. When over there last year I was surprised to see on a couple of occasions that Canadian new-laid eggs were being sold in Glasgow and London. We have to do something more than that. That is quite a job when you consider that these new-laid eggs came from western Canada. If we can prove to these people how rapidly we can transport the eggs and the facilities we have for keeping them cool so that they will not deteriorate in any way, we will be getting some place. I will raise the matter on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


A. Earl Catherwood: Is the farm broadcast over the C.B.C. covered in this item for information service?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the costs are not
covered here. We supply them with material but we have nothing to do with the costs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3.	Advisory committee on agricultural services. $5,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say a word about this committee? Who are its members and whom do they advise?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And does he take the advice?


James Arthur Ross: He has probably taken too much sometimes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have read this into the record each year for about fifteen years, and I wish someone would memorize it; it is not very difficult. The chairman is the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and the committee is made up of the ministers of agriculture of all the provinces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Whom do they advise?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would you like the names?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, but this seems rather odd. It is called an advisory committee, but whom does it advise?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those men form the committee. The advisory committee is made up of the deputies of the same departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture
4.	Contributions to commonwealth bureaux. $56,821.
A. Earl Catherwood: Is this an empire organization set up for the purpose of pooling information on scientific agricultural advances? Would the minister outline the duties of this body and how this estimate is made up, as far as the commonwealth countries are concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: The commonwealth bureau of biological control is an organization that has its headquarters in Ottawa now. Prior to the war it was in London, but it was moved here and still operates here. The others are all in England. The headquarters of the bureau of biological control are now in the science service building at the dominion experimental farm, Ottawa. This building houses the Canadian division of entomology, including the national insect collections. It is now the headquarters of the biological control investigations unit of the division of entomology, the chief of which is Mr. A. B. Baird. Substations of the bureau are now located in the dominion parasite laboratory at Belleville, Ontario, the citrus experimental station at Riverside, California, the imperial college of tropical agriculture in Trinidad, in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Zurich, Switzerland. Agents and temporary assistants are handling projects for the bureau in many parts of Europe. The bureau is prepared to supply information on the natural enemies of insect and plant pests or in regard to any questions relating to work in the field of biological control. I think that information will give a general idea of the work being done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
5.	Science service administration, $1,229,750.
William Joseph Browne: How much was spent last year for co-operative investigations? That is the last item on page 74 of the details.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume the hon. member is referring to co-operative marketing organizations?


William Joseph Browne: It just says "co-operative investigations."


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand we are still on item No. 4, so it is not the last item in this vote; but it has to do with work carried on in the universities.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The item now before the committee is No. 5, science service administration.


William Joseph Browne: I wonder if the minister could tell us what sort of

Supply-Agriculture
investigations are being carried on, whether they are in connection with marketing, producing or what?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the scientific work carried on in the laboratories of universities, where they have equipment to do things we cannot do here at the central farm or elsewhere. We make arrangements with these universities right across Canada to carry on such work. I do not know whether it is generally understood, but some of the universities in Canada have their agricultural colleges right on the same campus with the other university institutions. That is true in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. Some of the others have their agricultural colleges at other points.


William Joseph Browne: It has
nothing to do with co-operative marketing or producing, then?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not with what are generally understood as co-operative organizations. It is co-operation between the universities and ourselves.


William Joseph Browne: What is the explanation for the increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is only about $900 higher, and is accounted for principally by increases in salary.


A. Earl Catherwood: Under this item I see an amount of $984,950 for the acquisition or construction of buildings and works. That is quite an expenditure. Would the minister give us an idea where this money is to be spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are the buildings that are to be put up at different places, one at London, another at Kentville and another at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. They are buildings with which we are assisting which do not properly belong under any of the other general votes.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Does this concern the new building you have put up at the university of Western Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6.	Animal and poultry pathology, $388,640.
George Randolph Pearkes: During the last few months the flocks on Vancouver island have been attacked by Newcastle disease, which apparently has been brought over from the Fraser valley. During April I asked whether it would be practicable to make Vancouver island a protected area, a request which had been sent to me by the farmers' institute. I was told at that time that the disease was well in hand, but now it has broken out at

half a dozen places on the island. Last year the pathological laboratory at Saanichton was closed and moved over to Vancouver. Is there an adequate number of veterinaries now available to cope with this disease, and will the minister consider permitting vaccines to be used in the way I understand they are used in the northwestern states?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would prefer to deal with that question under item 17, the administration of animal contagious diseases. However, I may say it is being dealt with rather effectively. Of course, as always occurs in such outbreaks, there are some unexpected things happening along the way, but they think they have it fairly well under control.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
A. Earl Catherwood: Can the minister tell us what progress is being made in research looking toward the elimination of coccidiosis in poultry? I should also like to know how many animal and poultry pathology laboratories there are across Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are Macdonald College, Hull, Ottawa, Lethbridge, Vancouver, and Sackville.


A. Earl Catherwood: I should also like to know what progress is being made in research with regard to the elimination of coccidiosis in poultry.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, but we do not appear to have a record of it here; but it is proceeding.	,


A. Earl Catherwood: Would the minister be able to get that information later?


James Garfield Gardiner: We can get it later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
7.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $177,305.
A. Earl Catherwood: On this item-


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish my hon. friend would speak out. I cannot hear anything he is saying.


A. Earl Catherwood: I think this matter of dairy research is an extremely important service; and every effort should be made to develop new uses for dairy products. If there were an increase in the estimates for further research in this matter, I think it would be greatly justified. I would suggest that a further increase in the amount for this purpose should be given serious consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister tell us what new equipment and so on it is intended to acquire that accounts for the $35,000 increase in this item over last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is practically all for
equipment for the London laboratory and for the research branch here at Ottawa.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not know whether this is the proper item under which to take the matter up, but I think that you, Mr. Chairman, and all other members of the committee will realize that there has been a considerable change in the ice cream, especially that which we have been getting in the parliamentary restaurant and cafeteria within the last year or so. There is a good consistency about any bulk ice cream that we get but as to the bricks and the "MelOrols" particularly, when they get a little bit soft there is practically nothing left; it seems to be half air. Can the minister tell us what the requirements are as to the butterfat content and the solid content of ice cream and whether there is any difference in that requirement for bricks or "MelOrols" and for the bulk ice cream.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are all the same; that is, there is no difference between bricks and other forms. The regulation is that the butter-fat content shall be-I am not absolutely certain, but I think it was 14 per cent before the war. Then we reduced it to 9 per cent and we put it back to either 13 per cent or 14 per cent but I think it is the same as it was before the war.


John Alpheus Charlton: How about the solids?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are on the same basis as they were before the war.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then what accounts for the difference in this ice cream, as between the bulk ice cream and the bricks and "MelOrols"?


James Garfield Gardiner: I suppose it will depend somewhat on where you are eating the ice cream. Some people may provide you with ice cream that is even above the minimum requirements, and some do not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not in the cafeteria.


John Alpheus Charlton: If it is the same brand of ice cream, no matter where you get it, it is all the same.


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture Science service-
8.	Botany and plant pathology, $1,343,687.
Mr. Herridge:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to little cherry disease. This is a matter of great interest to cherry growers in the interior of British Columbia. In the minister's report there is a brief account of what is being done in that respect. I think the investigation is of such great importance to the fruit industry in British Columbia that the report should contain a more detailed explanation of the work that is being done. I should like to ask the minister what has been done to date, and if it would be possible to obtain a fairly detailed report with regard to the research, and the success, to date, with respect to little cherry disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: The report which I have here on little cherry disease indicates that it is caused by a virus and that it continues to spread in the Kootenay and Arrow lake districts, as revealed by surveys conducted by dominion and provincial officials. The insertion of buds from diseased cherry trees into peach, prune, apricot, choke cherry and wild cherry and of buds of peach, prune and choke cherry growing near diseased cherry trees into healthy trees, and the artificial pollination of healthy cherry trees with pollen from diseased trees all failed to produce any clear-cut symptom the following year, as it would be expected if the little cherry disease had been transmitted. A tree-to-tree survey was conducted in the Okanagan valley by provincial officials, with assistance from the staff of the Summerland laboratory of plant pathology, and which covered all the southern part and up to the end, including Kelowna. No tree with definite symptoms of little cherry disease was found. One tree in the Oliver district was removed on suspicion.


William Joseph Browne: The other day, in answer to a question, the parliamentary assistant to the minister told me that potatoes could not be sent from Newfoundland to any other province in Canada because of the prevalence of wart disease. I should like to know if the departmental officials are doing anything to help overcome that disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are carrying on experiments this year for the first time. Of course this is the first year we have had an opportunity of doing so.


William Joseph Browne: On that subject?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. But potatoes are not permitted to be imported or to be exported

Supply-Agriculture
from there up to now. I hope that these studies will lead to our finally getting to the point where they can be.


William Joseph Browne: I hope so, because we can do a business of exporting seed potatoes if we can get that disease cleared up.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can quite understand that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a substantial increase in the number of employees in this branch, from 344 to 407, or an increase of 63 employees altogether, with a somewhat corresponding increase in travelling expenses. Can the minister tell us what enlarged activities the branch is undertaking that account for the increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are given there for the different increases, right through. There was one director before; there is one now. The figures are the same down to agricultural scientists. There are two now where there were none before, grade 8. The next increase is in clerks, grade 4. There are two now where there was one before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the fact that the number of personnel are set out and that the increase is detailed. But what I am wondering is what increased activities the branch is undertaking that should make necessary the 63 extra personnel in one year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the main increase has been in the taking over of some of the staff from entomology. That is the new laboratory at Lethbridge.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are 64 extra personnel in the agricultural entomology branch this year as compared with last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; we have the new building at London and at other places; these new buildings we were speaking of before dinner. There was an expenditure of $984,950 on buildings, and there was an expenditure of $682,500 last year. These buildings have to be manned with staff. Their staffs are dealing with just that particular kind of work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This entomology-


James Garfield Gardiner: The building at Lethbridge, for example, which we discussed at some length last year, has been put into use this year. The building at London will require a staff. Any other buildings that are put in operation will require more staff.


A. Earl Catherwood: Is any progress being made in developing grain resistant to smut? We realize that the seed is being treated with

good results, but this is only a temporary measure. Will the minister tell us what progress has been made in this matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are producing of course, and have been for many years, smut resistant varieties of grain; but as was suggested by the hon. member, the chief method of dealing with smut is to have the seed itself treated, and that has met with very considerable success. Back over the years we have changed from one thing to another to be used on the grain, but nevertheless smut has been very effectively dealt with in that manner.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is there any effective cure for root rot in oats?


James Garfield Gardiner: Organic mercury dusts are effective in preventing the development of root rot, particularly where the seed or the soil was badly contaminated by root-rotting fungi. That is the only effective method that we have knowledge of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9.	Agricultural chemistry, $495,320.
A. Earl Catherwood: I see there is an increase in the number of temporary employees by 25. What is the general nature of their work? 'Are these mostly students working part time with the idea of taking them on permanently?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mostly students, but there has been some extension of work which did require more temporaries other than students. The department, as will be understood, has had a certain percentage assigned to it as to the number of temporaries that they can have on their staff, and as the number of employees goes up the number of temporaries in relation to the permanents will go up somewhat also. But this mostly has to do with what has been suggested by the hon. member, namely, the taking on of students to do temporary work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10.	Agricultural entomology, $1,546,510.
James Arthur Ross: What contribution do
the federal authorities make toward assisting the provinces in fighting grasshoppers? For instance, in the three prairie provinces their employees make surveys of the eggs and draw maps of the areas. Under favourable weather conditions it looks as if we may have a bad outbreak even this season. How far do the federal people go in helping to fight that plague?


James Garfield Gardiner: We make the surveys and
map the areas where there is likely to be infestation. The provinces really fight the grasshoppers.

Supply-Agriculture


James Arthur Ross: The federal people do does not necessarily mean that they are doing
not enter into paying for any of the poison more work. It may mean that they are doing bait at all?	.	less.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to ask a question about the travelling expenses in this branch. I want to say this by way of preface. I realize that when these various science services and so on are set up in the departments, to give the service to the people, in whose behalf they operate, namely, the people of Canada, they obviously must travel around and do a certain amount of research. My approach to this question, however, is based on the fact that if we can get travelling expenses down to a minimum then we shall have more money to expend on the concrete results of their work; and that applies generally throughout the government service. For instance, I notice there has been an increase in an already very substantial account for travelling expenses from $105,000 to $117,000, about one-thirteenth of the total expenditures of the branch. It causes me to question the matter and ask the minister how much was actually spent last year, and whether there is any chance of reducing this item below its present level?


Mr. Sinclair:: That is because of foot and
mouth disease in Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was caused by the Liberal politicians who came into that district in the election campaign in an attempt to defeat the present member. If they had stayed away we would not have foot and mouth disease; at any rate we would not have had mouth disease.


James Arthur Ross: Has the minister the
same confidence in the other prairie provinces fighting grasshoppers as he professes to have in the Saskatchewan government? Does it apply to Manitoba?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think they all did all right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I asked the minister a question about travelling expenses and the reason for the increase.


James Garfield Gardiner: The difference is $117,000 as compared with $105,000 last year. And that of course would be brought about by the fact that there are some extras on, as was indicated a few moments ago. I do not altogether agree with the suggestion that you will have more money to spend doing a job if you travel less. I do not think it is possible to do this work without travelling. The inspectors in connection with the kind of work that is carried on, or anyone who is associated with it, must do a certain amount of travelling. If we reduce the travelling it


John Alpheus Charlton: In that regard, how many government officials are there in that department driving government-owned cars? Are there any of them driving their own cars on a mileage basis?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are about 300 in the science service.


John Alpheus Charlton: The total in the science service? Has the minister any figures of the difference in costs as between keeping up a government car and paying mileage to a man who owns his own car?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we try to make it pretty much the same. If it becomes more costly to do it in one way, then we switch over to the other method. But it depends somewhat on the length of mileage a man travels. If a person operates on a great mileage, then of course we usually supply him with a car.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister should have some idea of the mileage cost of a car, for instance, that has been going two years and has travelled 30,000 or 40,000 miles. I realize that as a car gets older it costs more to operate. The minister should have some idea of the cost of the mileage of a car, say, in the second year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The operation costs have been different at different times. When I went into the government service first they allowed 10 cents a mile. At a later date it was 7 cents a mile. There seems to be a little doubt among hon. members as to whether it is 7 or 8 cents a mile. But one can understand that when gasoline is costing 45 cents it must cost considerably more to operate a car than it did when gasoline was costing 23 cents. I understand now, having been corrected as to the figure, that it is actually about 9 cents at the present time. It has been up and down, having been 10 cents at one time and 7 cents at another.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not ask what we were paying in respect of cars owned by persons working for the department. What is the cost per mile of government-owned cars?


James Garfield Gardiner: Between 5 and 6 cents, depending somewhat upon who operates the car and the distances the cars are operated. On that basis it costs less to operate a government car than to operate the others. It must be considered however that the individual has to replace his car as well as pay the cost of operation. It works out at about the same figure.

Supply-A griculture


John Alpheus Charlton: Taking the total cost of capitalization, interest and everything?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are the government cars covered by insurance?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the government carries its own insurance.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about public liability and property damage? Is the driver of a government-owned car personally liable for any damage, whether it is his fault or that of the other driver?


James Garfield Gardiner: If our man is responsible, we pay it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not like to say the minister is not telling the truth, but his answer is different from the way I have heard it. I have known chaps driving government cars who have felt their responsibility very heavily and, knowing very well the government is not going to stand behind them, many of them have put insurance on in which they have covered themselves for public liability and property damage. This has been done at their own expense. I understand further there is no way they can get that money back from the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps one case I have in mind would illustrate the point about as well as any. These cases, by the way, are taken to treasury board, when they come up. If they are payments which ought to be made by the government, they are made by the government. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops will recall the one I am about to mention, where the gentleman went out and got his groceries to bring them back to his home. When he came out to his car there was a bear on top of it trying to pick a hole through the car, to get at the food. He could not chase the bear off, so he undertook to shake it off by starting his car and running it down the road. So intent was he upon shaking off the bear that he ran into a tree and smashed his car. We thought we ought to pay for the damage, and we did pay for it. That is one case, but there are many others-perhaps not quite like that one. However, the government does pay when we feel we are warranted.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is a good fish story.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have driven government cars, and I know what it feels like. But if a man takes enough interest in his car to insure it, I do not think it is right that he should have to pay for that insurance himself. When he gets into an accident, whether it is his fault or not, I think he should be protected.


James Garfield Gardiner: Every case is examined into. He may insure if he desires to do so. However, examination is made into every case where there is a claim, and if it is considered that payment should be made it is made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
11.	Forest entomology, $1,222,839.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this department administers a great industry in Canada, and I hope hon. members will not question the additions to staff that are so necessary. Throughout the years there have been shortages in staff in many of the provinces, and I am quite sure farmers of this country are pleased to see work being done that has been neglected for some years.
So far as travelling expenses are concerned, it is my opinion that the men working in this department cannot do a good job unless they travel. It has been my experience that officials of the Department of Agriculture travel as cheaply as those of any department of government. I have found them on many occasions seeking to get accommodation by getting rides, and have even found them trying to cut down expenses to the extent of borrowing my own broncho and buggy.
I understand the minister's department is conducting investigations in connection with forest insect tests in conjunction with the forest service of the Department of Resources and Development. Some investigation is being carried on in the interior of British Columbia. How many men are engaged in that work at the present time, and what work is contemplated during the coming season in that area?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is correct when he says that the Department of Agriculture does research work in this connection. We conduct research into the matter of providing parasites to fight other insects. We breed armies of them and arrange to have them turned loose so that they may put up a battle against the worms which damage the crops and the forests. That kind of work is done in our laboratories, and these insects, are put out. The best illustration which comes to my mind, offhand, was the cutworm, infestation of my own farm on one occasion. These little insects we have bred and put out were there in large numbers. After a rain, when the cutworms had to come above the ground to get air, these insects were darting around the place, stinging each worm, and gradually wiped them out.
Then, we do breed parasites that prey upon insects and worms which damage crops and forests in general. That is our end of:

the work; but the work of actually fighting the difficulties that arise in the forests is not under this department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The other day I asked a question about the worm or caterpillar which attacks the oak, basswood, maple, elm and other trees. I believe at the present time they are found in great numbers in Muskoka, and have gone up to Haliburton. They travel by the million, and when they cross a road it is absolutely black with them. They will bleed a tree in half an hour.


Joseph Henry Harris: A kind of yellowish black.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are green in colour, and range from one to two inches in length. What is the government doing about this pest?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are different ways of dealing with them. 1 do not know about the particular movement of army worms to which the hon. member has referred, but we have worms of that kind in the west, and I believe they are found in all parts of Canada at different times. One method of dealing with them is to put tarpaper around the bottom of the tree, and then put grease on it. But one should be properly informed before he begins to do that. A whole row of trees on my own place were killed by a man who stopped reading where the instruction said to put on the grease; he did not note that it had also said to put tarpaper on the tree first. This man put the grease around the bottom of the trees and killed them more effectively than the worms would have done. So it is necessary to inform oneself properly before beginning to fight these pests.
However, there are successful methods of fighting them, depending of course upon the nature of the worm. The method I have described is one that is followed in fighting the army worm-that is, to put grease on paper around the bottom of a tree, so that they will not go up the tree. However we have found in the west that, so far as that particular grub is concerned, they do not actually kill the trees. They take the leaves off the tree and there is a dropping of sap to the extent that you almost need an umbrella when walking underneath. But the leaves come on again and the trees continue to live. For example, some three or four years ago the leaves came off the apple trees down around Trenton three times in the season for different reasons, one being frost, but eventually most of the trees lived. The battle has to be continued against them, but one has to be careful whether he sprays or what he does in order to deal with them in the right manner and at the right time. I think those who
Supply-Agriculture
are familiar with the necessity of fighting pests of that kind know the method to use in connection with their own operations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like the minister to come up to our part of the country where we have some million trees and try to put tarpaper around them. The oak trees are suffering especially. The leaves came off some of them last year and today some of those trees are dead while others are only half alive, the tops being gone. With the leaves going this year again on the same trees I am afraid they will die. I wonder if some other method could be used than the tarpaper and grease. We have tried that but you can handle only a few trees with that method. If you use D.D.T. from the air you kill the birds and then you are worse off than before.


Mr. Ferguson:: Has the minister's department discovered why the apples from Sim-coe county are so far superior in all respects to those from British Columbia? *


Mr. Fair:: Have any effective means been discovered to deal with the aphides that are affecting grain at the present time? I understand that this pest is now to be found in Manitoba and if it is not treated successfully, sooner or later it will reach the other provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: The campaign being carried on against the green aphides is the same as that carried on against the grasshoppers. We undertake to map the different areas that may be infested and the provincial government does the actual work to combat the insect.


James Arthur Ross: I think it would be most useful if the minister could give us a little more information about this pest. We had a considerable infestation in our part of the country last year. A rather expensive poison was brought in from the United States but it was so deadly people were frightened to use it because there were reports of loss of life in the United States from its use. Then we are told that where crops are sprayed in an effort to kill weeds apparently there are also killed those parasites that would take care of these aphides. In my neighbourhood crops that were sprayed for this purpose were those that suffered most severely from this infestation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am instructed by the officials that so far as they know there is no relationship between spraying the crop and the infestation; it is a matter of weather conditions rather than actual spraying. The green aphid or green bug appeared suddenly in enormous numbers in southern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan and inflicted extensive damage. They were reported from widely scattered points in southern British Columbia. Normally this insect is

Supply-Agriculture
a severe pest in the southern United States and occasionally appears in numbers in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Wisconsin but is rarely found in Canada. It is not known whether this insect can successful pass the winter in Canada but it is generally supposed that the Canadian infestations are a direct migration from further south. The green bug appeared so suddenly last year and in such enormous numbers that it was thought quite unlikely that they had developed locally. Pyrethrum sprays gave a good deal of control when used in a control campaign. 1 am referring to the 1949 report.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that the two per cent wettable spray which is not allowed into Canada is not nearly as dangerous as the fifteen per cent powder spray that is available. Has the minister any information on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: We would have to know the content of the powder or the liquid before we could give definite information.


John Alpheus Charlton: This is a particular chemical that is used to kill aphides and it is the only one that can be bought in large quantities. There is considerable danger in mixing this dry powder while there is not nearly the danger in using the two per cent wettable or fluid mixture. I suggest that the department get in touch with the customs and excise branch to see if the less dangerous material cannot be allowed to enter the country.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Could the minister have someone from his department go into the northern parts of Victoria and Haliburton counties to see if anything can be done about the army worm that is destroying great stretches of forest in those areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are men up there on that work at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
12.	Plant protection, $731,705.
A. Earl Catherwood: What precautionary
measures are taken in connection with the importation of plants and bulbs from foreign countries? Is an inspection made when they enter the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are rather strict regulations and an inspection is made at all ports of entry. It is rather difficult to have plants put on a boat or a plane or offered for transportation in any other way without inspection, whether they are coming in or going out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Experimental farms service-
13.	Experimental farms service administration, $129,780.
Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Will the minister give some thought to establishing an experimental farm north of the Peace river in British Columbia? There are large settlements of people there and a great many more are coming in. Entirely new conditions in regard to agriculture are being met. It seems to me that one of the experimental farms in the older part of the south might be spared and removed bodily beyond the Peace in order to help meet these new conditions.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the nearest approach to an experimental farm in the north is at Beaverlodge, which is not far removed from Dawson Creek. I am going to drive the Alaska highway as soon as we can get this house closed with the idea of visiting all the stations which we have from Dawson Creek north. I think we have about a dozen of them between there and Dawson City. I intend to visit them all with the idea of determining whether they are performing the service which is necessary, and if they are not performing the service necessary to determine whether or not we require further developments in that region. I hope I will see the hon. member when I am in that area.


Mr. Wylie:: The constituency of Medicine Hat happens to be one that does not have an experimental farm with the exception of the dominion range station which has been of wonderful value not only to the ranchers of that area but to many others. The citizens of Medicine Hat have one complaint concerning it, that it is too far away from the city. It is a distance of about eighty or eighty-five miles from Medicine Hat to the range station. The Manyberries range station has been specializing in grass and investigating the number of cattle that a quarter section can support. In addition they have small fruits and trees which they have shown can be produced on similar irrigation projects where there is a supply of water.
No doubt the minister knows the range station quite well. A coulee has been dammed off where they store the water from the spring run-off, and they utilize it during the summer. The majority of the citizens of Medicine Hat never see the range station, and in view of the fact that we expect great irrigation developments in that area within the next three or four years I believe it would be to the advantage of everyone there if the Department of Agriculture should see fit to open a new experimental station close to Medicine Hat. There is a small irrigation project at Ross creek, and part of that land

could be easily utilized to show what can be done by irrigation. I should like to ask the minister if any consideration has been given to having an experimental farm established close to the city of Medicine Hat so that the people of that area can really see what can be done when you provide some water for the land.


James Garfield Gardiner: The experimental farms we have across Canada are of many different kinds. They are placed in different areas to do the work required in those areas. The region south of Medicine Hat has been a ranching area, and while it is quite true that the station at Manyberries is located beside a pool of water created by damming a creek, nevertheless we have 30,000 acres of land in that region with which we are experimenting. I think it is by far the largest experimental operation in Canada. We have 30,000 acres of land leased from the provincial government, and the primary purpose of the experiment is to find out whether or not grasses which can be sown in that area will maintain more cattle per acre than the natural grass, or what the relationship is between the grasses. My understanding is they have found it requires about 30 acres of natural prairie to maintain an animal. That will indicate to people in eastern Canada who maintain thirty or forty on a hundred acres of land that ranching is an undertaking which requires a considerable amount of land. That is the experimental work necessary in that section and the work which is done there. Very close checks are kept. I have gone over a considerable part of the area, examined the markings they have and the manner in which they test the number of cattle that can be run on the different acreages. The work is very successfully carried on, and I think it is most helpful to people living in that section.
As to the other areas, I think nearly all of the irrigation districts have special experimental stations. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat knows, the operation at Brooks is a provincial one and there is experimental work carried on there. We have other experimental stations in connection with other operations in Alberta, and I think it is generally acknowledged that they are as well supplied with that kind of station as any of the provinces of Canada.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I realize that the Manyberries
range station has done wonderful work so far as grazing land is concerned. We have a provincial station at Brooks, but as the minister knows it is mostly concerned with horticulture. We have substations throughout the area where test plots are operated by the elevator companies. I believe it is the wheat pool and the Searle Grain Company that have
Supply-Agriculture
small plots throughout the district growing certain kinds of grain, but they are insufficient to give the people a real idea of what can be grown there. I see no reason why we should not have an experimental station closer to Medicine Hat where the people could see what can be done with irrigation. There are many areas similar to the Manyberries range station where dams can be built, the spring run-offs held back and many grasses, grains and fruits grown. I think that would be most beneficial to Medicine Hat especially in view of future irrigation developments.
I appreciate the wonderful work that has been carried on at the Manyberries range station. As the minister said, it requires about 30 acres of land per head of cattle per year. Many eastern members might want to dispute that but it must also be remembered that the provincial government lease their lands on the basis of three head per quarter section, 160 acres. Wonderful results have been achieved at the Manyberries range station, but we would like to see a station established closer to Medicine Hat, perhaps on the Ross creek irrigation project, or some place within easy driving distance of the city. Then the people could see what can be done. I think it is a good idea and a timely one.


Mr. Thomas:: I should like to ask the minister how many employees there are currently at the Lacombe experimental farm, and also the amount of damage incurred during the storm from which they suffered last autumn. I understand it was quite considerable.


James Garfield Gardiner: Last year there were
drought, hail and frost.


Ray Thomas: The particular storm I was referring to was a windstorm which blew down many of the trees.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no particular report on a windstorm. They tell me there was hail damage, which probably went along with the wind, and that there was also damage at that farm last year from drought and frost. I will get the number employed at the farm.


Ray Thomas: While you are looking that up, if you cannot give me a break-down on the storm damage perhaps you can tell me the cost of upkeep for that station last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The cost of the Lacombe farm last year was $147,395. This year it will be $203,048, an increase of $55,653. That increase is largely accounted for by a building item.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: May I ask the minister if his department has given any consideration to establishing an experimental farm at Medicine Hat.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The best experimental plot I have even seen in western Canada is only about a mile away from Medicine Hat. It is not operated by the government, or was not when I was familiar with it. I refer to the area just west of the town, where they have pump irrigation. The first time I went to Medicine Hat to investigate anything they took me there to show me the good job that had been done by the two men who were working as partners handling and feeding cattle. They grew corn, sunflowers and everything that can be grown, by means of irrigation; and they fed cattle very successfully. As far as the government is concerned, as my hon. friend knows we are endeavouring to develop the Vauxhall area just as soon as we can get title to the land, so we hope it will not be too long before we will have an experimental station there. That is within easy distance of Medicine Hat; it does not take very long to get out there, and that is certainly under consideration. I cannot say any other area is under consideration at the moment.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Even the Vauxhall area is sixty or seventy miles north of Medicine Hat, and we would like a station closer than that. The farm to which the minister refers, where they grow corn and feed cattle, is but one of a number of such farms all along the river, both east and west of Medicine Hat. These small irrigation projects, where they pump the water from the river, have been very successful, but the people of Medicine Hat want a farm with nice trees, where they can really spend an enjoyable day. There is plenty of land within a few miles of the city that could be utilized for this purpose, and that is their request at the present time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is there any revenue from the central experimental farm at Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total revenue is about $400,000.


William Scottie Bryce: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the work being done at the experimental farms of Canada in connection with artificial insemination. I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the minister, and I know he has carried on some investigations during his visit to Europe. This is something we must face sooner or later, and I believe it is a step in the right direction. If you want to increase your milk production this is the best way to do it. In three years you could have practically the same amount of milk from about seventy-five per cent of the cows now required. I believe something has been done in that connection at the Kemptville farm,

and this spring I had the opportunity of visiting one of the stations operated by the Scottish milk board, where they have had wonderful success.
There is another feature to it. Every year in Canada at least half a dozen farmers are killed by bulls. Artificial insemination would do away with that danger on the farm. It is also cheaper. Some bulls in Britain cost ten thousand guineas today; but by this method, instead of getting just an ordinary heifer that will give maybe 800 gallons of milk, a farmer can get a cow that will give perhaps 1,200 gallons of milk. This means that with fewer but better animals the milk production can be increased. I do not know how it would work with beef cattle, but as far as the dairy breeds are concerned it has been a great success. I would be glad if the minister would comment on this matter for my own personal information, if not for the benefit of the rest of the committee. It seems to me that it would be a wonderful thing for farmers who have only from eight to twenty cows, and no bulls, to be able to get heifer calves that would be really worth something in the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the proper item under which this should be discussed is production services, but for the moment I might just say that in the Fraser river valley we did assist by supplying bulls for this purpose, and we have also assisted in the same way at Truro, Nova Scotia. That is about as far as we can get from Manitoba in both directions. Most of that kind of work is done by the provinces. In Ontario, for example, experimental work is being carried on at Kemptville. I have seen the activities there, and I quite agree that very helpful work can be done. I also understand that some prominent breeders in Ontario carry on this work themselves, no doubt with some assistance from the provincial government. At Dryden farm, for example, they do a good deal of that kind of breeding, and I think it is becoming quite a common thing elsewhere. However, we are not promoting it beyond providing some bulls in certain areas for these purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if this would be the proper item under which I might return to a question I asked the minister some little time ago with respect to the apparent duplication of scientific experts as between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. At that time the minister made a very interesting speech, in the first part of which he more or less gave me an answer, and in the latter part of which he ranged all over the place in a very delightful manner. I realized that I had served a very useful purpose by giving the

minister an opportunity to make that speech which no doubt had been in his mind, but now I want to come back to my question. He partly answered it by pointing out that there was an apparent duplication in the selling agencies but that it was only apparent, because the Department of Trade and Commerce had the foreign field in which to operate while the Department of Agriculture had the domestic field. That was his answer as I recall it. At that time I think the minister said nothing with regard to the apparent duplication of scientific officers, of whom there are quite a number. If this is the proper place to ask this question, perhaps the minister would indicate to us how many scientific officers there are; how many officers there are in the Department of Trade and Commerce dealing with scientific agricultural subjects and how many there are, roughly, in the Department of Agriculture, and satisfy us that there is in fact no duplication, if that is a fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any scientific agriculturists in the Department of Trade and Commerce. My officials tell me that that is true, that there are not any as far as they know. There are some what might be called scientific operators in the Department of Resources and Development which has to do with fighting pests in the forests and that sort of thing. Their work does not overlap with ours but there is co-operation between the two departments in operating there. So far as I know, however, there are no scientific specialists in the Department of Trade and Commerce. There may be some persons who could qualify as scientists who are there employed on certain work that is being done; but we do not know of any employed in that way.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister will allow me to do so, I will return to this question a little later on. In the meantime I will go and get my list because I am afraid I have left it upstairs.


An hon. Member:: The telephone book.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes; that is quite right. I should be happy if the minister would just indicate how many there are. I have no means of knowing that they are experts. They just look, in the list, as though they were experts, and they appear to be called that; but I will revert to this question later.


Ray Thomas: Has the minister the number of employees on the Lacombe farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 35 people are
employed on the Lacombe farm.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. McLure:: I should like to ask one question with regard to item 13, on the experimental farms service. This year there is quite a large increase, about half a million dollars, in the central experimental farm estimate. Can the minister give the committee some idea what this is for? I understood him to say a few minutes ago that the total revenue from the experimental farm was some $400,000. That seems to be a small revenue for the wonderful acreage there and the amount it is costing to run that farm. 1 might also say that there is a certain rumour that has been gaining ground here in the city of Ottawa and I have been asked several times about it. I do not know anything about the matter but I happened to be out in that section a few days ago and the rumour was that consideration was being given to removing part of this experimental farm to some other locality. For instance it is said that the locality in which they are situated now is not proper nor has not been found useful for growing certain kinds of fruit. It was thought that part of the farm was going to be moved to another section in order to cultivate berries and fruit of all kinds. I said that I would make inquiries whether there was any truth in this rumour that is going around. Those are a few of my questions to the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the first place, there is no plan to move anyone so far as we know. There are of course people who would like to see us move someone so that they can get room to do something else they want to do, but we have no plans to move anyone.
On the other question, as to what this additional expenditure is for, it is largely for building and the increases in salaries because of the natural increase which is provided for as civil servants go on serving one year after another. But the fact that the building cost is up this year has something to do with the activities of the gentleman who was spoken of so highly by the hon. member for Souris at the beginning of this discussion. Dr. Archibald has been at the head of the experimental farms staffs for thirty-one years, I think; and during the last four or five years, since the end of the war, he has been advocating the carrying on of building programs at different places, plans which he had laid even before the war and which we delayed until the war was over. Then when the war was over, because we could not get materials we delayed still further. This year when we were discussing our estimates before the treasury board, in view of the fact that Dr. Archibald is coming towards the end of his service. I insisted strongly that he should get

Supply-Agriculture
the credit for this work that he has been developing and which someone is going to do shortly in any case, and that the erection of buildings to provide for activities which he has been building up and advocating over the years ought to be carried on while he is still there; and so we are going ahead with the work this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
14.	Central experimental farm, $1,868,118.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister explained that one of the reasons for the increase in these items had to do with the natural increase in salaries and so on. At the outset I may say that I am not rising, as some of my friends do, with the object of complaining about these increases. I am rising to inquire as to the situation under this item for central experimental farms, inasmuch as over on page 80 it is indicated that part of it was an increase in the wages paid for temporary assistance and part of it was in wages paid to casuals and others. My question is this. Has there been any improvement in the position of carpenters and of manual workers, nonskilled workers and others, about whom the minister and I have had discussions during the last couple of sessions?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been a general increase all along the line in connection with what is generally known as casual labour or persons who are employed in the neighbourhood round about these farms. I do not think anyone would call it a big increase. One of the reasons for that is that we find it necessary to keep the pay of those we are engaging upon the experimental farm in reasonable relationship to what farmers are paying in the district round about. If we get out of line, it sometimes makes it difficult for persons who are employing labour in the neighbourhood. That to an extent accounts for the fact that perhaps the pay looks to be lower in some of these cases than it otherwise might be. But nevertheless there has been an increase, although not as much as my hon. friend was asking for a year or so ago. There has been an increase in the rates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should now like to ask this question of the minister in somewhat more detail. I have now the list. Would it suit the minister if I just read some of them out? If the men in his department do not know them, it would be nice if they could meet their opposite numbers in the Department of Trade and Commerce. I will just read these out. Of course I cannot tell by looking at the names whether they are

scientists; but as far as possible I have omitted those that are in the export division because the minister did explain about those. I will therefore just read a few that look to me as if they were scientists and the minister can explain what the situation is. This is the agricultural commodities branch:	director,
G.	R. Paterson; commodities section, chief
H.	A. Gilbert; dairy and poultry products, K. L. Melvin; livestock and animal products, D. G. W. Douglas; plants and products, C. F. Clingan. Then I read again later on, under agriculture division, crop section, the chief is W. D. Porter. There are other names which I will not read. Will the minister tell me how this question can best be answered if this is not the best way. It seems to me it would be very desirable for those of us who do not understand these things very well to have it made clear to us why there appears to be this rather wide duplication.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I can best illustrate what the meaning of that is by just taking the first name, Mr. Paterson. I met Mr. Paterson first over in London, but I knew from the records of the department that he was first an employee of the agricultural department years ago. Then he went from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Trade and Commerce because they wanted a man overseas who understood the agricultural position in Canada, so that he might promote the sale of agricultural products over in Britain. Trade and Commerce had him over there for a number of years. The next place 1 met him was down in Washington. He was there up to within the last year. Then he was moved back to Ottawa largely because of the wide experience he has had in the markets in which we are going to sell farm products.
In the first place, he is a practical agriculturist, trained in the Department of Agriculture. Over the years he has been trained in the Department of Trade and Commerce as one advocating the sale of Canadian farm products over in Europe and then down in the United States. He has gained experience there, and the department has brought him back here because he can instruct those who are working here in what is required in those other countries, and in what they ought to be attempting to do in the way of promoting sales. That, in general, is what has happened so far as Mr. Paterson is concerned. I think you will find that that is pretty well true of the others. That is the general practice.
For example, I was over in Britain in 1936, and I started looking around for persons who were promoting the sale of agricultural products. When I came back from Britain I said

to my officials that I met only one man over there in the service who really understood agriculture. They said:	"Where is he?"
I said:	"He is in Glasgow." I told them of
my experience, of how I went to the auction sale ring where they were selling a load of Canadian cattle. I told them that this man seemed to know all about cattle. He seemed to know all about the individuals who wanted to buy cattle in Scotland, and talked to me very intelligently about the whole matter. Well, two of my officials went over to Scotland a month or two later. When they came back one of them came into my office and said:	"You don't seem to be a very good
checker on persons who understand agriculture." I said: "What makes you think that?" He said:	"We were travelling on the train
from Glasgow to Edinburgh and we were naming the different kinds of cattle as we went along, and this fellow said:	"You fellows must be remarkable chaps, that you can tell these cattle at this distance. Apparently he did not know very much about cattle. He could not tell Ayrshires from Holsteins, passing them on a train." After that experience we thought there should be more people in the service who did know agriculture and knew it in detail, because when you get over there talking to individuals with regard to livestock, and particularly in a place like Scotland, you have to know something about them or they will soon find you out. It is important that there be men with practical experience and that they have technical knowledge with regard to agriculture in general in that department if they are to assist in selling our produce in other countries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister say in answer to me that these other names that I read would be in a category similar to that which he has described? In other words, although it is not apparent at first glance, that they are in fact either directly or indirectly engaged in the export trade and in the business of selling our products and that is merely because you have people in agriculture engaged in that business that they are there in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is true, and they do this as well. When persons come over here from Europe who are looking for cattle, let us say, these individuals take them in tow. They bring them over to our department and we get the best experts that we have to go along with them. They go out and visit herds in different parts of the country and select what they want to take back with them. They assist them in that way. It is much better of course to have men
Supply-Agriculture
in that department to meet them firsthand when they come into the office, talk to them and then act as co-ordinators between that department and our own.


A. Earl Catherwood: What is the total acreage in the central experimental farm in Ottawa, and also the land taken over from the Scott property last year? What additional facilities are being provided at the farm with the additional property taken over?


James Garfield Gardiner: The farm is about 1,200 acres. I think the price that we paid for the Scott farm was about $68,000. It is used largely for the purpose of experimenting with seed production of different kinds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister answered the hon. member for Queens a few minutes ago with regard to the rumours about moving the experimental farm, or even part of it, away from the city he indicated that his department was not doing anything about it, although he said he did understand that some people were anxious to get the farm moved away so that they could do something else there. What had he in mind, the Ottawa city hall that keeps moving around from place to place, or was it a housing development? I myself am not pressing for the moving of the farm, but it does seem to me that a case could be made out for the large acreage being moved out a bit, although I am not in favour of the beautiful park being moved from where it is. In view of the interest in the whole question, it does seem to me that the minister might have commented further on it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I have been spending the last two years keeping out of that discussion, and I am going to stay right out of it. It is none of my business where they build the city hall.


James Arthur Ross: Keep the farm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not an answer to my question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IS.	Branch farms and stations and illustration
stations, $5,977,447.
Mr. Mclvor:: I am very proud to announce that we have an experimental substation in our community. If the other substations and experimental farms throughout Canada prove their worth in the same way they certainly are worth all the money that is spent upon them. But it depends upon the superintendent. We have a superintendent who does his work splendidly. The farmers may visit him at any time except Sunday, and sometimes they try to slip in on him then but he is not there.

Supply-Agriculture


James Arthur Ross: You would be surprised what he does on Sundays when you are not there.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: He works the substation well, but he helps the school fairs, the rural fairs, and the different clubs like the one hundred bushels to the acre oat club and the five hundred bushels to the acre potato club. I announced earlier in the year the success of the experiment. The expert farmers in the east might learn something from our district. We had fourteen contestants in the potato club of 500 bushels to the acre, and the average was 350. If some of these men, even from the maritimes and from eastern Ontario, think they can grow a crop of potatoes I say that we can teach them something. If you will visit Fort William we will take you out and show you an experimental substation that is doing its work in a splendid way, and which has had 105 bushels to the acre. Not many farmers in the east raise it; yet we do it and I pay tribute to our substation and our superintendent.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: How is it that Simcoe county gets a thousand bushels to the acre?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Simcoe North asked the minister a question some time ago, as to why Simcoe county apples are better than those from British Columbia. I am not admitting that they are; but the British Columbia fruit growers sold large quantities of British Columbia apples in Ontario while the Simcoe apples were being offered for sale. At the present time we are taking orders right here in Ottawa for this year's crop.
I should like to make a few remarks about the experimental station at Summerland, which has been doing excellent work throughout the years on behalf of agriculture in the southern interior of British Columbia and even on a wider field than that. Some years ago the staff from the experimental farm during the winter months attended farmers institute meetings, and meetings of fruit growers, and gave lectures. However in recent years that practice has not been followed. I do suggest that where it is possible, and does not interfere with the work of the station, the officials might be made available to farmers institutes and fruit growers organizations, so that they could render a valuable assistance to farmers, particularly during the winter months, by giving them information on the latest method of farming, and as to tests they have been conducting.


James Garfield Gardiner: Extension work is done largely under the agricultural colleges. We discuss education here from time to time, and we always come to the conclusion that it is

a provincial responsibility. In connection with agriculture, in common with other activities, it has been carried on largely by the provinces. The extension work is from the agricultural colleges and, while our men do go out, they do so on invitation to gatherings of the kinds mentioned. The common practice is for our cereals men to be at the experimental stations at a certain time of the year. People will gather in there from the surrounding community, and the representative will go over the plots with them and indicate the method of planting, pointing out the different rows representing different methods, and what the results have been.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At Summerland there are valuable tests of fruit and vegetable varieties, and the conclusions are published in reports. As many of the farmers do not see those reports, it would be very helpful to the farmers in the interior if occasionally officials could attend farmers meetings during the winter months, and give them a personal report of those tests on certain fruits and vegetables. Personal contact by officials with the farmers is worth a great deal.


James Sinclair: Does the hon. member, the acting leader of the C.C.F., realize what that would add to the travelling allowances the Tory party is fighting about?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are not fighting about it.


James Sinclair: The travelling allowance
would be increased.


James Arthur Ross: Perhaps they could
travel a lot farther on the same allowance.


William Joseph Browne: When my colleagues and I ask for explanations of increases we should not be said by the parliamentary assistant to be complaining. Surely
we are entitled to know what the money is being spent for? In respect of item 15, which deals with branch farms and stations, and illustration stations, would the minister tell us whether his officials in Newfoundland are active in trying to set up illustration stations there? The report of the department for 1949 refers to 203 illustration stations across Canada, throughout the different provinces.
There are parts of Newfoundland in which the people do not practise even the rotation of crops. They plant potatoes in the same plots year after year. I never see any agricultural representative visiting them or telling them about this new scientific service mentioned over the C.B.C. I should like to see some of the officials who understand these things go down there and help our people take advantage of the latest discoveries. Perhaps it might be possible to bring down films showing exactly what can be done in the matter of strip farming, and other agricultural

practices. Is the minister in a position to make a statement in this respect? I know his department has taken over the experimental farm, which was already doing good work, but which did not reach out far enough. Some students were taken in and given training, and then permitted to go away. I am thinking more particularly of the districts of Ferryland and Trepassey. There the people raise cattle, and graze them on pasture and hayland. I believe they have land there that could be developed considerably through proper methods. I should hope that the minister could assist us by having a representative come and look into the matter.
The minister has promised that he will make a visit to the Peace river area and the Alaska highway. Is he going to visit Newfoundland? This is the second year of confederation for us, and we would deem it a great honour to have so distinguished an agriculturist visit us. I would suggest that he come at the end of the growing season so that he would be able to see the kind of produce we have. Perhaps we could entertain him at dinner, using our produce, and giving him an opportunity to compare it with what is produced in other parts of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member knows, on April 1, we took over the experimental farm in Newfoundland. We have taken over the organization that was there, and are adding to it as we think necessary. In addition to that we are preparing to make a soil survey. I do not know that it can be completed in one season, but we are beginning it this year.


William Joseph Browne: A soil survey was made by one of our highest officials. He has been conducting this for several years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any information that is there will be utilized, of course. We will go on from that point.	This will lead to the
establishment of experimental stations, because we establish those stations in relation to the nature of the soil in the different areas. My office files indicate that people are writing in almost weekly pointing out that their soil conditions are different from the conditions at some other point-just as the hon. member for Medicine Hat indicated a moment ago that it is all very well to have a station associated with the ranching south of Medicine Hat, but that they want another station associated with irrigation west of Medicine Hat. We receive requests of that kind all the time.
We are not in a position to determine whether we should put in a station until we know the nature of the soil. We do not want to have three or four stations oper-
Supply-Agriculture
ating in the same type of soil. However, all that work will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. I might add that much of the production service in connection with agriculture has always been carried on by the provinces-and still is. I presume that will be the condition in Newfoundland, as well as in the other provinces.
With regard to my own trip to Newfoundland, may I say I have flown over that province on two or three occasions, and have landed a number of times at the airport. I have never yet flown over the Alaska highway, and that is one reason I am driving it first. However, I hope that as soon as possible after that I will be able to go to Newfoundland. I am pleased to know that it is best to be there in the fall, because I would not find it possible to be there before that. If at all possible I shall come down there later in the season.


William Joseph Browne: We will look forward to seeing you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
16.	Production service administration, $56,015.
Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence and that of the minister perhaps I can eliminate two speeches by commenting on items 16, 17 and 18. I think the minister is apprized of what I am going to say, but before I say it I must compliment the hon. member for Haldimand, the hon. member for Brant and the hon. member from Newfoundland who have opened up these problems that are facing the minister. I am speaking on the administration item so I believe I am thoroughly in order.
When I think of what they have said I think of something else I have observed in the quarter century I have been here. You, Mr. Chairman, are younger than some of the rest of us, and along with others you may think that I have no right to speak about agriculture. I came into this honourable house as the member for York East, which was a farming constituency. I lived on lot 30 of a concession of East Scarborough where I was carrying on my occupation as an agriculturist. A quarter of a century is not a very long time to go back.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: I think I have a perfect right to talk about agriculture as I may know something about it, with all respect to the "hear, hear." If I can add anything to these deliberations I have the right to do so because wherefrom came my bread came my livelihood, and wherefrom came my livelihood came my tenure of office in this assembly. I

Supply-Agriculture
should like to make a few observations of a general nature and then deal particularly with items 16, 17 and 18.
In the quarter of a century I have been sitting here I have seen how different governments operate and I have seen how ministers dominate the entire situation as far as the estimates are concerned. I may not be here very long but I ask those charged with the administration of the departments to allow the deputies or the deputies' deputies to pay attention to the humble remarks which hon. members on all sides of this chamber put on Hansard and reply to them in one way or another. Some machinery should be set up so that the minister would not have to answer every two-cent question we ask.
Some way should be found whereby the plethora of men, women and children in your department who are drawing big pay should toe able to discuss these matters with the members and answer some of the questions that are asked from all sides of the House of Commons. In my opinion, those in the department have some knowledge of departmental matters. If they do not have that knowledge they should not be within the confines of the department and drawing the pay which we extract from the taxpayers of Canada.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: I speak with the voice of experience because I have asked questions for a quarter of a century. I am ashamed to say in this chamber tonight that it is my experience that while I have presented a simple problem, while I have placed my questions on Hansard, never yet have I got an answer. I do not want it from the minister who is away up in a seventh heaven; I just want a simple answer such as a farmer from the constituency of York East would expect. But 1 have not got it. Yet you and I and the rest of us in this honourable chamber think that we are working for democracy.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: Never mind the "hear, hear". I think it is the loud voice of mine that is getting an echo. It is very hard for me to hear. If for a moment I may go to some other sea-I think the hon. member comes from near the sea.


James Sinclair: That is right.


Joseph Henry Harris: Or away out the other way.


James Arthur Ross: He is the margarine branch.


Joseph Henry Harris: The margarine
branch. When the Angel Gabriel comes

down to this earth and puts one foot on part of British Columbia and the other out in the Pacific ocean and proclaims that earth shall be no more, my hon. friend from British Columbia will rise in his place and say, "Hear, hear."
If I may now get back to the subject I rose to speak about as quietly as possible, I think our democracy would extend its democratic tendencies if attention were paid to what appears in Hansard, and to what is said by members like myself. We are not highly educated, we may not be Rhodes scholars and know how to use language, but generally we know what we are talking about. We use plain English. The minister has to toil twenty hours a day as some of us did in our youth in order to gain a footing in this world. He has a great deputy alongside him, who in turn has other deputies, and it should be possible for them to reply to simple questions asked by hon. members on all sides of the house so that they may realize that they are working in a democracy.
Ninety-nine times out of one hundred you and your deputies will be right because we are an innocent-minded sort of people. But neither the minister nor his deputy has answered the question which I asked a year ago. I doubt if one bit of attention was ever paid to what I said, or if there was I never heard of it. I have reiterated these statements time after time because if they were worked out they would add a million dollars to the economy of this country. There are enough idlers in the research branch to do what I would like to see done.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think you said this on our estimates last year.


Joseph Henry Harris: I know what I am talking about. When I was young it was not just a case of taking a bear off a Ford car. I was dealing with boars with two big tusks and other appendages that were not at all necessary. I bought them for $5 apiece and sold them for $40. That is the way I made my election expenses in 1921 to the extent of nearly $20,000.


An hon. Member:: It was not worth it.


Joseph Henry Harris: I want to improve
the economy of this country if I can and attention should be paid to ideas that emanate-from members of this House of Commons regardless of their politics. We are not politicians. We are here because we have a job to do for Canada. At the present time of necessity the minister must handle everything with his own hands, but there are able men and women in his department who could work out these different problems and answer

these different questions. Among the problems which I have recited to him before-and I never will again because I may never be here again-is the problem of waste. Every time you feed 100,000 people you have enough waste left over to feed 10,000 hogs. When I realize that 10,000 hogs will gain at least a pound a day, as some members know, and most of them a pound and a quarter, when I realize that hogs are worth 30 cents a pound, I also realize what we could do for the economy of Canada if that one little bit of waste could be avoided. One and all should read the speech made by Lloyd George in 1911 about the waste in the United Kingdom at that time and try to visualize that compared with the waste of all kinds that is going on in Canada now. It is not waste entirely because I sat in the Chateau last night, paid $5 for $2 worth of food and saw the "waists" around there. It reminds me not only of the waste that Lloyd George referred to, not only of the waste that is going on in Canada all the time, but of the waste of our talents, efforts and energies in this Canada of ours.
I should like to ask the minister if same sort of research could not be instituted to take care of the change in the trend of the feeding of waste to hogs because of the advent, as I mentioned a few years ago-and I hope I never have occasion to mention it again-of the soap operators and the increased production of alkali soaps and cleansers such as Spic and Span and so on. All these things eventually find their way into the swill can and from there into the production of millions of pounds of pork in Canada. There is one pound of this stuff in every hundred pounds and it finds its way into the organs of the hog which is affected by it. That in turn is destroying the economy of Canada to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it could be very easily taken care of under the vote which we are considering now. Some thought should be given to the feeders of hogs outside the large municipalities. There is one just two miles from where we are sitting who picks up the garbage from the restaurant. I hope there is not too much alkali in it and that they are not poisoning the hogs. They disturb the inner activities of the hog.
I run a hospital but I am not a doctor. If I were I could tell you exactly how they are disturbing the inner workings of the hog. The hog gets swine fever and not cholera. The minister and his deputy think only of cholera coming from some foreign source but it is swine fever. I know because that is how I earn my living. If they could have one of the men in their research department spend some of his time to clear up this matter and neutralize the effect of the alkali feeds that are
Supply-Agriculture
finding their way into hog production then they might be doing something on behalf of the economy of Canada and for those of us who make a few dollars out of this particular vocation. They might be doing something for us but I am thinking more particularly of the general economy of Canada. I appreciate that the minister may not be a pig man and that perhaps other things are of more interest to him. Nevertheless here is one portion of our economy to which one of his thousand servants might at least give some attention, and which would work out in due course in my opinion to the general advantage of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IS. Compensation for animals slaughtered, $1,091,292.
John Alpheus Charlton: Under the amended Animal Contagious Diseases Act, what was the amount of compensation paid in Brant, Oxford, Middlesex and Elgin counties last year?


Mr. McCubbin:: If I understood the question of the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, he wants to know the amount of compensation paid in Brant and Oxford counties?


John Alpheus Charlton: And also Middlesex and Elgin.


Robert McCubbin: I think there was a realm made for the counties of Oxford and Elgin but Brant and Middlesex were not given. We have not that information now. It will take us about twenty-four hours to get it, but if the hon. member wants if we will secure it for Brant and Middlesex and give it to him.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the minister might make a two minute reply to my twenty minute diatribe.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has had a lot of hogs fed and no doubt has fed a lot of them, and for that reason he will know that we must keep a check on the feeding of hogs that are fed in the manner he was describing, namely, from cooked garbage. There are 601 such licensed feeders in Canada and right now they are feeding 53,565 hogs. Therefore it is not a part of the industry that is not flourishing. It is carrying on at present time and is under supervision of officials of the department.


Joseph Henry Harris: It will soon cease if you do not take care of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether I have answered your question. I think it is true that we have as good a record, and probably the best record, with regard to cholera and other hog diseases as any other place in the world.

Supply-Agriculture


Joseph Henry Harris: Make sure that the alkalinity and acidity are carefully checked as to these 53,000 hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only thing I can say is that the losses are not great.


Joseph Henry Harris: Don't wait for losses.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not altogether understand the remarks of the hon. member. He has been here for twenty-five years and I have been here for fifteen. I do not think that in that fifteen years he has ever asked me a straight question to which he has not received a straight answer. I have not taken the same liberties with him that I take with some others for certain reasons, and particularly when he is talking about hogs and the feeding of hogs, because I know he knows what he is talking about. I also know he is not trying to put in a little time. Therefore I have always undertaken to answer him when he has asked me questions.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will you promise us some research?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are at it all the time, and the very fact that we have the lowest amount of disease from that kind of thing of any country in the world is the answer.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is not the
answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not say it is all due to what we do.	*


Joseph Henry Harris: It is due to cold weather and God's good grace.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is also due to the efforts of feeders like yourself.


Mr. Quelch:: Can the minister say how many new t.b. free areas were established in Alberta last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that eight or ten were started but only one was completed.


Victor Quelch: Is it the intention of the federal government to proceed with that work? I believe only a small portion of the province is organized at the present time. I remember that some years ago a district was formed and it was said to be the intention of the federal government to expand the area as rapidly as possible. Then the war came along, of course, and the work was stopped. Is it the intention to proceed fairly rapidly with the expansion of these areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are proceeding as rapidly as we can obtain the men to do the work. As I said last session and the session before, we have not limited this work by keeping down the cost. We have been voting all the

money we could profitably expend, and it is purely a matter of getting a sufficient number of veterinarians to do the work. As far as Alberta is concerned, as my hon. friend knows it was the last province to permit us to come in and do this work. The ranchers were absolutely opposed to it. It is only since I have been in Ottawa-and I have been here fifteen years-that this work has been commenced in Alberta. We have been carrying on there as rapidly as possible, but the service has not gone ahead in Alberta, because of that fact, as rapidly as in other provinces.


Harry Oliver White: Approximately what percentage of the cattle population of Canada have been tested?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 63 per cent of the cattle.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister would permit me to go back to item No. 17 for just a moment, I see that the number of veterinarians is somewhere near what it was before the war. I wonder if the minister knows how many graduates will be coming into the permanent service from the Ontario and Quebec veterinary colleges this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: We expect about thirty new appointments this year.


John Alpheus Charlton: To the permanent staff?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


A. Earl Catherwood: Could the minister tell
us when we may expect the time to be shortened between the application and the actual testing? At present it takes almost a year from the time the application is made until the herd is tested, and many of our farmers who have made application to have their herd accredited would like to have it done much sooner. Can the minister say when that position might be cleared up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, a year seems quite a long time, but if it is that long it is because of what I just stated. We have difficulty in getting enough veterinarians to do all the work that has to be done, not only in districts but in the testing of accredited herds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
19. Livestock and poultry, $1,342,738.
George Randolph Pearkes: This is the item under which the minister said he would explain the steps that have been taken to control Newcastle disease on Vancouver island. I have had reports of new cases discovered as recently as June 6. I am particularly anxious to know not only what is being done, but whether the department has enough veterinarians in that district to control the disease, and also

whether tests have been made with the vaccines used in the United States, I believe with a considerable degree of success.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps the best answer I can give with regard to Newcastle disease on the coast is to merely recite the figures. The flocks under slaughter order numbered 201 as of June 10. Up to that date the destroyed flocks numbered 194 and the birds destroyed totalled 307,217. The eggs destroyed in fully reported destroyed flocks numbered 202,140. The compensation awarded in fully reported destroyed flocks was $421,357.83; and the officials in charge think they have it under control. I believe that is the most complete answer I can give my hon. friend.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is it possible to import, into British Columbia and use on the flocks there the vaccine which has been tried in Washington with success, as I am informed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department is satisfied that the vaccination which has been found successful in some areas south of the line no doubt will be utilized in this country at a later stage in fighting the disease, but it is felt that at present the most important thing is to slaughter the herds and get rid of them entirely, and also get rid of the eggs produced by the flocks. When the matter is fully under control the question of vaccination in order to prevent the disease from infecting flocks elsewhere may be considered, but at the present time it is felt advisable to go on with the slaughter of flocks, paying for those destroyed.


George Randolph Pearkes: The vaccine cannot be imported now, I believe; is that right?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two vaccines, one known as dead vaccine and the other as live vaccine. It is not permitted to import the live vaccine from the United States, but the dead vaccine is produced here in our own laboratories. Up to the present time the importation of live vaccine has been prohibited because under those circumstances it does spread the disease.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Out in our
part of the country the provincial governments are attempting to control Bang's disease. Is the federal government giving any assistance, or is there any federal program to eliminate this disease or prevent it from spreading?


James Garfield Gardiner: The federal government cooperates with the provinces. We provide the vaccine and the province applies it.


Mr. Douglas:: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many reactors there were among the cattle tested in Prince Edward Island?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: About 90,000 have been tested and there have been about eleven reactors. And the last test, about eleven: one in one county, one in another county and nine in another.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
A. Earl Catherwood: I should like to refer back to item No. 17, and ask the minister if he would just answer one question with regard to efforts being made to combat shipping fever. This is a serious matter among farmers and many farmers hesitate to purchase cattle particularly from the west. I wonder if the minister would make a statement as to what is being done.


Robert McCubbin: We supply the vaccine in Toronto and Winnipeg and the stockyards and the provincial governments supply the veterinaries to inoculate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
21.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $536,400.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask whether there is any change in class A and class B fairs and how many class A fairs and class B fairs there are in Canada today. While I am on my feet, I should also like to ask what is allowed under the new policy on fairs, with regard to building on property in connection with the show fairs of Canada and so on. I understand there is a new policy this year in the Department of Agriculture with regard to all class A fairs, and that if they are building barns, et cetera, for their stock they can come under this new policy and get assistance from the federal grant.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has not been any change in the policy this year. The policy is the same as was set up following the war. Prior to the war we had a certain policy which we followed in making grants. During the war we had none at all. At the end of the war, after negotiation with the associations right across Canada, we agreed on a plan. Under that plan we pay $2,500 to class A fairs, and the qualifications have remained the same since. We pay $1,800 a year to class B fairs. Then we make it possible for class A fairs to capitalize their grants over ten years, to spend all the money or any part of it in one year in order to put up buildings. But if they do that, of course they do not get the grant, or whatever percentage of the grant is taken, in order to put on the building program. For class B fairs it is exactly the same, except that there is only $1,800 to deal with over ten years.

Supply-Agriculture
We have another plan under which we carry on with the support of the province as well, under which we put up a certain amount of money, the province puts up a similar amount and the fair board obtains from some source or another a similar amount, a threeway program; we do make arrangements for spending up to $10,000 a year or what accumulates, at $10,000 a year, up to $100,000.
Then there is a special provision under which we deal with some special fairs such as London, Ottawa and Quebec and a number of the larger places, under which we enter into negotiation with the province; or at least they enter into negotiation with the province and with us, and it usually follows that if the province agrees to undertake their part of the expenditure, and we consider that the project is one that should be proceeded with, we put up a similar amount of money. That sometimes runs up to $150,000. In the odd case it has run up to $200,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I have one other question and that is in connection with winter fairs. In the maritime provinces we have a winter fair at Amherst. That fair at Amherst does for the three maritime provinces and I suppose now it will have to do for four; that is, including Newfoundland as well. It is a maritime province, although it wants to be called the Atlantic province. We get a grant of $5,000 for the Amherst fair, and that is hardly sufficient when the minister considers that three provinces are going to that one fair. For the winter fair or livestock show up in Fredericton later on in the year, they get three times as much money as we get for the winter fair in Amherst. If it is possible, I think that for another season at least the Amherst fair should get further consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: The winter fairs have a flat grant which is not affected by the specially arranged building grant. We do make special arrangements with those who are putting on winter fairs to provide for building on a plan similar to the last one I outlined, namely, where it is usually a three-way proposition, but there is the flat grant that goes right on in so far as winter fairs are concerned even if we have entered into an arrangement of that kind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under this item there is one matter I want to bring to the minister's attention, at the request of a number of prominent British Columbia people. I refer to Mrs. Amy Kelsey, who is the only Canadian woman who has won the world wheat championship twice. She won it in 1946 and in 1949. In addition she won at Toronto in 1947. In addition to that she has won 54 other prizes for various grains at international

grain competitions. That elderly woman has accomplished a great deal to advertise British Columbia and Canada to the world. It is a remarkable achievement, from my point of view and from the point of view of many people who know her.
This elderly woman, who has had to sell her farm because of the chronic ill-health of her husband, has now gone to Victoria to live.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that we have given decorations, such as C.B.E. and others, to people who have done a job for which they have been well paid and in some cases, in my opinion, they have done it in leisure and in great comfort. I am of the opinion that we in Canada fail to recognize the people who make great contributions to agriculture in the same way as we recognize people who make great contributions in other respects. The latter sometimes, in my opinion, are well recognized for making a much smaller contribution than this elderly Canadian woman has made to Canada and to Canadian agriculture.
I mention this matter to the minister and to the committee because I know the position, as do many other people, of this woman who has accomplished a great deal in winning these prizes. She is the only Canadian woman to do so. I know her present position. Because of what she has done and because of the value of her work in agriculture I am going to ask the minister that his department give considerations to making a grant to this woman for her achievements. While she has received various cups, many ribbons and so on, I understand that for her winning the world's wheat championship twice the total cash return has been exactly $25. That did not even cover a fraction of her expenses. I bring this matter to the minister's attention, and I should like him to see if there is any possibility of his department and the cabinet giving consideration to some particular recognition of this Canadian woman.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been a number of persons who have done fine work in exhibiting grains grown in western Canada and in eastern Canada as well. Among those who have attained distinction at these different fairs is a man named Mitchell, south of Moose Jaw, and Seager Wheeler, who I think is also living at the coast now. He was employed by this department for a time on a part-time basis, doing some of the work that was associated not only with grain production but with fruit production as well on the prairies. In my opinion the government has not paid as much attention to what these people have done as it should have or has not found itself in a position to do as much for them as probably should be done. That no

doubt applies to Mrs. Kelsey as to the others. She has had a remarkable record in the last few years in the production of wheat and in the showing of the wheat at the best exhibitions on the continent, including Chicago. She has been most successful. I am sure that everyone in this committee, and everyone associated with agriculture, would like to pay her the highest compliments possible in connection with these activities. I did not know that she had disposed of her land and gone to the coast. But having been informed of that fact I shall certainly take into consideration the suggestion made. I do not know what can be done this year on this short notice, but we shall give consideration to the suggestions that have been made.


Harry Oliver White: Item 21 deals with grants to fairs. I think at this time I should mention some of the facts surrounding the London and western Ontario fair. I notice that this item is up $60,500, and that the building fund, which is' part of the $60,500, is up $50,000; and the total grant is $170,000. Recently in the city of Toronto hon. members had an opportunity to visit the international trade fair. We realized what a boon it was to industries abroad and to buyers in Canada. I think I am safe in saying that it was of more benefit to foreign nations than it was to Canada; but trade is a two-way street; therefore it is all to the good.
I want to say a word about London and Middlesex county in particular, pointing out the value of these fairs. Not so many years ago the livestock and grain exhibitors from the county of Middlesex were able to draw more prize money from the Chicago livestock exposition than any state in the American union. I point that out with considerable pride. I want to draw to the attention of the minister and also to the attention of hon. members the value of exhibitions in marketing produce wherever markets may develop.
On the 24th of April the mayor of the city of London and his officials were down here in connection with the grant for the new arena. The livestock arena has become a necessary part of the fair at London. They returned home a bit disappointed, I think. That is putting it probably a little mildly. All members from western Ontario, regardless of their party, are interested in this. The parliamentary assistant to the minister who comes from Middlesex West is as much or more interested in this as anyone else. It seems to the man on the street and the man on the farm that the dominion government has been seesawing back and forth with the provincial government over these grants. I would think the best thing for the federal government to do would be to announce that they were going to make a grant, and then there
55946-223J
Supply-Agriculture
would be nothing else for the province to do but follow suit, and we would have our arena at London.
At London they are also planning to have a winter fair as well. We already have the nucleus of the winter fair in the seed fair that has been going on for some time. It is one of the finest seed fairs in all Canada, if not the finest. It would seem to me that now is the time to make this grant.
A moment or two ago I mentioned the international trade fair. If hon. members will turn to page 52 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, they will see that in 1949, $624,000 was expended for the international trade fair alone, and in 1950 the estimate is $602,000. That is quite a sum of money, and it was expended on industries other than agriculture. I am hoping at this time that the minister will make a statement as to what they are prepared to do, telling us that we are going to get our grant.


James Garfield Gardiner: I find it a little difficult to make a statement in reply to what has just been said. If I read the list of those who get grants, London would stand at the top of it in amount. If I did that I am afraid that some of the others would be along wanting as much. I do not think there is much reason for there being any disappointment, and I did not think that there had been much disappointment.
The representatives of the board and the mayor of London have been here on a number of occasions. We have had very helpful discussions in connection with what they desire to do in London, and I do not think they have been unduly disappointed in the results of those discussions.
The fact is that it is the only fair in Canada of that kind that is getting $20,000 a year for 10 years from this government, which is $200,000. They are getting a similar amount from the province, and I understand that the city is putting up a similar amount. If they want more than that to spend I presume the city will be putting up some more. I do not think there is anything to suggest that we have not treated London fairly. I think London really believes that we have treated them fairly, as compared with what we have done for others across the country. I feel that, whether others do or not.
I know the position in London about as well as I know it anywhere in Canada, since I was born and brought up in that neighbourhood. When I did go to a fair as a boy I went to the London fair, so that we have some interest in it here. But in addition to that it is in one of the best agricultural areas in Canada. It does lend itself to the type of show which warrants the extra $5,000 that it

Supply-Agriculture
is getting each year over a ten-year period. There is no other fair that is getting more than $15,000 a year outside of Toronto, which is a much bigger thing and does draw more money from all sources; but London is next to that, and is being dealt with in a manner which is outstanding as compared with other fairs. I agree that it should be, but I do not think there is very much disappointment there over what they have obtained. As a matter of fact, it is more than they asked for in the first instance. They came back the second time for an increase and I think they are pretty well satisfied with what they have obtained.


Harry Oliver White: The minister is not saying no exactly.


William Joseph Browne: Can the minister tell me whether there is any way in which the city of St. John's can get assistance in regard to an arena? We had an agricultural exhibition of a fine quality in St. John's, Newfoundland, up to a few years ago, when the arena which we had there, and which was partly used as a skating rink, was destroyed by fire. A building next door, which was also used in connection with the exhibition, was destroyed at the same time. The Lions club down there are trying to make a collection from the citizens to build one. Is there any condition attached to the grant given by the federal government which would prevent such a building being used partly as a skating rink during the time when it would not be used for agricultural exhibitions or fair purposes? It is a lot of money to tie up for any considerable length of time, and it seems to me that the parliamentary assistant did lead me to understand that it could not be used for any other purpose. It would be absurd to tie all that money up and keep it idle for nine months of the year, when it could be earning money.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no restriction as to the use of the building. Most of these buildings about which I have been speaking operate for different purposes throughout the greater part of the year. Some of them operate part time as skating rinks. At least one-third of the activities connected with the building must be agricultural before we will become interested in it at all. I understand they have not been having a fair in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: Not for several years.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to establish themselves in a position where they would be able to get a grant under the provisions here they would be required to hold a fair for

three years. That would probably require that they do what is done in other provinces, namely start their fair in a small way with assistance from the province and the surrounding community. After they have been in operation for three years and reach the point where they can pay prize money of $3,000, they classify as a class B fair. When they can pay $6,000 in prize money they classify as a class A fair.


William Joseph Browne: They have been holding exhibitions in which they have paid far more than $5,000 or $6,000. Does the minister mean that they have to have exhibitions for three years before they can qualify for the grant under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the position under the regulations as they are.


Victor Quelch: Is Saunders wheat considered a satisfactory substitute for Red Bobs? This is the year in which Red Bobs is to be degraded from No. I to No. III. Consequently the farmers in Alberta are switching from Red Bobs to Thatcher, Regent and Saunders. Until recently Saunders wheat had not been grown extensively enough to prove it. What is the situation today?


James Garfield Gardiner: Saunders wheat grows in a shorter season than the other wheats. All that means is that it can be grown farther north than the other varieties. I doubt very much if it is a substitute for the other wheats which are growing farther south, because of lower yield, and for other reasons. If it is going to be grown farther north, Saunders wheat has an advantage over the others.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $44,500.
Mr. Blair:: Does the government contemplate any change in the method of identifying purebred dogs? I have had protests from purebred dog raisers in my constituency, and they feel strongly about the idea of tattooing dogs, pointing out that it works a hardship and costs a considerable sum to have the tattooing machine to do the work. They believe the method of doing it would place Canada in an unfavourable position, in that no other country is using this method of tattooing purebred dogs. It is pointed out that we have the lowest per capita of purebred dogs of any country in the world. However, one of the dog breeders in my constituency last week won the highest

award at Madison Square Garden, in perhaps the greatest show of its kind. He won not only in one class, but also in the class of best dog in the show.
It is pointed out to me that to tattoo some small dogs they have to have anaesthetic. They say there is no special advantage, and the Canadian Kennel Club in particular would like to go ahead with the idea of identifying purebred dogs by colour description. Is this method being put into effect, or is it contemplated?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that tattooing has been used voluntarily. Of course the committee understands the relationship of this department to the matter of keeping livestock records in general, including those of dogs. It is not done by the Department of Agriculture, but is done under a recording organization set up by the different breeding associations. I think the Holstein breeders are about the only important breeders of livestock who do not have it done in that way. They have their own registration.
All other kinds of livestock are registered by this organization which is set up by the breeders themselves. I believe we pay a grant of $18,000. It is only that grant which gives us the right to say anything about what is done. The regulations require that these associations shall present their regulations to us. They are not permitted to act under them until we agree or otherwise with the recommendations made.
The present position in relation to dogs is that there has been a discussion as to whether they should be required to tattoo the dogs. Consideration has been given to the point as to whether the method should be changed from a voluntary one to one in which they would be compelled to tattoo. Many of the dog breeders object to the tattooing.
There is another method, not as satisfactory, I believe, in which note is taken of the colour marks of the animals. However, there are so many animals of the same colour that this is not satisfactory. Another system is being advocated at the present time in which the noseprint is taken, in the same way as thumbprints of individuals are taken. It is said that no two dogs have the same noseprints, and it is advocated that this method be used.
The mounted police and others have been consulted in the matter, and my understanding is that a decision is to be made this week as to the recommendation to be made. No
Supply-Agriculture
doubt we will agree with whatever recommendation is made, assuming always that the associations themselves are the ones to be satisfied in this matter. However, we are interested in having some method by which we can be fairly certain in respect of the registrations of registered animals.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Why could they not be tattooed in the same way as foxes? Thousands of foxes used to be tattooed annually, and they were all recorded. Very little expense was involved in the use of the tattooing machines. The animals did not have to be given anaesthetics or anything else. The marks are plain, and carried all through the years. They are never obliterated. One would have to cut the ear off a dog to obliterate the mark, and it could be done just as easily as it is with foxes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The chief objection is that in respect of small dogs the tattoo would take up most of the ear, and that with some dogs the most attractive part is the ears. The dog breeders are particular about this, and objection is raised. Nevertheless about 2,000 of the 3,000 dogs registered are tattooed. I do not know what the kennel association will decide finally, but we will not quarrel with them if they come along with a reasonable suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
23.	Marketing service administration, $162,006.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question in connection with the situation of apple growers in the whole of Canada, and particularly in British Columbia. The situation I refer to is the loss of the United Kingdom market. I am not going to take much time but I have some figures I should like to lay before the minister. It is well known that the prosperity of the apple growers of this country now and in the past depends largely on the fact that there is a substantial export market in the United Kingdom. The result of that has been that in the main the Ontario and Quebec crops have gone to supply the domestic market, with a substantial portion of the British Columbia crop being marketed domestically but the main portion of the British Columbia and Nova Scotia crops supplying the bulk of the United Kingdom market. That market has been lost completely in the last two years as a commercial market.
I suggest to the minister that he use all the influence he and his department have and in co-operation with the Minister of Trade and Commerce endeavour to persuade the British government to take at least a

Supply-Agriculture
reasonably substantial quantity of Canadian apples. I appreciate the difficulty and realize the reluctance with which one government would approach another government to tell it what it needs in terms of food products. However, I think it would be fair to put the proposition before the British food ministry that as our production has been largely geared to the existence of the British market, as we have made substantial contributions, quite willingly it is true, toward helping them solve their food problem during and since the war, they should take some portion of the Canadian apple production. It might be suggested that they divert, perhaps $3 million or $4 million -we would hope for a minimum of $5 million -toward the purchase of Canadian apples. Perhaps I should not mention a figure because this would be a matter of negotiation.
I can understand that the producers of Canadian agricultural products who depend upon export markets are anxious that they get some share of the United Kingdom market. I am not suggesting that we want to interfere with what the wheat grower or the bacon producer or anyone else gets, but I do hope the minister will lay before the British the suggestion that in what they spend for the purchase of Canadian food there should be something allocated for this Canadian product which has always had a traditional market in Great Britain.
There are certain figures I should like to lay before the minister to indicate the gravity of this problem. I have figures showing how many apples were exported to Great Britain from British Columbia and from Canada as a whole, and what percentage of our exports were sent to the United Kingdom. The following are the exports of British Columbia apples to the United Kingdom:
bushels
1934-	35
1935-	36
1936-	37
1937-	38
1938-	39
1.563.000
2.097.000
1.686.000
2.355.000
2.422.000
Then follow the figures for the post-war years:
bushels
1944-	45	
529,0001945-	46	
719,0001946-	47	
2,552,0001947-	48	1948-	49	
The average British Columbia apple crop is from 7,000,000 to 9,000,000 bushels per year, while the average exports to the United Kingdom have been 2,000,000 bushels per year. On the average, one-third of our apple crop has been exported to the United Kingdom
so it will be realized what the complete loss of that market means to our apple growers. The figures for the whole of Canada are as follows:
bushels
1934-	35
1935-	36
1936-	37
1937-	38
1938-	39
5.314.000
6.462.000
3.862.000
6.196.000
7.454.000
Then in the post-war years:
bushels
1944-	45	
1,034,0001945-	46	
794,0001946-	47	
4,492,000
The apples exported to the United Kingdom represented the following percentages of our total exports of apples:
per cent
1934-	35	
88-51935-	36	
96 41936-	37	
85-51937-	38	
92 11938-	39	
88 1
It will be seen that in the post-war period practically 90 per cent of the exports of apples from Canada went to the United Kingdom. Another way of looking at this is to say that in the years, 1934-38, our exports of apples represented 46 per cent of the apple crop in Canada or an average of 6,483,000 bushels per year. By 1948 that average was only 21 per cent, or an export of 2,850,000 bushels. The percentage of the crop exported fell 25 per cent or 4,000,000 bushels in that period while the domestic consumption of fresh apples increased to a considerably smaller extent.
In the post-war years 40 per cent of the total crop or 5,645,000 bushels were consumed domestically and by 1948 this percentage had increased only to 57 per cent of the crop or 7,729,000 bushels. The percentage of crop exported decreased by 25 per cent or 4,000,000 bushels while the percentage of domestic consumption increased by only 17 per cent or 2,000,000 bushels. It will be seen that the decline in the export market in the United Kingdom has not been offset by more than 50 per cent by the increase in the domestic consumption of fresh apples.
There has been some increase in the processing of apples, but the net situation is that our growers are faced with surplus apples. While I place the emphasis upon the British Columbia figures because they are more readily available, this situation affects not only British Columbia but Nova Scotia, which are the main exporting provinces, and will in turn affect the producers of Ontario and Quebec should an increasing percentage of
[Mr. Fulton.1

apples have to be marketed domestically. No other market has yet been found to take the place of the United Kingdom market. Along with this goes the other problem to which I think the government should be giving consideration immediately, the instituting of some floor or support price program for our apple producers now so that they will be able to say with some certainty what their future is. That perhaps comes up under a later item, and I will not go into detail here, but I think the two should be considered together.
In closing I want to ask the minister and the committee to bear in mind the serious import of these figures, the very grave position that faces our apple producers through absolutely no fault of their own but because of the complete loss of the British market. I know the minister's influence is considerable, and I ask him to do his best to persuade the British, in allocating their dollars for the purchase of food, to include a fair share for the purchase of apples. Before I sit down, I want to say that this matter cannot be put off by saying that there is not a market in the United Kingdom. The figures which have been given recently of the increasing quantities of apples imported from Australia, New Zealand, Italy and countries other than Canada, where they can purchase them with soft currency, show quite clearly that there is a market for apples in the United Kingdom. I hope the minister will tell the committee, the apples growers of British Columbia and the rest of the country, that they may expect some very concerted effort by the department to look after their interests in so far as the British market is concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister replies, I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops in connection with doing something more than we have to obtain a share of the British apple market. I think the minister has already indicated that he believes the prosperity of the apple growers depends in the future upon their receiving a share of the United Kingdom market. To support that view I want to read from a statement in the Montreal Gazette of December 15, 1949. Speaking before the closing session of the tenth annual dominion-provincial agricultural conference the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner is reported as having said in part:
Canada's farmers could not be prosperous without British food contracts. It was "essential" that Canada sell to the United Kingdom most of her surplus bacon, cheese, egg and apple production. There appeared to be no other markets available.
Supply-Agriculture
The minister has recognized the Canadian apple producers' need for the United Kingdom market. We are not speaking tonight simply for the apple growers of British Columbia but also for the apple growers of other parts of Canada who have depended in the past on the export market. Over a number of years we have been told by the experts of the department of Trade and Commerce that the market in Great Britain was finished, that there was no future market, but the experience of the past year proves them to be absolutely incorrect. There was $2,500,000 worth of Washington and Oregon apples shipped through Seattle to Great Britain last year. The British contracted for $3,500,000 of Australian apples. Considerable quantities of apples have been shipped to Great Britain from the Netherlands, and also considerable quantities from Italy, so there is no question that there is a market available there if we can overcome the currency restriction.
Last year the minister's department made arrangements with the people who were purchasing for Great Britain to defer the purchase of $25 million of wheat out of approximately $300 million. Of that, $17,500,000 was spent on bacon, $5 million on salmon and $2,500,000 on lumber. My point is that the minister has already indicated to the house during the present session that he believes we will have no difficulty in selling our wheat crop, that what we do not sell to Great Britain we can sell to other countries. Therefore I support entirely the proposal made by the hon. member for Kamloops that the minister and his officials should do what they can to see if we cannot have a similar arrangement made to take care of a certain quantity of Canadian apples. So far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned, I am quite sure that he is not particularly enamoured of the sale of apples. He made a very interesting remark that apples were not food. As a matter of fact apples have had quite a lot to do with the history of mankind, but I will not go into that tonight. I shall content myself by saying in reply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that man does not live by proteins alone.
I happen to have the special issue of the Times that has been sent to members, and I was reading it this evening. There is an article in it entitled "The Dollar-Sterling Trade Board, Now a 'Going Concern'." The first paragraph reads:
One of the most heartening signs of positive action to break the threatening crisis in trade between the United Kingdom and Canada is the recent formation of the dollar-sterling trade board in Canada. The board will act in an advisory capacity to Britain's

Supply-Agriculture
dollar export board and although in no sense a government agency it enjoys full support of the Canadian government.
Near the end of the article there is this paragraph:
In addition to the board and its secretariat, working committees of specialists in various industries are being established. These working committees, whose personnel have been selected by members of the board from within their own trades and industries, have the task of examining in detail the statistics of exports and supplying to Britain's dollar export board technical information for the use of British exporters. . . .
Some of the technical information that we want them to supply is the fact that we have a large quantity of Canadian apples we want to sell to Great Britain. The board is composed of prominent industrialists including Mr. H. R. MacMillan, a great business executive, Mr. Hannam, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and many other competent gentlemen. I say that the apple producers of British Columbia and Nova Scotia expect Mr. Hannam as president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to do his best as a member of the dollar-sterling trade board to see not only that bacon, eggs, cheese and lumber are marketed in Great Britain but also that surplus apples which must be exported are included in the arrangements that are made with the British government for this coming year.
Therefore I ask the minister to tell the house if he thinks it is possible with the co-operation of his department and the dollar-sterling trade board to secure some of the British market for Canadian apple producers, the market that he says is essential for the prosperity of the apple industry in Canada.'


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say in reply is that we did all we could do. We even offered wheat for apples but the offer was refused. I am sure the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night was not an expression of his own view. When he said something with regard to the food value of apples it was an expression of the view of the British government. I am quite sure it is not an expression of the view of the British people because I have in my hand a copy of an article which appeared in the Vernon News which I think answers very well some of the suggestions that have been made as to how the lack of desire on the part of some in Great Britain might be overcome. The heading of the article is:
Twenty thousand letters pour in to thank growers for fruit. British people send small gifts, words of appreciation for apples.

The article reads:
A realistic indication of how much the shipment of Okanagan valley apples to the old country meant to the people of the United Kingdom is revealed by B.C. Tree Fruits Limited this week. The number of letters of appreciation received cannot be counted, but to date nearly 20,000 have come in and they are continuing to arrive with the docking of every boat. This year, fop the first time since 1946, B.C. apples have been shipped to Great Britain. Movement from the 1949 crop to the United Kingdom totalled 1,593,544 boxes. Previous to the war, Britain purchased annually approximately 2,500,000 boxes of B.C. apples and twice during the war, in the face of wartime shipping conditions, shipments reached more than the 2,000,000 mark.
Shipments this year, of course, were distributed across the length and breadth of the British isles. The British food ministry has seen fit to distribute
50,000	boxes of B.C. apples free to schools and institutions. The appreciative and enthusiastic reception which has been accorded this fruit augurs well for the future of our B.C. industry in the U.K. markets when exchange difficulties have been overcome.
The newspaper article goes on in the same vein and indicates what these people have done for themselves. I do not think any group have done a better job of marketing their product this year than the fruit growers of British Columbia. They not only marketed fruit in Canada, as was suggested a few moments ago, in competition with fruit grown elsewhere in this country; they marketed apples in thirty-two states of the union in the face of one of the biggest crops the United States has ever had. Then, when they could not market the remainder of their crop, they sent those apples to Great Britain. I believe the twenty thousand letters coming back from the British people who ate those apples is the best indication one could have that at least the British mind is being turned toward British Columbia apples, and I do not think it will be very long after the British mind turns toward British Columbia apples until the British government also turns in that direction. The suggestion coming from these people to the effect that they desire these apples may bring about the same result that their desire for more gasoline brought very recently. Probably some people over there will change their minds, if we continue to send apples as we did this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know the remarks of the minister concerning the work of the British Columbia tree fruits board in marketing their apples will be appreciated. Certainly it is a well deserved tribute; and I also believe the minister is perfectly correct when he says that appreciation of the gift of the million and a half boxes will do much in future to influence the British government to buy Canadian and particularly British Columbia apples again when the currency difficulties

are overcome. But those difficulties are not yet overcome, and we want an assurance from the minister that he will apply pressure, in a proper manner of course, upon the British food mission when they next come to discuss the purchase of food products in Canada. In that way we may have pressure from both directions, from the people at home in the United Kingdom and from our own government making representations which I submit it is perfectly entitled to make. It should be impressed upon them that our apple growers deserve some consideration in the allocation of the very limited supply of Canadian dollars they have to spend on food in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might as well be perfectly candid. I have done every nice thing I know of to try to persuade those who come here to talk about buying food, but I have not succeeded. Others have gone over there and attempted to be even nicer than I was in the last stages of the discussions, and they have not succeeded. I think it is about time we stopped talking nicely to some people over in Britain. That does not apply to very many people, just one or two; but until they are spoken to directly I do not think we should look for very much success in the marketing of some of those products in that country.
Having said this, it does not mean that we have not been able to market our farm products. Over and over the story is repeated that we have lost the British market, or we have lost markets generally. All I have to say in reply to that statement is that with the exception of apples, which after all were marketed-


Edmund Davie Fulton: A million and a half boxes were given away.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they were marketed, and this government paid $2 million into the treasury of those who marketed them. The apples of Nova Scotia were marketed, and we paid $500,000 into their treasury.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a new definition of marketing.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not so new. Previous governments, and perhaps this government, permitted them to be marketed at returns which were not as high as would have been received now even if that additional amount had not been provided. That money was provided in order to increase the returns to those who produced the apples. Those apples were marketed at a return we thought was too low, and that level was increased. It is too late this evening to enter into a discussion of the general question, but it can be pretty
Supply-Agriculture
successfully shown that our farm products have been marketed. We would like to market more apples in Britain, but I do not think they are going to be marketed by nice talking. I think more direct talking must be done than we have had so far, and I am quite prepared to do it.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of this house is desired: Bill No. 303 (letter Y-8 of the Senate) intituled an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: May I ask the unanimous consent of the house to have this bill moved one step forward by giving it first reading?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. The members of our party who are interested in this matter indicate to me that they do not feel it is desirable that it be proceeded with in this way. .


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up the resolution to ratify the convention of the world meteorological organization signed on October 11, 1947; second, Bill No. 302, the defence supplies bill. Then we will move to go into supply and take up the estimates of agriculture, citizenship and immigration, trade and commerce and public works.


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

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1.	Departmental administration, $293,670.
2.	Information service, $316,495.
3.	Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
4.	Contributions to commonwealth bureaux, $5S,-821. [DOT]
Science service-
5.	Science service administration, $1,229,750.
6.	Animal and poultry pathology, $388,640.
3532
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
7.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $177,305.
8.	Botany and plant pathology, $1,343,687.
9.	Agricultural chemistry, $495,320.
10.	Agricultural entomology, $1,546,510.
11.	Forest entomology, $1,222,839.
12.	Plant protection, $731,705.
Experimental farms service-
13.	Experimental farms service administration, $129,780.
14.	Central experimental farm, $1,868,118.
15.	Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $5,977,447.
Production service-
16.	Production service administration, $56,015.
Health of animals-
17.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $3,661,965.
18.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $1,091,292.
19.	Live stock and poultry, $1,342,738.
Plant products-
20.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $1,261,533.
21.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $536,400.
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $44,500.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 13, 1950