1955-05-30

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 414, respecting Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.-Mr. Fairey.


GRAIN ELEVATORS


Mr. Caslleden:: 1.	What was the percentage of grain shipping orders allocated to various grain elevator companies by the wheat board during crop year 1953-54?
2.	On what basis were the various percentages allocated to each company?
3.	When was the present percentage basis first put into operation?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to disclose details of the competitive position of various elevator companies in their capacity as agents of the board.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON CUSTOMS AND

[Stage Direction]
excise, 1926
Mr. Nicholson:: 1.	Who were the members of the royal commission which investigated customs and excise during 1926 and 192??
2.	Who were engaged as counsel?
3.	What was the total cost in connection with the inquiry?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The Hon. Sir Francois Xavier Lemieux; the Hon. James Thomas Brown; the Hon. William Henry Wright; the Hon. Ernest Roy.
2.	Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C. and Mr. R. L. Calder, K.C., as seniors, and Messrs. R. B. Law and Gordon Lindsay, as juniors.
3.	$375,716.65.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE

Mr, Macdonnell:: How much additional expenditure will the St. Lawrence seaway involve, (a) between lake Ontario and lake Erie; (b) between lake Erie and lake St. Clair; (c) between lake St. Clair
and lake Huron; (d) between lake Huron and lake Superior, and who is responsible for the expenditure in each case?


Mr. Marler:: Stand.


Mr. Macdonnell:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that my question could easily be answered. It seems to me a simple one. May I ask the minister if he will look into the matter himself?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that any inquiries relating to questions that are not answered as promptly as hon. members would like should be dealt with on orders of the day.
Question stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL BUILDING, LINDSAY, ONT.

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What was the contract price for the construction of the Canadian National building at Lindsay. Ontario?
2.	What was the total cost?
3.	What is the name of the contracting firm?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1,	2 and 3. A contract for construction of the Canadian National Railways building at Lindsay, Ontario, has been awarded to L. T. Braunton Company Limited of Lindsay, the low bidder. It is not the practice of the management to disclose details of contracts with private parties.



MINK FOOD, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Barnett:: 1.	Are plans being made in the province of Newfoundland for an extended exploitation of the pot-head whale as mink food?
2.	If so, have appropriate measures been taken by the federal government to ensure that conservation of this species is not being endangered?
3.	Has consideration been given to the feasibility of utilizing, for mink food purposes, the five-million pounds of seal carcasses reported as being abandoned annually offshore from the province of Newfoundland?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	Greater use has been made of the pot-head whale in Newfoundland in recent years. The provincial legislature has this year approved a bill to regulate the processing of pot-head and mink whales, and the sale of meat, oil and by-products.
2.	The fisheries research board and the Department of Fisheries have the resource under continued observation. The present

Questions
rate of killing is not regarded as being excessive but if increased use of the resource should endanger conservation, appropriate regulations will be enforced.
3.	Difficulties in transportation make it impractical to utilize the seal carcasses left by the sealers. An increase in mink farming might make it economic to use the seal carcasses from offshore operations.



MARITIME MARSHLAND REHABILITATION


Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: What amounts have been paid under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, during each fiscal or calendar year since its inception to each of the following provinces:	(a) Nova Scotia:	(b)
New Brunswick; (c) Prince Edward Island; (d) Newfoundland?


Mr. Gardiner:: (a)	Nova Scotia:
1949-	50	$	156,807.881950-	51	
616,374.691951-	52	
646,872.741952-	53	
867,997.471953-	54	
986,997.031954-	55	
728,743.88(b)	New Brunswick:1949-	50	$	199,989.221950-	51	
338,671.031951-	52	
548,954.191952-	53	
777,453.581953-	54	
1,006,011.101954-	55	
589,979.90(c)	Prince Edward Island:1950-	51	$	27,863.151951-	52	
160.661952-	53	
114.041953-	54	
185.301954-	55	
87.51(d)	Newfoundland: Nil.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICES, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	How many unemployment insurance offices are there in each of the following provinces: (a) Nova Scotia; (b) New Brunswick; (c) Prince Edward Island; (d) Newfoundland?
2.	Where is each one located?
3.	How many days per week is each of the above offices open for business?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	(a) 17; (b) 14; (c) 2; (d) 3.
2.	(a) Nova Scotia-Amherst, Bridgewater, Dartmouth, Glace Bay, Halifax, Inverness, Kentville, Liverpool, New Glasgow, New Waterford, North Sydney, Pictou, Springhill, Sydney, Sydney Mines, Truro, Yarmouth.
(b)	New Brunswick-Bathurst, Campbell-ton, Chatham, Edmundston, Fredericton,

Minto, Moncton, Newcastle, Sackville, Saint John, St. Stephen, Shediac, Sussex, Woodstock..
(c)	Prince Edward Island-Charlottetown, Summerside.
(d)	Newfoundland-Corner Brook West, Grand Falls, St. John's.
3.	Five days.



NATIONAL REVENUE, WINDSOR, ONT.   EXPROPRIATION OF BUILDING

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In the matter of the expropriation from the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway Company of the building in Windsor, Ontario, in which the local offices of the federal income tax branch are located, how was the expropriation price established?
2.	Did each side have a valuator or valuators?
3.	If so, who were said valuators?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	By negotiation with the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway Company.
2.	This department engaged two evaluators.
3.	A. E. Merkley, Windsor, Ont,; Lester B. Cousins, Windsor, Ont.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


James Ralph Kirk: What amounts have been paid under provincial tax agreements for each fiscal or calendar year since its inception to each participating province of Canada?


DISASTER RELIEF FUND
James Ralph Kirk: How much has the federal government paid to Canadian Disaster Relief Fund Limited, or any agency, government or otherwise, on account of
(a)	Hurricane Carol; (b) Hurricane Dolly; (c) Hurricane Edna; (d) Hurricane Hazel?


BEQUESTS TO GOVERNMENT BY MACKENZIE KING
Mr. Ferguson:: 1.	What has been the yearly cost of maintenance of Laurier house, the Kingsmere farm and other real estate bequeathed to the government of Canada by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King?
2.	How many government employees or other persons are or have been housed on these premises during any part of the last two years? What are their names and their salaries?
3.	What has been the cost of maintenance of these premises for each month during the last two years?
4.	What has been the cost of electricity and telephone per month during that period?
5.	What is the amount of money left by Mr. Mackenzie King for the maintenance of the above premises?
6.	What is the annual revenue derived from that amount?
7.	What is the wording in the clause of Mr. King's will bequeathing the above property to the government?


FISHERIES
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to assist fishermen engaged in primary fishing enterprises by encouraging the provision of bank loans to fishermen, such loans to be guaranteed with limitations by the crown; moneys payable to banks under the act to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), because I do not know to what other minister I can direct it.
In view of the report in some United States newspapers-and I am referring particularly to the New York Herald Tribune of Sunday, May 29-to the effect that one of the conditions in connection with the arrangement for the construction of- the distant early warning radar line was that-and I am quoting this -"all contact with Eskimos is to be avoided except in cases of emergency", may I ask the Prime Minister if he can inform us from what department of government and under what circumstances this order, apparently without precedent, was given, and also something of the general effect of the order and the reasons for this unusual course.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements regarding contacts with the Eskimos in the building and operation of the D.E.W. line were made by officers of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, dealing with the officers of the Department of External Affairs. Every precaution has been taken so the normal life of the Eskimos shall not be disrupted but that so far as possible and whenever possible work would be given to them.
If it is more satisfactory to the Leader of the Opposition I would be prepared to take his question as notice and give a full explanation. I might say immediately, however, that I do not agree with the quotation.


George Alexander Drew: With what?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Lesage: With the substance of the
quote.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker, while accepting the fact that the minister wishes to take this as notice and prepare a more detailed statement, may I ask if it is not so that an order has in fact been made which has the effect of declaring that there shall be no fraternization between Eskimos-who after all are citizens with the right to vote-and others, which has the effect of denying to American G.I.'s the rights that would be accorded to anyone else visiting those areas?


Jean Lesage: We believe, and I think with justification, that according to our past experience it would be a very bad thing if those who are now working on the D.E.W. line were allowed to visit Eskimo villages frequently. The experience of the past, particularly so far as the health of the Eskimos is concerned, has been very bad indeed when people have been allowed to visit the Eskimo settlements. I am speaking about health at the moment, but there are other problems, too.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I share with the minister the desire that the life of the Eskimos shall be protected within the natural limitations of the rights of Canadian citizens. But in preparing the statement I would ask the minister to keep in mind that a good deal of publicity has been given to this in the United States. In preparing his reply I hope that it may be one which will explain what does appear to many writers in the United States to be a rather unusual restriction upon the ordinary friendly contacts of members of the United States forces who are in Canada.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES AT VARIOUS POINTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, may I now make to the Minister of Transport the request which I made improperly a few moments ago. In doing so may I be allowed to refresh his memory by reading the question, which is as follows:
How much additional expenditure will the St. Lawrence seaway involve, (a) between lake Ontario and lake Erie; (b) between lake Erie and lake St. Clair; (c) between lake St. Clair and lake Huron; (d) between lake Huron and lake Superior, and who is responsible for the expenditure in each case?
Unless the minister has to go out and make new agreements involving these expenditures, surely they must be available; surely they could have been given before now if he was, shall I say, properly keen on complying with my request.

Meat Inspection


George Carlyle Marler: All I will say is that it is much easier to put the question than it is to answer it. I can assure my hon. friend that I shall try to give him an answer at an early date.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house when we might expect the Canada Council to come into operation?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to advise the house as to when the Canada Council will come into operation. It will first of all have to be set up through parliamentary legislation, and that has not yet been provided for.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I was not able to give him notice. He may wish to take it as notice. My question is, have any orders in council relating to the payment of the guaranteed annual wage been passed? If so, what is the nature of such orders in council?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did he receive a communication from the directors of the Saskatchewan wheat pool on Friday asking for an immediate decision on the question of an emergency being declared in the flooded areas of Saskatchewan, and also requesting that some emergent assistance be given to the farmers in those areas? If so, what is the present position?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have to take the hon. gentleman's question as a notice. I would not want to deny that any request has been

received, and if one has been received, I would not want to attempt to describe it without having looked at it carefully. I shall take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.


INSPECTION OF PRODUCTS ENTERING INTERNATIONAL AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
James Garfield Gardiner: the third reading of Bill No. 352, respecting the inspection of meat and meat products entering into international and interprovincial trade.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any extended remarks on this bill at this time, other than to say that the object of the minister in bringing in this legislation will not be attained. Perhaps the reason for bringing in this bill was to have legislation which would provide for the whole meat industry such regulations and conditions as would be in the interests of all concerned. Other people than consumers are involved in the quality and distribution of meat in this country. The interests of all these people should be taken into consideration.
The bill says the intention is to inspect meat and meat products entering into interprovincial and international trade. The explanatory note states that where the bill conflicts with the Meat and Canned Foods Act, those sections of the Meat and Canned Foods Act will be revoked. It seems to me that here again we have legislation that is cluttered up with the provisions of another act, and therefore it will not bring satisfactory results to the meat industry. The Meat and Canned Foods Act provides for the inspection of canned meats under sanitary conditions. It appears to me that all the new legislation does is perhaps delete some sections of the Meat and Canned Foods Act and set up a force to carry out the intentions of the new act.
I would ask the minister to give us assurance that there is not going to be a duplication of personnel and services. It seems to me that under the Meat and Canned Foods Act we can have adequate inspection without bringing in this new legislation. It would appear to me that so far as a product entering into international or interprovincial trade is concerned, as long as it is covered by careful inspection from the time it leaves the farmer until it enters the processing field that should be guarantee enough.

In my opinion this new legislation will not deal with some of the problems confronting our meat industry, both from the producer and consumer standpoints. I shall confine my remarks at this time to what I have said, and will have more extended remarks to make when we are dealing with Bill No. 411, to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 411, to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say very much about this bill at this time, but I do want to protest about another matter. Bill No. 5 was called for last Monday, after having been on the order paper since January 11. Last Monday was also the first day the agriculture committee met. This morning I received a notice in my box indicating that there would be two meetings of the agriculture committee today. Now we are told that three of the bills dealing with agricultural matters will be considered today in the house, to be followed by the agriculture estimates. There are also to be two meetings of the agriculture committee tomorrow.
I realize that the officials of the wheat board were here and it was important that they get back to their jobs, but surely the business of this house can be so arranged that the agriculture committee does not have to meet at the same time that important bills having to do with agriculture are before this House of Commons. Surely there can be better planning on the part of the house leader. I do not know whether the chairman of the agriculture committee sits down and talks these things over with the house leader, but surely there can be better arrangements.
As far as this particular bill is concerned, we are going to leave our discussion of it until the committee stage. We agree with the principle of having the five bills consolidated; we think it is a good idea, but will defer our main discussion until the committee stage.
Agricultural Products


James Garfield Gardiner: In moving the second reading of this bill, and having heard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the minister rising on a point of order or is he rising to reply to the comment or complaint of the hon. gentleman? If he speaks now he closes the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have not
spoken at all so far. My friend got up and asked some questions. I was only going to speak on the motion for second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. minister says he has not spoken. In moving second reading he has spoken. All he is entitled to now is his right to reply, once the debate is terminated, unless by consent the house cares to let the minister answer the questions asked by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: In committee. Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: In committee? Has the
hon. member for Brant-Haldimand completed his speech?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: When the minister replies,
he may deal with the points that have been raised.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is to establish national standards for agricultural products, and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products. As I stated a moment ago when we were on third reading of Bill No. 352, I intend to make some extended remarks in connection with the bill now before us.
The problem confronting the livestock industry in Canada deserves careful scrutiny by this government. While we have before us this bill to establish national standards for agricultural products and to provide grading and other provisions, I want to say that for a long time the national livestock industry in Canada has deserved better attention from this government than it has had. For many years this group in the house has advocated that if we are to get down to the basic problem of the producer, and indeed give an assurance that our consumers will receive these products in the best condition and at the most reasonable prices, then we are going to have to do something more than has been done in the past by this government.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house a portion of the report and recommendations of the royal commission on price

Agricultural Products
spreads of 1934. One of the important recommendations of that commission is contained on pages 172 and 173, as follows:
As a step toward the solution of some at least of the problems which we have outlined, we recommend the establishment of a livestock board, under the appropriate jurisdiction. The duties of the board should include, among others, the following:
(a)	The prompt dissemination of information to producers and the trade generally, in respect to production, marketing, stocks, and prices, both export and domestic;
(b)	Administrative jurisdiction in matters connected with all phases of livestock marketing and in connection with disputes between producers, processors, etc.;
(c)	Licensing and supervision of truckers, dealers and export packers; where necessary in co-operation with provincial authorities;
(d)	Adequate inspection of all marketing stages and action to correct abuses;
(e)	Co-operation with producers, processors and the trade generally to ensure as far as possible a balance between production and available markets;
(f)	To encourage the organization of producers of livestock for regular and orderly marketing;
(g)	Improvement of quality of all livestock;
(h)	The formation of a uniform policy on external marketing, with a view not only to promoting new, but also retaining and developing, existing markets;
(i)	The stabilization of supplies, and the regulation of quality to each particular market;
(j)	The utilization of all available means to secure fair returns to the primary producers of good stock.
In the past speeches have been made in this house by various hon. members to draw attention to the fact that, as far as the producer of livestock is concerned, he is at the mercy of the packers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, might I ask
a question? What was the date of the report?


Edward George McCullough: This was the report of 1934. Here we have a recommendation that a commission be set up to investigate the livestock trade in Canada, but the Liberal government has done nothing about it to date. I think the time is long overdue when some consideration should be given to such commission reports and that, as asked for in this report, a livestock board should be set up.
If such a board were set up with adequate producer, and government consumer representation, I think we could have in Canada a regulatory body by means of which the livestock trade in this country could be handled in the interests of all the people concerned, namely the producers, the people in the processing trades, and also the consumers. The livestock producers do not want anything unfair. They have never asked for high prices out of line with their cost of production. When we have a situation where the livestock producer is at the mercy of the packers I think it is time for the spokesmen

for those people in the house to bring these matters to the attention of the government.
I might say that under the present marketing set-up for our livestock products, the farmer is obliged to send his cattle to the livestock yards at Winnipeg or Toronto, and there he is faced with at least 12 different grades in respect of cattle. We have choice, good, medium, common, cutters and many other grades-12 of them in all-in which his cattle can be placed. With respect to his hogs there is a similar number of grades including, bacon, butcher, light, heavy, light sows and heavy sows.
The producer would feel content, or at least better satisfied, if these grades were carried through to the consumer, but that is not the case. The packers can get together and set the price practically any Monday morning or any day of the week, and also set the quality. There are no government grades. The buyers come in there and compete for the cattle. Perhaps the quotations on one specific day may give a certain price for choice animals, another price for good, another price for medium, and so on down the line. When those cattle come in, if there happens to be a heavy run on the market the buyers can get together and by co-operation force down the price the farmer gets for his livestock. Choice, good and medium cattle may all be listed that day at a certain price, but through the downgrading of those cattle the farmer takes a beating.
The same thing is true with respect to hogs. It is true that hogs are rail graded and government inspected, but there again there is no assurance that while the farmer gets a return on a heavy type hog, the consumer does not pay the same as for a bacon hog. Hence the situation is completely unsatisfactory.
The bill proposed by the minister to set up these national standards for agricultural products does not, in my opinion, solve the problem which confronts us. I am suggesting to the minister and to the government that they seriously consider setting up a national livestock marketing board with producer, consumer and government representation whereby this whole thing may be investigated. We should have competent people on the board in order that for the first time we may have a marketing and processing system in Canada which will be fair to livestock producers.
I might just quote from an article in order to show that at the present time there is dishonest grading with respect to livestock in

this country. This is an excerpt from the Globe and Mail of June 8, 1950. It is fairly old, but the same conditions prevail today. The article reads as follows:
Quelph, June 7-Eastern Canadian housewives are ignorant of beef quality and as a result they are handed whatever their vendor likes to give them, Professor E. Stillwell of Ontario Agricultural College told a gathering of 500 Shorthorn breeders and their families at a demonstration of beef grading at the college here today.
Producing 12 cuts of beef, he told his audience that they were purchased in various parts of Ontario as choice prime cuts, at prices ranging from 65 to 79 cents per pound, in the past few days. Not one cut could be called choice prime beef.
In no instance was any of the team of purchasers, sent out under the auspices of Professor Knox, head of O.A.C. animal husbandry department, and the Ontario Shorthorn association directors, able to purchase red or blue ribbon beef, first and second grades respectively. All the beef purchased was of commercial quality, some of it very poor.
Hence you can see that under the present system of grading and assembling meat, in the retail end of it our consumers too are getting fleeced, one might say. I therefore strongly urge that this house and the government consider setting up a national livestock marketing board on which we shall have, as I say, producer representation, consumer representation and also government officials, who will co-operate in order to give all the people concerned the best kind of marketing set-up with respect to livestock products.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make just a few brief comments on this bill, which to me appears a sensible piece of legislation, as far as it goes, in consolidating, as it does, five other acts. It provides for what appears to be strict enforcement of national standards for farm products. I am quite sure that farmers welcome national standards. I am quite sure the great majority of farmers want to produce commodities of high standard and up to certain grades. However, I think the farmer also is entitled to see that national standards are applied to many of the things he purchases.
Before dealing with that matter for a moment or two, I want to mention the fact that we have fairly strict grading laws with regard to vegetables, meats, dairy products, poultry and fruit. The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) has mentioned something in connection with meat. I would not be as competent as some of the members of this group or other members of the house to judge a prime cut. However, I know something about fruit because I have packed a good many thousand boxes of apples in my lifetime. Over a period of two or three years I packed apples for 10 cents a box, net return, and nearly starved to death.
Agricultural Products
I want to bring to the attention of the minister the argument that while it is quite all right to enforce national standards on the farmer, under which he must produce apples to a certain standard and grade, poultry to a standard and grade and eggs to a standard and grade, in fairness that requirement must be carried through and the government must see that wholesalers and retailers market these products according to the grades marked by the producer. I have visited stores in Calgary, in Winnipeg and in Ottawa, and repeatedly I have found apples in retailers' windows raised above the grade which the farmer received when he sold them to the packing house in question or to the farm organization. I think there must be stricter enforcement of the act, not only so far as the farmer is concerned-for on the whole he produces the material according to the standard required-but in the distribution of the farmer's product grades are often changed.
I mentioned that I think the farmers are entitled to more protection with respect to commodities they buy from other producers and manufacturers. What protection has the farmer in this country when he is buying fencing wire? I think it is only as the result of some excellent work on the part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that there has been some improvement in the tensile strength of fencing wire in recent years. What protection has he when he buys roofing? You can get five or six different prices for certain types of roofing, and I have heard from people in the national research council, who understand these things, that you are paying different prices for much the same thing. What about paints? Paints are one of the biggest rackets we have in this country, and the price range is very great. You are not certain when you pay the higher price that you are getting a quality that much better.
I believe these are things that need investigation. The government should apply the same standards, the same enforcement, to the things the farmers buy. I particularly want to mention mill feeds. I was at a farmers' meeting just prior to coming to Ottawa and was shown some samples from a sack of mill feed, crushed oats as a matter of fact, from some milling company on the prairie. It was a positive disgrace. The sample was full of wild oats and other weeds, and was far below standard. I believe there is a great deal more that has to be done in this regard, and action should not be taken merely with respect to those commodities the farmers produce.

Agricultural Products
As I said before, I believe the bill is necessary, and it tidies up the legislation. When the minister replies I should like him to inform the house whether the farmers' organizations were consulted about this legislation. Have they been asked for any suggestions or recommendations? This is a very important piece of legislation so far as the marketing of farm products is concerned. I feel the major agricultural organizations should have been informed of the government's intention and asked for any suggestions or advice they wished to offer.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again say that the legislation seems to be sound and necessary, but I do hope the government enforces similar national standards on the products the farmers and other consumers have to buy.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


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


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I should make a few remarks in reply to what has been said by different hon. members. There was some discussion on third reading of the meat products bill which really relates to this bill, and probably I should make a remark or two with regard to that.
The meat inspection bill, which had its third reading a little while ago, does not provide for the employment of any immediate additional staff to those we have now and no change from the present act as to the future. The staff provided for in present legislation will take care of our activities in connection with both these measures. Then there was a suggestion the other evening which left the impression that the meat inspection act might have been dealing with some of the matters with which the bill now before us deals. The meat inspection act does not cover grading. The meat inspection act deals only with health inspection and sanitation, and therefore does not provide for grading in the sense this bill does. I just wanted to make those remarks as they may have some bearing on the discussion that may take place in committee.
The purpose of the new bill is to provide acceptable uniform authorities for establishing grade standards, and to perform the grading and inspection of all agricultural products previously covered by five separate acts administered by the Department of Agriculture. The new general bill is patterned after the Canada Dairy Products Act, enacted in 1951, which has proven satisfactory for dairy products. It provides authority for establishing substantially the same regulations
[Mr. Herridee.)

as now exist, but is considered to have the purposes and intentions more clearly defined and restricted to the established and accepted field of federal jurisdiction specifically related to the grading and quality standards of our agricultural products.
In dealing with the other bill the other day I believe I said some question has been raised in the courts as to whether some of these measures are intra vires. That was one of the reasons it was thought wise to introduce this bill now. The bill will provide, as in the past, for the actual grading of certain products by federal graders, and for others the application of established grades and standards by the trade with subsequent checking of the applied standards by federal inspectors, and detention until they are made to comply with the official standards. The provisions of the bill will apply where the products enter into interprovincial or export trade, or where as the result of legislation on the part of the provinces or action on the part of the individual the product bears a grade name established pursuant to this act.
The grading of a product moving intra-provincially will, therefore, depend upon action by the provinces. In addition to defining standards and carrying out grade inspection operations the bill provides, as in the past, for a regulatory service with respect to such matters of packaging, marking and shipping products and the operation of grading establishments dealing in products exported from or imported into a province.
These remarks are related to what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), who was suggesting that certain things might be done which were proposed back in 1934. As a matter of fact the marketing act which was drafted as a result of the committee's report in 1934 went to the courts and was declared ultra vires. No effort has been made since then to pass similar legislation.
The reason for that is that the provinces deal with these matters. The questions which were raised a few moments ago concerning the price of meat in Toronto and the price of meat in Winnipeg, as between retailer and consumer, are matters which should be dealt with provincially. If we attempted to put in this particular legislation anything relating to that matter it would be declared ultra vires, just as the other legislation was. In other words only a small percentage of the meat products produced in a province are consumed outside of that province. Most of the meat products that are produced in a province are consumed in that province.

This is largely true of the older and more industrialized provinces, such as Ontario and Quebec. They consume more of practically all these farm products than they produce, but that does not mean there is no trade as between the provinces in these products.
Perhaps the greatest exporters of surplus meat products are the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They do produce large quantities of meat, some of which goes to Ontario and some to British Columbia. Much of the Alberta meat goes to British Columbia, and some of it goes down along the western coast. On the other hand, much of what is produced in Saskatchewan finds its way to Winnipeg, and some of it finds its way to Toronto and Montreal. In so far as these products are concerned, of course, we have something to say about them. In so far as practically all the meat products produced in Ontario are concerned, which are not shipped to the United States or not shipped to Montreal to be consumed there, they are consumed within Ontario.
I should like to say a word in reply to the hon. member for Moose Mountain by stating that there are only two provinces in Canada that have paid very much attention to the matter of marketing boards. One of them is British Columbia, where they have a very complete system of control over the marketing of their fruit and other products. Then in Ontario there are 18 different boards handling 18 different farm products, one of which is hogs. But so far as I know we have no boards in the province from which my hon. friend comes, and they keep suggesting that we ought to have a federal department do their work.
Well, the experience has been that it is difficult to have a federal board to do the work which it has been suggested should be done. Any attempts that have been made to do it have resulted in difficulty for those passing the legislation. But amendments are being asked by Ontario, which has set up many of these boards, and legislation is being asked by some who are active in British Columbia. Also legislation is being asked by some of the other provinces which we propose to bring down, and which will amend the legislation which does have some control over the relationship between the selling of the product within the province and the selling of it under similar terms outside the province.
Just to answer the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), it is our intention to bring some legislation before the house along the lines of the representations which have been made. Representations have been made by farm organizations and also by representatives of the governments I have mentioned. They have
Agricultural Products
come here asking for legislation, and legislation is under consideration to make it possible for the legislation they have in the province to be more effective than it could be without the amendments. I have suggested on a number of occasions to those in my own province and to those in other provinces similarly situated, that the method being followed in Ontario and British Columbia, and to a limited extent in some of the other provinces, could be used more extensively in the provinces where very little use has been made of it.
That is the question which has been investigated by a committee set up in Saskatchewan and, in a little different form, by a committee set up recently in Manitoba to examine into the possibility of operating boards controlled by the farmers themselves in order to market these products. But when we come to deal with a product produced in Ontario and placed on the market in Toronto, where it is sold to someone living in that city; when we are asked to do something about it here-well, I am afraid the experience and judgment of the past have indicated that this can be done only by the people of Ontario through their own legislature. They have very effective ways of dealing with it and, I must say, in some directions have done more in an effort to grapple with the problem than has been done in some other provinces. This bill is intended only to deal with exports either from one province to another or from this country to some other country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
John Alpheus Charlton: I note that in the interpretation clause "agricultural product" is interpreted as-
-livestock (including fur-bearing animals raised in captivity)-
My understanding is that this deals with the grading of the agricultural products discussed on another bill which, as the minister said, had to do with health. This refers to the grading of all meat and other products, does it? I understand it refers to all agricultural products?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, all agricultural products.


John Alpheus Charlton: And live fur-bearing animals; is that true?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, live fur-bearing animals.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, on clause 1, the Minister of Agriculture said most of the livestock products produced in the various provinces were consumed in those provinces. Would he put on record the livestock products produced and

Agricultural Products consumed in each province? I cannot agree with what he has said so far as its application to Saskatchewan is concerned. Over the years we export great numbers of our hogs and beef cattle. I suggest the minister should assist the committee by putting on record the amount of livestock that has been exported from and not consumed in each province in the last five or ten years.
I might say that in Saskatchewan our position is somewhat different from that of the other provinces. It is true that most of the livestock products produced in Ontario are consumed here. Saskatchewan, however, is not in that position, because some of our agricultural products go into interprovincial and export trade. The amount is not so great now because we are not producing so many hogs. However, if my memory is correct in 1944 we produced 6 million pounds for the export trade.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I shall have all these figures when my estimates are before the committee. Naturally I do not have them with me at the moment, but I can say that before coming into the house this afternoon I was looking at some of the figures, in preparation for my estimates, and I believe the total for right across Canada indicates that about 10 per cent of our production enters into export trade, while the remainder is consumed in Canada.
However, that does not answer the question the hon. member has raised as to what is consumed in the province of Saskatchewan and what is exported to some other province or country.


Edward George McCullough: It does not answer my question, or answer-


James Garfield Gardiner: I was not attempting to answer the question. I had asked permission to answer it when my estimates for the livestock branch are before the committee.


Edward George McCullough: It is
possible that in Saskatchewan we could look after the marketing of our livestock products if they were all utilized within the province. However, when we enter into interprovincial and international trade it is a different problem. I do not believe the approach to the problem of the assembling and marketing of our livestock products can be accomplished purely under provincial law. I think the federal government has to take some responsibility, just as it is taking responsibility in the matter of food grading standards. The livestock producers are entitled to a national setup of this kind, as was advocated by the royal commission in 1934. This would be a national livestock board, which would facilitate the
[Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain) .1

assembling and grading and control, the whole process of marketing of our livestock products.


Mr. Fulton:: Would the minister say a word at this stage regarding arrangements now in existence between the dominion and the province where the province does have grading regulations? I am thinking, for instance, of British Columbia. What arrangements are in existence there to ensure that when a livestock product is brought into the province -and it must be realized that the provincial government has no control over its being brought in; they cannot keep it out-whatever grades or standards are laid down shall comply with the provincial grades or standards?
The other question relating to that matter is this. My understanding is that a conference was recently held in Vancouver between provincial and dominion livestock grading and inspection authorities. I have not been able to find any report of the outcome of that conference. Will the minister confirm that I am correct in understanding that there was such a conference, and tell us what was the result?


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume what my hon. friend has reference to in the way of a conference is the discussion that took place there earlier in the year with regard to some misunderstandings that existed in connection with the marketing of some products; but I do not know that there was any definite report made in regard to it other than the report that went out in the press at the time the meeting was held.
With respect to the matter of grading standards established under this act, the grading of course is done in the plants and elsewhere at the time the product is being prepared for shipment. If it goes into export, of course, the grading must be done by inspectors whom we have appointed. It will not be accepted elsewhere unless it has a certificate indicating that it is of a certain grade and quality. This all carries through, as I understand it, until it gets to its destination. Saskatchewan, for instance, sells hogs of a certain grade, or they sell other products on grade, believing that the grade is established under this inspection. When they arrive at their destination they are paid for on that basis, but I am not sure that we have very much control after that. The product then becomes the property of someone who lives in that province, and it is sold from there on under the laws of the province, as I understand it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the basis upon which I asked my first question. When it gets into

that province to be sold there, does it conform to the provincial grading standards, if any are laid down? There are such standards in my own province and, as the minister pointed out, in Ontario also. It was with that background, and with the information I had that there was a discussion between the dominion and provincial authorities in British Columbia within the last six months or year, that I asked what information and what results have followed from that conference, because it is obviously important that meat or livestock products brought into British Columbia from outside be required to comply with the dominion grading regulations before they are exported from Saskatchewan.
It is important that these grading standards should conform closely to the grading standards and regulations of the province of British Columbia where the product is to be sold; otherwise the whole situation would become extremely confused. If a dealer in British Columbia bought a certain federal grade in Saskatchewan, and when the product arrived that grade became meaningless because the grading regulations of the province of British Columbia required some other standards, then it is obvious that there would necessarily be a conflict. I understand that the conference or meeting to which I referred was called to discuss ways and means of ensuring that the two sets of grading regulations and the enforcement of those regulations would always be in conformity. I am wondering whether the minister can tell us if there was any positive step taken as a result of that conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: That of course has been a matter of discussion for many years. It was under discussion long before I came here, and it has been under discussion now for 20 years since I have been here. The solution was found before I had anything to do with it, or before many of the members of this house had much to do with it. The statements I was making a few moments ago were based upon my knowledge of the legal position, and my knowledge may not be as good as that of the hon. member who has just spoken in regard to that side of it. But in order to get the results which he and others desire, the arrangement was made a long time ago that if there is to be a standard at all across Canada, it must be a standard set up by the federal government.
For many years there was some dispute as to whether the standards set up for dairy products were to apply everywhere. My memory of it is that the last province which came under the arrangement was Manitoba. They were consuming practically all of their butter in Winnipeg and other places of that
Agricultural Products
kind, and they did not wish to conform to the federal standard. Eventually they did so, and when that happened they did just what others had been doing in a broad sense all across Canada for some years. They accepted the standards which had been set up here as the proper standards.
We appointed inspectors to establish those grades for butter, as we had for all other products that were going to be traded inter-provincially or internationally. Then the provincial inspectors inspected the product that was to be sold within the province itself. But to just leave it that way you would have to know all the time what product was to go into interprovincial trade and what was to be sold within the province. In order to overcome the impossibility of knowing that, when an inspector is inspecting a product that eventually goes out of the province, he is a federal inspector. Whenever one of our inspectors inspects a product which is sold within the province, he is acting as a provincial inspector.
That arrangement, which was entered into years ago, has been carried out consistently over the years, in order to make it legally possible to have all the products so inspected that are to be sold either internally or shipped out and sold outside. The legal position, though, is that which I stated a few moments ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the arrangement with respect to dairy products. Does it also apply to meat products?


James Garfield Gardiner: It applies to everything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In effect, it is the standard or grade laid down in Ottawa by the regulations under this act, and it becomes the grade for the whole of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are established within a province so long as the province agrees to it. The grade is established and is the same all across Canada. I think practically all the provinces have agreed to it with most products. There may be individual cases where they have not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We passed a statute here called the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, for instance, under which the dominion government delegated to any province setting up a competent authority, and wishing to exercise what would otherwise be a federal jurisdiction, control over the marketing of the agricultural products concerned. What I want to know is whether any discussions have been held with the provinces with respect to a similar situation regarding the control of grading, so that eventually we might have
4228	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products
a really legally enforceable and ironclad system of grading across the whole country on the same basis as meat inspection.


James Garfield Gardiner: Did the hon. member say grain?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Grading.


James Garfield Gardiner: Grading of grain?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, grading of meats or other agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is of course the system I have just mentioned. What we have are nationally established standards for all these products. The intention of this bill is that where some things were being attempted which were not within our authority, those things are removed from the bill. Where there is any necessity of doing something further in order to make certain that there are standards right across the country, that is done. We are always keeping in mind the fact that we have certain authority, while the provinces have other authority.


Mr. Castleden:: I have another question along the same lines. I was just going to remark to the minister that one of the things the producer finds it difficult to understand is that when he sells a C grade hog he gets a price considerably below that for an A grade hog, but when he goes into a butcher shop to buy pork he finds that there is no grading. Will this legislation make it possible for the consumer to go into a butcher shop-or into a grocery shop when he is buying cheese or fruit-and know the grade of the animal from which a particular cut is obtained?
When an animal is being processed in the slaughterhouse the government grader marks it A, B or C, as the case may be. Will this legislation make it possible for the consumer to identify the grade on which the farmer has been paid for the animal, or will there be no change in the present set-up? At the present time it is impossible for a consumer to know this except perhaps in the case of high-grade beef, where you will find it marked red brand or blue brand.


James Garfield Gardiner: While my hon. friend was speaking I was watching the expression on the face of probably the one man in the house who knows the answers. He sits across the floor, and has spoken already on two occasions when these matters were up for discussion. He has indicated that in most butcher shops or most places where meat is * sold what my friend is suggesting is done in a very big way is not so done. As a matter of fact most housewives know just about as much about meat as the individual who is selling it.


George Hugh Castleden: Oh, no.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says, "Oh, no". Apparently his wife is not like mine. These women can go into these shops and pick up a cut of meat, and they know whether it is top quality, even if the grade is not marked on it. I remember going through the Smith-field market over in Britain with a gentleman who was showing me just how good the meat was. He would take a poke at it with his thumb as he went by and say, "Look at that." He could tell by the action of the meat whether it was good.
I am simply suggesting that people who are going in and buying meat every day are not necessarily being taken in. I do not think that happens in so many cases as is suggested. I believe one can usually find out what he is buying. I sometimes buy meat, and when I tell the butcher what I want, if he has not the particular grade I ask for he will tell me. You can get the best meat if you know what it is when you are buying it.
As a matter of fact I was up in London just two weeks ago and bought a cut of meat marked with the grade. There was some question in my mind as to whether it was as good as it looked, but when we took it home and cooked it, it was just as good as the butcher said. I do not know of anything either the federal or provincial government could do that would safeguard everyone who walks into a butcher shop and buys just what he sees. In any event, much of that would require to be dealt with provinciully.


George Hugh Castleden: X am sure we have all enjoyed the minister's trips to butcher shops around the world, but I still submit that it is not possible to tell when you are purchasing pork or some kinds of beef whether you are getting A or B grade.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is possible for me to tell whether it is good; speak for yourself.


George Hugh Castleden: I am speaking for a large number of people who find when they go into a butcher shop to buy meat that they cannot tell whether it is A or B grade. There is nothing to indicate that. Of course the top grades of beef are marked red brand and blue brand, but I maintain that there is a wide discrepancy between the grades as they are established and the meat that is finally sold to the consumer. I submit that is the sort of thing that could be prevented by effective legislation.
We all know that years ago certain countries marked their beef and pork grades, their hams and so on, and I am asking the minister whether under this legislation it will be possible to government grade products

of this type so the consumer will know what he is buying. These grades would be known across the country as indicating top grades of meat. They would be known to the producer and to the consumer. The producer would know that when he got into a particular grade he would be paid for it, and the consumer would know what he was buying when he bought a particular grade.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is done now.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it done with all meats?


James Garfield Gardiner: You have red brand and blue brand beef, and the top grades of pork are marked. You can find the marks if you look for them.


George Hugh Castleden: How about the other grades right down the line? I support this legislation because I believe it is a good thing. I believe it will help the provincial legislation by setting up standards known right across Canada. But what we are anxious about is that these grades be understood, that the consumer should know what he is getting, and that the price he is paying is reflected in the price paid to the farmer.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the discussion but I do have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. member for Yorkton has said. Like the minister, I also buy meat and I know the difference between the various cuts and grades. But there is one meat which I think is being palmed off on the public as something which it is not, and I refer to lamb. Lamb is not marked as lamb. I know I have gone into a butcher shop and asked for a light leg of lamb and been told that all they had was a half leg of lamb. I could tell from its colour that it was not lamb, that it was light mutton.
I think what the hon. member for Yorkton has said is quite true, that many people buying meat cannot tell the difference between one grade and another, or whether it is lamb or mutton. If lamb is passed by the inspector at the abattoir it should be stamped as being lamb, because that is one meat which is sold extensively in this country as lamb when many times it is not.
I think that is one reason many people say they do not like lamb, which in my opinion is one of the best meats. I am personally very fond of it, and I do know that people often buy what they think is lamb but when they get home it is actually mutton. As the minister knows, it is quite a different colour from lamb. The marking of lamb is the point I wished to raise.


Mr. Yuill:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to say anything today on this bill, but there
Agricultural Products
seems to be a great deal of confusion here. I believe I happen to be qualified to offer a comment or two.
With regard to hogs, there was a question in the mind of my hon. friend as to why the producer did not get the same retail value out of a C hog as out of a select hog. The loin of pork is the basic ingredient in a hog. The reason that hog is a C hog in the first place is the excessive fat. By the time I buy it, as a retail butcher, the packing plant has trimmed that loin down and taken off that excessive fat. Consequently when it gets into my shop there is no man in this house or in this city who can tell the grade that hog had been when it went into the packing plant.


An hon. Member:: The minister can tell.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to explain that further; as my hon. friend said, I emphasize the point that the only reason it was graded C was the excessive fat, but the excessive fat was trimmed off.


Charles Yuill: The quality is identical. There are many other things that enter into this question. There seems to be a general opinion that if you market a red brand you get paid for a commercial. I do not think that is true. Some of these producers must learn that if you market an inferior quality, you get a comparable grade. If they would place more emphasis on the production of high quality animals then their troubles would disappear.
I have handled a good many tons of meat, and I have seen grades in all provinces. I keep my weather eye open. The blue beef is the same in Ontario as in any other province. The same applies to the red brand. In many cases, from the point of view of eating quality, commercial is just as good as blue or red. It has not been properly finished and you do not get quite so much fat, but if you get a commercial or a blue or red, with the exception of the excess fat I doubt if you could notice any difference in the eating quality.


An hon. Member:: But the farmer would get a different price.


Charles Yuill: You get a price according to what you sell. If you sell a commercial grade you get paid accordingly. You cannot market a commercial grade and be paid a red brand price. I quarrel with the discrepancies that sometimes prevail between what the packers pay for meat and what we as dealers pay for it. There is room for argument there, but not in this ease. Once beef is graded, whether it be red, blue or commercial, I'll bet my bottom dollar that grade will stand the test across the board in every province in the Dominion of Canada. Those are things we
4230	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products
have to be fair enough to realize. For instance, if you come into my store and I try to sell you a commercial grade by telling you it is red brand; I am just deliberately lying. There is no retail merchant who does not know the difference. If they resort to skulduggery and try to flim-flam the public, one dose of that should be enough for anybody. I do not believe they do that as a general practice. I have seen in many big stores and in my own store, people who want the red brand because they enjoy the excess fat, but I have seen other people who do not want that. If I offer them red brand they complain because of the excess fat. So I have to have in my own shop two grades in order to satisfy the wishes of the customers.
I will agree that this is a common practice. I have seen it here in Ottawa, and I have seen it out in the west, so I suppose it is common across the board to find a certain amount of misrepresentation over the counter so far as the true grade of the beef is concerned. But I think that is beside the point. That is something that could be dealt with apart from grading. It does not necessarily mean that the grade has been tampered with. If the animal is bought as a commercial and cut up and sold as a red brand over the counter, it is not the fault of the initial grading. I believe the grades are honest, and I believe they are uniform.
I would ask those who can do something about it to have a look at these practices whereby commercial is offered under the guise of blue or red brand. I have seen that happen so far as pork is concerned. I have seen it happen with heavy loins that came from No. 1 sows and heavy hogs. Of course we as retailers have to pay the same price. But that is getting into a different grade again. True enough these indiscretions do occur, but you differentiate between a C and a select hog to ensure that you get a square deal over the counter. As I said, the excess fat is trimmed off and that brings it down to the same basis of quality, whether it is a C or a select hog.
As far as lamb is concerned, you have the same grades there. You have lambs and yearling lambs, as they are sometimes called, and you have mutton. If you go into a butcher shop and they try to sell you a half leg of mutton at the level of lamb, that is not the fault of the grades. The grade in the first place was honest. If somebody tries to introduce a little skulduggery over the counter, that is not the fault of the initial grading. People who are getting an unfair deal should look around for a dependable butcher. Government grading has nothing to do with it. Government grading is not the culprit at all
[Mr. Yuill.J

in this case. If they get commercial beef and wrap it up and put it on the counter under the guise of red beef, it is not the fault of the original grader; it is the fault of the man who is selling it to you over the counter.
The sooner we realize what is involved there the better, instead of jumping to conclusions and feeling sorry for ourselves if we market commercial and expect to get red beef grade. The producer must realize that he must first of all get a higher standard of animal, and then see to it that he finishes it properly before he puts it on the market. Then he will have no worries.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I believe these matters under discussion are dealt with in sections 12 and 13. If we can get on and pass a few sections we will reach a point where we can talk about them. The general discussion was on second reading. We have allowed considerable leeway in discussing this section, and I think we ought to get along.


John Alpheus Charlton: As the discussion has gone so far, perhaps some of it should be answered. The minister says he can tell any grade of meat he buys when he goes into a store.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for
Jasper-Edson told you that by the time the fat was trimmed off they were both the same.


John Alpheus Charlton: I greatly regret that statement being made in the house, that a C grade hog is just as good as an A grade hog. It is not. I do not care whether the hon. member for Jasper-Edson says that is so. Because the fat is trimmed off, and it looks as good, it does not make a C grade hog into an A grade hog. The minister will certainly admit that. Certainly our grading regulations are wrong if that is so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us discuss that point. One of the reasons you have a C hog today is that there is fat on it, and the fat is cheap. That is the main reason. There have been times since I have been here when lard was expensive and when, if you left too much fat on the cut, it made it more expensive, not less so. But at the present time fat is cheap. Lard is cheap. If you put too much fat on a cut of meat, then of course you cheapen it. Then when someone buys it and cuts some of the fat off, it is not as cheap as it was before. In spite of what my hon. friend says, some people think you cannot have good meat unless you have quite a bit of fat on it. They like it that way.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is perfectly true. I have seen many steers marketed that had too much fat on them to draw the top price.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Because there is too much fat. As the hon. member for Jasper-Edson says, for commercial purposes it may be just as good in some circumstances, but that is what we are arguing. The producer is docked on a low grade, while in many cases the consumer pays the same price for that low grade as he does for the top grade. That is what we are arguing about.


James Garfield Gardiner: With the fat trimmed off he will not.


John Alpheus Charlton: We should like to see these grades follow all the way through to the consumer so that the consumer can get the advantage in proportion to the money the producer is paid. When the minister says he can tell all the different grades of meat in the store, I would suggest that in a chain store he cannot go around poking his fingers into it like the man did in England. Quite often there is no one in a chain store to ask. You must go by appearance, because there is no one to answer your questions. You pick up a package of meat there, put it in your basket and pay for it. Is the meat all marked whether it is red or blue brand? Of course it is not.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would either be marked or it would be good when I took it home, or I would not go back to the store. Not many of the chain stores are doing that kind of thing.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is perfectly true. But all the consumers are probably not as smart as is the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, they are.


John Alpheus Charlton: Evidently they are not, because the minister says he can tell all the good meat from the bad. I admit quite freely that I have been fooled many times on the quality of meat. I should like to see the minister tell the difference between a ridgling pig, for instance, and one that has been treated properly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can tell when he is alive.


John Alpheus Charlton: I doubt that very much. You might not even be able to tell after he is killed. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned, what about the difference between lamb and mutton, or a light sow and a grade C? Could you tell the difference? No, of course not, in many cases. I should like to ask the minister this question. Are all agricultural products brought under this bill? According to the definition we find this:
(a) "agricultural product" means livestock (including fur-bearing animals raised in captivity),
Agricultural Products
eggs, poultry, milk, vegetables, fruit, honey and maple syrup, and products thereof:


The Chairman:: Order. That brings up the point of order which was previously raised by the Minister of Agriculture. As hon. members know, on clause 1 we usually allow a general discussion. Do I take it that clause
1	is carried and that we are now discussing the particular sections? The hon. member is now referring to clause 2.


John Alpheus Charlton: I asked a question on clause
2	before.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but I could not answer it.


Charles Yuill: I want to tell the hon. gentleman this. If he is a farmer-and I presume he is-he knows that if you market a C hog or an A hog, they are the same age and they are the same weight, generally speaking.


John Alpheus Charlton: They might be.


Charles Yuill: The reason one is C and the other is A is that one has excessive fat. When that fat is trimmed off and the meat is put on the market, just let him tell me how he or anybody else can tell the difference.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not say I could tell the difference.


Charles Yuill: Nobody can tell the difference. I have put in more years in the meat business than I care to think about. I have cut tons and hundreds of tons of meat. I know what I am talking about. There are things that are wrong about our marketing practices. I know that. But there is one thing I know is true, and you know it too; or if you do not know it, you should. There are good and sufficient reasons for grades. If the animal measures up to A grade, you get A grade. If it is a C grade, in the case of hogs it is because of excessive fat, not because of age or because of size. It must come under a certain weight before it qualifies even for that. If it gets beyond that, it is a heavy. But you need have no worry in the world if you buy C grade pork loins that are trimmed in the orthodox way. I will bet my bottom dollar that you will never be able to tell the difference. I could put it in there and you could not tell the difference.
In this business Social Credit might be able to tell you a few things that would be good for you. We believe in justice and truth and in telling what is what. We do not try to misrepresent anything. There has been a good deal of skulduggery here in trying to misrepresent things, and in trying to read into matters mentioned here things that do not belong. I do not think that is our

Agricultural Products
function at all. We are here to deal honestly with these things. That is what I am trying to do. I can give you, if you want to accept it, the value of my years of experience. I know the grades. If I have the privilege of operating on a carcass of beef here I could give you a bit of a lesson. If I had a hog here I could show you a few things, and give you a little sense of perspective.


An hon. Member:: Maybe you had better bring one in.


Charles Yuill: I think basically we cannot beat political drums on this thing. We are here to deal honestly with the situation. If you have a grade, it is established across the board. These other things that enter into the picture off the record have no point whatsoever with regard to condemnation of the grades as they exist today.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Bryce:: I do not know whether or not I should get into this discussion. On one side of me I have a butcher with 40 years' experience. Across from me is a man who has been the Minister of Agriculture for 20 years or more, and to my right there is a veterinarian. If they do not know good beef I do not know whether a dirt farmer should get into this argument.
However, I am going to tell you one thing. Nobody talks about B grade. That is where the producer gets trimmed. I know my hon. friend will tell me there is no difference between an A grade and B-l grade. He knows the only difference is a pound of pork and you cannot see where it is, whether it is for the producer or against the producer. That is something the minister could straighten out.
As for the man who produces a B hog according to the grades that have been set up, he can be trimmed to the extent of about $3.50 on that one pound of pork. I have explained the matter to the minister. The minister knows it himself. There is no use of arguing any more about it. He knows it is a grievance the farmer has. It is something that should be made right. It is too much to take $3.50 off a man for one pound of pork, because his pig is a pound too heavy.
When I was saying something about turkeys the other day I was ruled out of order, but the minister said the matter would be included in this bill. I shall talk about my own province. I understand that it would be only the turkeys that would leave Manitoba and go to Ontario that would be subject to grading and that the turkeys-the 80 or 90 per cent of them-that we consume in

Manitoba would not be subject to grading or if they were subject to grading it would not be necessary for them to be sold according to grade. That is the way I read it. Then the fur-bearing animals are mentioned. Does this mean that now the people who raise mink will have the furs graded before they are sent to the New York market?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mention is made of furbearing animals raised in captivity, but you are now going on to clause 2.


William Scottie Bryce: I might as well finish it while I am on my feet. What fur-bearing animals does the government mean to grade now? They grade them already in Winnipeg.


James Garfield Gardiner: This act does not change what we have been doing. It just provides a little different means of continuing to do it. This is a consolidation of five measures into one.


William Scottie Bryce: You are only stating the grade. The hon. member to my right says you do not grade them now. I understand the pelts were graded before they went to the New York market, but do I understand there will be no government graders?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there will be government graders.


Mr. Trainer:: With regard to the fur-bearing animals, I should like the minister to tell the committee how he proposes to carry out this grading. Does he propose to grade them according to the fur quality, or does he propose to take into consideration such things as breeding and blood lines, which are far more important to the producer than the individual fur quality? So far as the grading of pelts is concerned, I never knew there was such a thing as government grading. At the fur auctions the pelts are graded, but of course they are graded by the fur auctioneers themselves without any government intervention. If I am wrong I wish the minister would put me right on that. I have had some experience in this connection, and happen to know something about it.


William Alfred Robinson: Surely that is a particular question which must be answered under clause 2 of the bill. May I take it now that the general discussion is ended and we are ready to carry clause 1?


Edward George McCullough: No,


Mr.   Chairman@: I do not intend to allow the first clause to be carried without challenging something that was said by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. I was most amazed at what he had to say. This is not the first occasion when he has mentioned in the house his long experience in the

retail trade, and I do not quarrel with him about it. I think perhaps he is an expert in that business. However, he did use some-phrases such as "of! the record" and "skulduggery" and other words in connection with the retail trade.
I, for one, want to ask him how he can argue that the grades are satisfactory'- he seems to start with the idea that they are satisfactory-and at the same time admit quite frankly that when a grade C and a grade A hog are trimmed there is no way of determining which is which. From the farmers' point of view, if the hog is one pound over weight it represents a $3 or $3.50 loss to the farmer.


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on where you start to count the pounds.


Edward George McCullough: What we in this group are trying to do is have the government assure us that the grade for which the farmer is paid by the livestock trade, or the packer to whom he delivers the animal, will be continued right through to the consumer. We are not satisfied that this bill is going to do that. The minister tells us he has been over in Britain and has seen the health inspector poke his finger into different cuts of beef to determine whether or not it is choice beef. If that is done by the health people, he might as well call in one of the other inspectors to determine whether or not the meat is fit for human consumption.
I want to say this. There are thousands of young couples getting married who do not know the difference between choice beef and commercial grades. There are thousands of men who go to the market to buy beef for their families who are not experts at identifying the different grades. If we are going to have producers forced to follow some type of national grading, then those producers have a right to the assurance that the grade for which they are paid by the packer will be carried through to the consumer.
Again in answer to the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, I might say that now there is no assurance to the producer that the cattle he sends to the livestock yard and that are graded commercial will not be sold as red brand beef. There should be no reflection on us for trying to get confirmation from the minister that these grades will be carried right through to the consumer. I want to say to the hon. member that the farmers are concerned. They are willing to take the price for the grade they send to the market, and it may be commercial grade, but at the same time they want to be sure that grade is carried through to the consumer.
Agricultural Products


Charles Yuill: I did not intend to stir up a hornets' nest like this. I still think I am right. I contend that misrepresentation in any particular butcher shop has no relationship to the established grade of that particular commodity. So far as the penalty for an overweight hog is concerned, I regret it just as much as anyone. However, of necessity there must be a deadline or a target weight established for any particular class. It may be too light, but if you raise it five pounds you will have the same problem. Someone will have a hog that is six pounds over the former weight limit. No matter what you do you run into that type of problem. I do not know who is to blame for it, but I imagine it is the producer. If I were a producer of hogs and I got caught with a loss of $3.50 per head because the hogs were one pound heavy, I believe I would smarten up and market them a little bit lighter. That is the way I would do it.
I may be wrong, but I do not believe the hon. member was fair in his comparison between the grade C and first grade hog. When the excess fat is removed the eating quality of the two animals is the same. There is, however, a shrinkage value of the hog, depending upon the price of hogs. I know that, and he should know it.


Edward George McCullough: But the
farmer gets $3 less for a hog when there is only one pound overweight.


Charles Yuill: That is true, and I am just as unhappy over that as you are. These hogs must be below a certain weight in order to qualify for the premium. You have to draw the line somewhere. It may be too low, but I would hazard a guess that if you raised the weight five pounds, inside of a week you would have the same condition prevailing. The farmers would produce hogs six pounds beyond the former weight limit, and they would be unhappy about it.


Edward George McCullough: The
retailer can get that $3.50 when he retails the hogs.


Charles Yuill: No, you are absolutely wrong. If I buy that as a dressed hog and have to trim off the excess fat, render it down and sell it as lard for 15 cents a pound when a loin of pork is selling at 50 or 60 cents a pound, who absorbs the loss? Is it the farmer? You have to be sensible, that is all. These things have no relationship, as I said before. There is no relationship between the true grade and what it is represented to you as over the counter. If you go into the city of Edmonton, for instance-I do not know

Agricultural Products what conditions prevail in Saskatchewan- you can go into the large stores like Eaton's or Hudson's Bay. You will find commercial beef there at a price considerably below that of the blue or red beef. The grades are put in their proper places, and they are priced properly. If one is looking for red beef he will find it at one counter and he will pay a certain price for it, but if he is looking for a bargain he will get the commercial beef at a considerably reduced price.
What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it. That is the way you find it in my business. But, in common with others, perhaps because of an indifference concerning trade practices, I find that retail merchants will sell the commercial beef and charge for the red, if one is gullible enough to take it. But that has nothing to do with the grading in the first instance. That is just the human element coming into it, and it has no relationship to proper grading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to ask the minister one question in an effort to clear up one of the greater mysteries confronting the housewives of Canada. It would seem that about 95 per cent of all Canadian sheep die before they become mutton. Could the minister tell the committee when a lamb graduates to the mutton class? When does the lamb become a sheep? At what age does this take place?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I cannot tell you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is fair to say that 95 per cent of the sheep in Canada are sold as lamb. I would like to be able to inform the women who have asked me when a lamb becomes a sheep.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
John Alpheus Charlton: I note that clause 2 (a) refers to "agricultural product", defining it in this way-
-livestock (including fur-bearing animals raised in captivity), eggs, poultry, milk, vegetables, fruit, honey and maple syrup, and products thereof;
My understanding is that this would mean any product that contained any part of any of these commodities; for instance, any product that contained a portion of meat or that contained any fruit, or that contained any vegetable. Is that what it means? Then it says, "and products thereof". I was thinking of margarine; would it come under this provision? It is partly a livestock product, partly a vegetable product or partly a grain product.


James Garfield Gardiner: Margarine is not mentioned here.


John Alpheus Charlton: I know it is not.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not every product that goes on the market comes under this bill; it is only those products that are graded, and properly graded. As the hon. member reads the bill he will find in it penalties for attempting to sell something with a marking not legally placed thereon. There is far more meat, and everything else mentioned in the bill, that never gets near a grader than is actually graded. For example, one hon. member who has been doing some talking has, in common with myself, bought beef from the same butcher shop for six years. There was very little meat handled in that butcher shop that ever got past a grader. They bought it from the farms around the area, slaughtered it and sold it.
This happens all across Canada. None of that meat comes under this bill, nor do other products in a similar position. It is what goes into a plant or an establishment as defined in the bill. The inspector is there and does the grading. It is marked and it goes out. If anyone attempts to dispose of it under some other marking he gets into trouble.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then would those commodities entering into interprovincial and export trade come under this bill, or would they come under the Food and Drugs Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Matters having to do with
health would come under that act.


John Alpheus Charlton: There are products which
contain portions of the commodities mentioned in clause 2 (a); do they come under the measure? Then it says "and products thereof".


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member can find
that out in court some morning when he is there as a witness. I am not going to give an opinion on it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not going to court.
I think the minister should be able to answer the question. For instance, would margarine manufactured in Ontario and sent to Manitoba come under this measure or under the Food and Drugs Act? I note that one can be convicted for misrepresentation. If one were to describe margarine as pasture sweet would that be considered a misrepresentation? Does it come under this measure or under the Food and Drugs Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has just
read the clause, and the English is as clear to him as it is to me. It says that "agricultural products" shall mean-
-livestock (including fur-bearing animals raised in captivity) -

It does not include those running around the bush, not in captivity. Then it says: -eggs, poultry, milk, vegetables, fruit, honey and maple syrup, and products thereof;
Any decision as to whether the products my hon. friend has mentioned would come under this measure would depend entirely upon their composition. But I am not going to decide that question here. As I say it will be decided on evidence presented from time to time.


Owen C. Trainor: Would the minister answer
my question with regard to live fur-bearing animals.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same applies there. It is the fur on the live fur-bearing animals that is graded. Some of them may be graded by federal inspectors.


Owen C. Trainor: How does the minister intend to grade them? On what basis are they to be graded?


James Garfield Gardiner: If they are graded they
come under the act. Even where some things are not done as set out in the act, if an individual agrees to the product being dealt with under the act, then it is dealt with in that way. Outside of that, however, it is in certain defined plants.


Owen C. Trainor: I cannot understand how the minister proposes to grade these animals.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not intend to grade them. Clause 3 states how it shall be done. It says:
The governor in council may make regulations establishing grades with appropriate grade names for any class of agricultural products and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing may, by such regulations-
-do all these things.


Owen C. Trainor: The minister is out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Regulations.
Edward George McCullough: Clause 3 (1) (c) says the governor in council may make regulations to-
-prescribe fees that may be charged for the grading or inspection of agricultural products;
What does this refer to, and who would pay the fees?


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume if a fee is set under the regulations the corporation, individual or plant asking for the inspection would pay whatever fees were set.


George Hugh Castleden: Could this be interpreted as including livestock in any case? My understanding is that there are going to be government grades for choice animals, grades 50433-267i
Agricultural Products
A and B, cutters, canners and so on, and that there are to be inspectors.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here a copy of the regulations respecting hogs. This document is six pages long, and I would not want to start to outline what it says. The same applies to other products.


George Hugh Castleden: Will this establish government grades for live animals?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Live cattle and live hogs will be known and can be sold under government graded names.


James Garfield Gardiner: They could be.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand there are government standards for those animals. Does this provide for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Clause 2 (a) provides that livestock may come under the bill.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, it does. An agricultural product means livestock; it means an animal on the hoof.


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly. If they decide to grade that way. But action has to be taken under the act first.


George Hugh Castleden: I am asking whether the government is going to do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not answer that.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister is not prepared to say that the government is going to establish grades for the live animal, for the animal on the hoof.


Owen C. Trainor: Is the minister prepared to tell us on what basis he intends to grade live fur-bearing animals?


James Garfield Gardiner: I told my hon. friend twice that I did not intend to grade them at all. Under this legislation and under the regulations that may be set up under it, they can be graded. But I am not attempting at the moment to outline what these regulations may be.


Owen C. Trainor: In other words, the minister is saying that the grading is not compulsory. Nobody will be obliged to have his animals graded.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has always been the case. If I go across the road to my neighbour and buy an animal that I am going to kill there is no regulation under this legislation that compels me to go and get it graded, or compels him to have it graded before he sells it to me. If we attempted to do anything of that kind in this house, as I explained before, it would be ultra vires. We could not do it. The same thing is true

Agricultural Products in regard to buying the pelt of a fox, a mink or any other animal. They do not have to be graded. If you want to make sure that you are dealt with in accordance with the regulations which are supposed to protect you and that you want to be brought under, you can carry on.


Owen C. Trainor: The minister is talking now about pelts, which are an entirely different thing from a live fur-bearing animal, and can be graded on the animal.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a part of a live furbearing animal and can be graded on the animal.


Owen C. Trainor: There is nothing in the regulations now which says that you can demand a government certificate when you buy a pelt.


James Garfield Gardiner: It could be put there, you know.


Owen C. Trainor: I do not see the purpose of the legislation in that regard.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister one question with respect to clause 3. From the reading of this clause it would almost appear that the federal authority does not have the power to do what is provided for in this clause, namely, to pass regulations to establish grades with appropriate grade names, and so forth. I raise the question simply for the purpose of asking whether it has been submitted to the law officers of the crown, and whether they, after consideration, determined the federal authority under part II? Did the law officers of the crown say that the federal authority have the power under the British North America Act to pass such regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, the provision is that no person shall:
sell, offer for sale, or have in possession for sale an agricultural product under a grade name established under subsection (1) or under a grade name-
And that is, of course, a grade name established under the authority of this act. The paragraph continues:
-or other designation so closely resembling a grade name so established as to be likely to be mistaken therefor.
This simply says, as I read it, that no one can misrepresent it.


John George Diefenbaker: I just asked the minister, has it been submitted to the law officers, because I cannot understand how the federal authority can have power to do that which the minister said a moment ago it would have under this clause, namely, to pass regulations grading livestock. In clause 2 (a) livestock is


referred to, as I recall the clause to which the minister referred a moment ago. I am asking under what authority the federal parliament is empowered to grade livestock. At the moment I am not dealing with meat, beef products and the like. I am asking, under what authority does this parliament have the right to pass legislation empowering the governor in council to grade livestock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the only answer that I can give at the moment is that I hold in my hand the authority to grade hogs alive, and we have had gradings of hogs alive over a long period of time. We also have it in connection with other livestock, but that does not mean that it is compulsory. If we attempted to make it compulsory, there might be something in what my hon. friend says. We simply say: here is the grade. If somebody attempts to sell under that grading and it has not been graded properly under that grading, he commits an offence.


Edward George McCullough: I just
want to ask a follow-up question to that of the hon. member for Yorkton. Under this legislation does the government intend to establish rail grading for cattle? Does the minister contemplate any changes in the grading of hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the present time we do not contemplate any change in the gradings of hogs. Hogs are graded now on the rail and that provision seems to be pretty satisfactory. We get complaints from two sections of the country but not in anything like the same volume that we had a few years ago. With respect to cattle, so far as I know at the moment they have rail grading in British Columbia and under certain circumstances they have rail grading in the maritimes, but we have no intention of bringing it in.


Edward George McCullough: Would that not be established under a provincial statute?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be done under a provincial act if it is done provincially.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister care to comment on whether it is going to have any effect on feeders bringing cattle from the west to Ontario? Will live cattle have to be graded before they are sold in Ontario as feeder cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: They will come in the same way as they do now. There will be no change.


John Alpheus Charlton: You could, under this
legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: We could, under the act as it is.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I realize that.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not changing the
situation. It is as it was.


John Alpheus Charlton: If nothing of that kind is contemplated, it would be the same as the question the hon. member for Winnipeg South was asking with respect to fur-bearing animals. It will apply in the same way across provincial boundaries.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Argue:: Can the minister say whether under the regulations at the present time there are any standards for grades of live cattle? Under existing legislation, are there any federal standards or are there any standards that are likely to be established under the legislation now before us dealing with live cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: The people who are buying cattle do buy them believing that they will produce red beef or blue beef. A good judge of cattle can tell that when they are alive, and they are paid for on that basis, and a higher price is paid for them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it from the minister's answer that there are no government grade standards for live cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I said at the beginning that there is no possibility legally of this government establishing a standard grade that must apply to the sale of all of anything that is produced in the different provinces. They can make provision that if it goes into export trade, or is traded from one province to another, then it has to be so and so; but that is the grade, that is the standard. To start to try to enforce it in all the provinces with regard to something that an individual is selling direct from the farm into a butcher shop and then is sold to a consumer in the same province, well, that is something that we have nothing to do with.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the point I raised a moment ago. It just cannot be done, and yet under part I the minister is asking for that authority. I can understand regulations being under part I, and if the regulations were under II, which deals with international and interprovincial trade, then I could understand those regulations having the authority of law. But part I deals with standards and under part I as it now stands regulations could be passed by the governor in council providing for the establishment of grades and proper grading in connection with agricultural products, including livestock, fur-bearing animals raised in captivity, poultry and other products which are named.
Agricultural Products
I ask the minister what was the reason for placing these powers under part I instead of under part II where they would be effective. Under part II there is no question whatever. As the minister clearly stated, the law would deny any grades being set up on cattle, livestock, poultry or agricultural products of any kind for sale within any one province. The federal authority enters into the matter only when the producer endeavours to ship out of the province in which the production took place.
I ask the minister: why part I at all? Why is not section 3 also placed in a similar position, or under section 5 which says that:
The governor in council may make regulations for prohibiting the importation, exportation, or sending or conveyance from one province to another of an agricultural product contrary to a regulation made under this section.
I can understand the power under section 5 but for the life of me I do not understand how the governor in council has the power to do the things provided for in section 3 (1). Was section 3 (1) submitted to the law officers of the crown?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was drafted by them.


John George Diefenbaker: They often draft things which have not been submitted to them for a legal opinion.


John Alpheus Charlton: Section 3 (2) provides that no person shall offer for sale or have in his possession for sale, and so on. That is what the hon. member for Prince Albert has reference to particularly. There is no mention of importation, exportation or anything else; there is just the bald statement "sell, offer for sale, or have in his possession for sale an agricultural product under a grade established under subsection (1)".


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the only part that means anything.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is true, unless the agricultural product meets the requirements prescribed for the grade.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are simply saying that if we set up a grade by marking and some person attempts to sell something which has not been legally marked-this is what was discussed here for an hour this afternoon-they can be prosecuted for misrepresentation. I may not be using the proper terms from a legal point of view but perhaps you understand what I mean.


John Alpheus Charlton: Part I does not mention anything about interprovincial trade, exports, imports or anything else; it refers only to standards. You say, "No person shall". That might lead one to believe that if a person in Ottawa sold an article here which was not graded he would be violating the regulations.
4238	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products


James Garfield Gardiner: If a product is graded, say in Manitoba, and is sent into Ontario and then someone takes another product and puts it on his shelves claiming by marking it is the product graded in Manitoba, then he has committed an offence. It is not the fact that it is shipped from one place to another, it is the fact that he is trying to sell something under a description which does not exist. He is selling a product which has never been legally graded as marked.


John Alpheus Charlton: It reads:
No person shall
(a) sell, offer for sale, or have in possession for sale an agricultural product under a grade name established under subsection (1) or under a grade name or other designation so closely resembling a grade name so established as to be likely to be mistaken therefor,-
And then dropping down.
-unless the agricultural product meets the requirements prescribed for the grade, has been graded and inspected as required by the regulations, and is packed and marked in prescribed manner.
That does not mean that it has to come in from another province.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not matter whether it had. It has to meet the marking set up under this act, whether it is intraprovincial or interprovincial. You cannot take a marking or grade which has been set up under this act and use it to sell a product which has never been graded under the act.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is this provision similar to any provision in the present acts, or is it something really new?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not read all the acts carefully enough to be absolutely certain, but I am told by those who have and by those who drafted it that there is nothing new in any of these matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then as to the legal question raised, can the minister state whether anyone has been prosecuted for having sold a product as being of a certain standard set up by the federal government when in fact it was not? In other words, can the legal point which has been raised be substantiated by reference to successful prosecution in the past?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure that I can recite a case at the moment, but there were two or three cases brought before this house during this session dealing with substitutes for butter.


John Alpheus Charlton: In that case the provincial regulations would have to be substantially the same as the dominion regulations. In many cases the provincial governments make their


regulations and grades in conformity with the federal regulations and grades. Is that not true?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Powers of inspector.
John Alpheus Charlton: This states that an inspector may at any time enter any place and may require any person to produce for inspection, and so on. Is this carried over from the old act?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just the same.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Damage and careless handling of products during shipment.
John Alpheus Charlton: Under this section, if a trucker or railroad company accepted goods of this character for shipment they would be liable, even though they did not know those conditions were in existence. Therefore the trucker or railroad would have to make sure before accepting any agricultural product that it had been graded under these regulations. Am I right in that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not think so. It reads:
(1)	No person shall, during the course of shipment of an agricultural product that has been packed, marked or graded under this act,
(a)	wilfully or carelessly damage the agricultural product, or
(b)	handle the product in such a manner
(i)	that it is likely to deteriorate in quality, or
(ii)	that it is likely to fail to meet the requirements prescribed under this act for the grade applied thereto.
(2)	For the purposes of this section, the expression "during the course of shipment" includes loading and unloading and any acts preparatory to loading, shipping or unloading.
The wording of it indicates that it has to be a wilful act or something for which he is responsible.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is damage through handling, but first he has to have a permit actually to transport it.


James Garfield Gardiner: He may have to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment and to deal with the subject matter in particular. In effect it is that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be amended so as to provide that no single project or scheme under this act involving an expenditure in excess of $15,000 shall be undertaken without the consent of the governor in council, thereby adding to the power of the minister to award contracts under this act, increasing the present limitation of $10,000 to $15,000, and also providing for the repeal of section 11, with which I do not intend to deal until the bill finds itself in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: It takes away some of the authority.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it takes away some, and I am not in any way dealing with this at the present time. I am going to deal specifically with the earlier portion, namely the increase in power that will result from this amendment. It will be noted that this bill has been on the order paper since early in January, and therefore the request for added power on the part of the minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of privilege, the minister has made no request for added power. The bill simply brings this measure into agreement with all other similar measures in all other departments of government. The minister had nothing to do with it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister may deal with it later in replying. As far as I am concerned, reading this in its ordinary language, it means an increase in the power of the minister under P.F.R.A. Whether it is to equal the rights of other departments has nothing whatever to do with the argument that I intend to advance. I was pointing out, when the right hon. gentleman interrupted me, that this bill had been on the order paper since January, and therefore the request for an increase in power has no reference whatever to, nor has it any connection with, the work that is now required to be done by the officials of P.F.R.A. resulting from the flood conditions which now prevail in the province of Saskatchewan and to a lesser degree in Manitoba.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
As far as the act in general is concerned, it has been in effect now since 1935 and represents one of the most effective acts ever placed on the statute books of our country with reference to the restoration of lands and the preservation of moisture. However, today we find ourselves in a position where getting moisture on to the lands is no more important, having regard to the cycle through which we are passing, than getting it off. This act in its present form, with few amendments, has been in effect since 1935. It represents a monument to the vision of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and the Hon. Robert Weir who conceived it and brought it into being. Through their concept tremendous improvements have taken place in our economic position in the western provinces.
Having said that, I wish to say immediately that latterly, particularly, there has been a tendency on the part of those in charge of the administration to place in the employment of P.F.R.A. some individuals whose qualifications are, even to an unsuspicious eye, peculiarly political. As far as the ordinary run of employees in P.F.R.A. are concerned, they have given good service and I do not refer to them in any way when I suggest that some of the appointments have a peculiarly political slant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have just been reading the bill, which refers to adding certain powers and detracting certain powers of the minister. It seems to me, as hon. members well know, that when we are on a bill amending an enactment it is the principle of the amending bill which we are required to discuss, not the principle of the enactment itself. I therefore would ask the hon. member for Prince Albert in his discussion to deal with the principle of this bill which is, as he can plainly see, rather limited in its scope.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know of no way in which I can deal with the principle except by showing that the principle in the past has been departed from and because of that departure we in the official opposition intend to oppose any increase in power to the minister. In support of my argument I intend to refer to what is taking place and the degree to which the powers have been used to date, and then to point out that, having regard to the present limitation of $10,000, the situation can conceivably be that much worse when the amount that may be expended without control on the part of the governor in council is increased to $15,000, and the melon becomes thereby so much larger. It was on that basis, sir, that I was dealing with the situation in
4240	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act P.F.R.A. and in the control exercised by the minister over P.F.R.A. In support of the contention-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course that is absolutely correct. If he deals with a project and the raising of the limit from $10,000 to $15,000, I would be the last one to interrupt him. However, as I understood him, the hon. member was proceeding to deal with employees; and I cannot see how he has related that matter to the principle of the bill before us.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After all, I must refer to the nature of some of the employees in order to indicate the power possessed by the minister, which is a power to make appointments outside of the civil service commission, and to have that power exercised by himself, and to point out the danger of the extension of that power in the manner asked for by the minister in the bill in question.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the question of order that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am in agreement with what you have already stated. I would point out that there is no authority in this bill to make appointments. The authority simply has to do with the size of the contract that the minister can decide upon with the consent of council. It has nothing to do with appointments. If we were going to shut the hon. member out from discussing the question, I would be the last one to suggest that that position should be taken. I know the questions that the hon. member is going to discuss can be answered and dealt with, but the proper place to deal with it is on my estimates which are still to come before the house. I have no objection to the question being discussed, but are we going to discuss it twice? Every other hon. member of the House of Commons has the right to discuss it on my estimates, and no doubt others will discuss it if they feel inclined to do so. However, I do not think we should have two discussions, one here where it does not belong and one where it does belong.


George Alexander Drew: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that what has been suggested here is much in order and for reasons which have already been borne out by proceedings within this house within the past few years. The principle involved in this measure, in the provision under discussion, is the extension of wider discretionary powers to the minister without the ordinary protection that is afforded by submission to order in council. There may be those who would question even what protection that affords, but nevertheless it does afford some


protection. This is a case where even that measure of examination and protection is removed.
If hon. members are to be in a position to say whether or not that type of discretion should be extended, surely it is appropriate to consider how the powers already conferred upon the minister have been exercised with regard to similar matters. We had another case of a not dissimilar nature when there was a proposal that the right to engage in and to enter into contracts under the Department of Public Works should be extended by raising the amount that would be permissible without tender. In the arguments that were used against the extension of that power, examples were cited of the way in which the discretionary powers already possessed had been exercised. As a result of the arguments which were made, the provision was withdrawn and in that particular case the arguments were sustained by the will of the members themselves. It was perfectly obvious that the government had become convinced that there was sufficient support on the other side of the house for the arguments to persuade them to withdraw that particular measure. I do not know of any way in which the members of this house could be persuaded that the discretion should not be extended unless an hon. member were permitted to place before the house examples of the way in which the discretionary powers already possessed had been exercised by the minister on other occasions.


Major James William Coldwell: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I just say this. It strikes me that Your Honour is trying to limit debate in a manner in which it should not be limited. As a matter of fact, how can you have a project or scheme without having employees engaged either in inspecting the scheme or in approving of it before it is undertaken? It seems to me that you cannot deal with any project or scheme of this description without involving some of the employees of the department. Since there may be some disposition to question the ability of the individuals who may be inspecting, recommending and approving of the scheme, I think that the question as to those who are employed in this organization could properly come before the house in relation to this particular bill. I am rising to support the contention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, and if you desire to call me out of order in this connection that will be

all right. The hon. member rose before I had an opportunity of saying what this bill is for. We passed in this house the Financial Administration Act. It provides that in every department of government the minister can decide up to $15,000. I take it that anybody who is opposed to this provision says that what every other department may do, the Department of Agriculture cannot. That is all this bill does. It just brings us under that legislation which every other department is under.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no. I was not talking about that.


George Alexander Drew: Speaking again to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. It is perfectly obvious that the provision to which the minister refers has no application whatever. The fact is that if it had any application, there would be no occasion for this section to be here. If in fact the provision to which he has referred had any application, we would not be discussing this measure now. The fact is that it is something entirely different. It is an extension of discretion. When it is suggested that the officials who are engaged under the minister in that department are to be permitted this wider discretion, surely there should be opportunity to know who will exercise that discretion and the manner in which that discretion has been exercised under less restricted circumstances.


James Garfield Gardiner: I rise because of the statement just made that this is an extension of discretion. It is not. The measure limits the discretion which is already available. There is far more discretion in the two sections that are being done away with than there ever was in this one. This bill does not extend discretion. It limits it.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure
hon. members would wish me to apply our rules, which are designed with care, I should say, to see not only that every opportunity is given for discussion of public questions but to ensure that there are appropriate opportunities for such discussions at certain times. The reason I raised the point in the first place was that it seemed to me that the principle of this bill dealt with increasing the discretion of the minister, on what is mentioned as a "project" or "scheme", from $10,000 to $15,000. I do not think hon. members would disagree with me when I say that is the principle of this amending bill. The further problem arises as to how far a discussion of employees can be allowed in discussing that principle. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Prince Albert, when 50433-268
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act I interrupted him, was launching on what might well turn into an extended discussion of the employees of P.F.R.A., a matter which, in my opinion, did not relate to the principle of the bill in question. It was for that reason that I interrupted him. I listened with care to hon. members who have risen on the point of order. If the discussion is merely by way of example to bolster an argument on the principle, of course I cannot say it is out of order. But I am going to ask members to adhere strictly to the principle of this bill. As hon. members undoubtedly know, there is a very good opportunity to discuss collateral questions when the minister's estimates are before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I bow with deference to your ruling, and will simply place before the house just a segment of the record to date to indicate the danger of extending the authority of the minister in the administration of this act. To support the argument that it is dangerous and that to extend his authority will be dangerous or could conceivably be detrimental to the public administration, I shall refer to one or two examples of what I have in mind as the type of administration that is taking place. In this way my opposition to the increase requested will be supported.
The minister says no increase is requested. This measure is simply to place this act in a position where the minister's powers will be similar to those under the Financial Administration Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that no increase was requested. I said there was an increase from $10,000 to $15,000 requested but two other sections are taken away that give more authority than that.


John George Diefenbaker: We all know that when the Minister of Agriculture allows any of his powers to be removed from him, especially in a bill introduced by himself, there is an Ethiopian somewhere in the deal.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Be careful about racial discrimination.


John George Diefenbaker: I bow with the greatest deference to my hon. friend the minister who is the unchallengeable authority in this house on that subject.
Returning once more to my argument, it is this. What has experience been in very recent times as to the manner in which the minister has administered the authority parliament gave him? So far as the rank and file of the employees are concerned, they themselves resent what has recently taken place. No one can suggest but that a few months ago a body blow was struck at the administration of P.F.R.A. when the director of that

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act organization, L. B. Thomson, placed his resignation before the government. It was allowed to remain in abeyance until after the Liberal convention in Saskatoon. Then the gentleman in question was retained in the public service in charge of the administration of P.F.R.A.
However estimable his qualifications may be, those qualifications do not include the right on the part of any official to make a qualified resignation from a high and responsible position, then, not having succeeded in his quest, to be received back into the organization. The government did not even acknowledge his letter of resignation. He wrote a letter and said he wanted to resign, but nothing was done about his resignation. Finally he was back in the fold after the convention was over. As my hon. friend says, he remained in a state of suspended animation. First, he was in charge of P.F.R.A., and then again he was not. He resigned in a qualified resignation, and there was not even an acknowledgment by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not addressed to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Or by any minister of the government-


James Garfield Gardiner: The resignation was not addressed to any minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, it was just thrown up in the air, and that is why no minister replied to it. I asked what happened to the resignation and the various correspondence, and the answer was that there was no correspondence other than the resignation. Well, the gentleman resigned and then, not having attained the political mecca he had in mind, he was restored to his former position or at least he continued in his former position regardless of what had happened during the interval. This was a body blow at the integrity of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration.
This is not the only example. Some weeks ago I asked a question as to how many ex-M.P.'s and ex-M.L.A.'s represented the P.F.R.A. We have not got an answer to that question yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the hon. member rose after I dealt with the point of order, he indicated that he bowed to my ruling and indicated to us that he intended to use these matters as examples in his discussion of the principle of the bill. I have listened for the past few minutes, but it seems to me he is dealing with an entirely separate subject. I cannot see that he is pursuing his remarks as examples of the principle. It is, after all, a very simple, direct one, concerning the advisability or inadvisability of raising the authority of the minister from

$10,000 to $15,000. I do not want to insist too much. It may be the hon. member intends to use his remarks as examples, but in order to avoid doubling up on debates I must say that from what the hon. member has said up to the moment, I feel some of those remarks could have been made more appropriately on the minister's estimates than on the second reading of this bill which has such a narrow principle. I must, therefore, ask the hon. member for co-operation in that regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Does Your Honour rule that I may not, as an example of some of the reasons that I am opposed to this bill, and this extension asked for in the bill, refer to some of the proclivities and political activities of those who will be charged with the responsibility of carrying out the increased power? That is all I am trying to do. Who are these men who will carry out the additional power? Will they do it in accordance with recognized principles or will they do it in a manner that ought not to be permitted to characterize any administration of the government? I base my whole argument on the fact that in order to test the efficacy of the course suggested for the minister in this bill, one should review something of the recent events in the administration of the P.F.R.A. which give to that administration the suspicion that political purposes are in the minds of many of those occupying administrative positions. I have heard it said that, so far as many of the high officials are concerned, P.F.R.A. could be defined as patronage for retired, rejected or resigned politicians.


Mr. Benidickson:: Surely it is not like the Ontario hydro.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going into that, because that is a provincial matter. And of course the interruption was meaningless in a discussion of this subject.


George Alexander Drew: And as senseless as one might expect.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not disagree with that observation.
Here are some of the gentlemen: Mr. Austin Dewar, public relations officer of P.F.R.A. with a salary last year of $3,308 and with expenses of $3,119. Will anyone tell me that the fact that he is appointed to a position of that kind, that of public relations official, does not immediately arouse at least a degree of anxiety at a time when the government is asking for an extension of the money that may be spent without control by order in council?


An hon. Member:: Suspicious mind.


John George Diefenbaker: And then we come to Mr. G. M. Ferrie, a most estimable gentleman. There are a number of names here. These things indicate that P.F.R.A.-


James Garfield Gardiner: What is Mr. Ferrie?


John George Diefenbaker: -is becoming a political melon.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is Mr. Ferrie?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Ferrie received a salary of $2,475 with expenses of $1,081. So far as Mr. Ferrie is concerned, I must say he was somewhat different from the rest of them who, according to their expense accounts, travelled awfully fast and awfully far between June and August 10, 1953.


James Garfield Gardiner: What do they call him?


John George Diefenbaker: The manner in which trades take place between officials in P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A., and the Liberal organization in Saskatchewan is worthy of note. One has only to look at the record of Mr. Glen Bruce and of Bill Bird, this merry-go-round of P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A., and then back to the Liberal association as secretary. These things are wrong; these things are unjustifiable. P.F.R.A. is entitled not to have this kind of political administration on the part of certain of its officials.
The minister says: What has this to do with the question of whether or not his powers should be increased. Well, to raise the melon from $10,000 to $15,000-


James Garfield Gardiner: No relationship at all.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says there is no relationship.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no relationship between those two things.


John George Diefenbaker: He keeps coming back to the point that under the Financial Administration Act other ministers have that authority, but that it does not exist under P.F.R.A. The minister endeavours to get this added power to have these people on the march all over the province under the guise of saying, "Look at my retreat. Look what I have given up. Look at the powers under section 11."
Mr. Speaker, if the minister accepts this bill with diminished powers, no one will have objection to it. But my objection, and that of the opposition, is to the added powers, and as a result of the activities of L. B. Thomson and the manner in which he shuffled in and shuffled out and shuffled back again, which cannot be justified. It leaves a suggestion that all is not well and that additional powers such as are asked for cannot be justified.
50433-268i
30. 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
The minister indicated a minute ago that there was nothing particularly wrong with the administration. I mentioned Mr. Bird and Mr. Bruce.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Bird had nothing to do with P.F.R.A., and never has had.


John George Diefenbaker: I read from Mr. Peter McLintock in the Winnipeg Free Press. He was referring to the dispute over who was to be secretary of the provincial Liberal association, and said:
In the past the secretary has also been the provincial organizer. Mr. Bill Bird. Mr. Gardiner's campaign manager-


James Garfield Gardiner: Again I say that Mr. Bird has had no association whatever with P.F.R.A. at any time. He is in P.F.A.A., not P.F.R.A.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just mentioning the shuffle and the double shuffle.


James Garfield Gardiner: How do you relate it to this?


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will just let me conclude this article:
In the past the secretary has also been the provincial organizer. Mr. Bill Bird, Mr. Gardiner's campaign manager, held this post for a number of years after the second world war. Not long ago Mr. Bird was named director of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration - another government branch for which Mr. Gardiner is responsible.
To replace Mr. Bird as Liberal secretary, the association appointed Mr. Glen Bruce.
Then it goes on to mention that Mr. Bruce, had been connected with P.F.A.A.
In other words, Thomson, Bruce and Bird; P.F.A.A. and P.F.R.A.; shuffle, double shuffle, triple shuffle. Those are the things that leave one with a degree of bewilderment as to the measures these people have to carry out and the use of the authority by Dr. Thomson, now that once again he is restored to the position of head of this organization.
For these reasons-and I think they are singularly powerful reasons-no additional melon should be given to the minister which would permit him to carve a $15,000 cut without having over him the need of going before the governor in council for authority.
The powers the minister needs have been shown by the experience of the past. This organization has got along very well under the old restrictions. Nothing has been advanced, that I know of, that indicates any need for an increase in the amount the minister may spend without the authority of the governor in council. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I have no other alternative than to vote against this measure; because parliament has the right to protest when positions in a body such as P.F.R.A.-and they are highly paid positions, many of them-
4244	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: None of them at $15,000.


George Alexander Drew: They soon will be, if this goes on.


John George Diefenbaker: They are highly paid positions. I say I have no other alternative than to vote against the measure when positions are filled outside the civil service commission and where apparently the appointments are the personal perquisites of the Minister of Agriculture. This being so, with the appointees responsible directly to him for their positions-and I am referring to the executive officers rather than those holding minor posts-parliament has the right to stop any additional powers being placed in the hands of the minister until he gives it the assurance that the double and triple shuffles of recent days in high executive positions are a thing of the past.


Major James William Coldwell: should like to say a word on this because, to a large extent, I am in agreement with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his criticism of this particular bill. I may say immediately I do not share the view that because a man has been a member of this house he is unfitted to take a position after he leaves this House of Commons, provided that-


John George Diefenbaker: That was not inherent in what I said.


Major James William Coldwell: No. Provided that he is suitable for the position and provided that he has a reputation which recommends him to this house and to the country.
When I look over some of the appointments that have been made under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act I just wonder what the people of Canada think when a member of parliament leaves this chamber under a cloud which has never been removed or cleared up, and then he is appointed to a position under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It is because of matters of that kind that I am going to oppose the granting of this additional power to the Minister of Agriculture. After all, when the minister says this is bringing the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration in line with other parts of government administration, let me say this. In 1952 the act made the concession, if I may put it that way, that projects under $10,000 might be undertaken without the approval of the governor in council. If that was done in 1952, I can see no reason why in 1955 we should increase it by 50 per cent. When we look at the statistical reports of recent days this is what we find. For example, I hold in my hand the Canadian Statistical Review of April, 1955. I find that neither retail nor


wholesale prices have increased by 50 per cent. In fact, in relation to wholesale prices, we find that they are down a little and retail prices are up only slightly. For the life of me I cannot see any reason why we should grant this additional power to the minister.
There is a general feeling among many people in western Canada and in the prairie provinces that there are too many political appointments under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, although it does have many good people in it. It is becoming more and more a political machine directed by the Minister of Agriculture.
When I look at the long list of over 1,400 employees in this report, which was asked for by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), and some 500 under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, I find, as has already been stated, certain appointments made that do not command the respect of this parliament or, I believe, of the country generally.
In asking for this power the minister is asking something from the house that the house should not grant in the circumstances under which this act has been administered. I want to say immediately that since the act was placed on the statute books of this country in 1934 much good has come of it. As a matter of fact, I believe we have had no act as beneficial to the prairie provinces as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; and indeed, as far as it goes, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act placed on the statute books subsequently has also been of substantial benefit to our western agricultural population.
I am joining in the protest against granting this additional power to the minister, not because I wish to deny to him and to the administration the same rights as we have granted to some of the other administrative bodies under the government. I am doing it, as the hon. member for Prince Albert did it, because I feel that somehow or other we have to make as effective a protest as we can against the manner in which a few of the employees of this organization have been appointed, and against the manner in which they are carrying out their activities in the prairie provinces. That is the reason for the opposition which I am voicing to the increase of power given to the minister at this time.
I want the house to understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is not because we wish in any way to hamper the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Indeed, I should like to see it extended and more work undertaken under it. We are asking today that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act shall have some additional money and power to assist in the grave situation which has resulted

from flooding in the prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Therefore, let it not be said that in opposing this particular bill we are in any way endeavouring to hamper the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. What we are doing is endeavouring to make the only effective protest we can make in this house. The only effective protest we can ever make is to refuse to grant money to the government or to a government department. Because of the political activities of some of the persons employed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, because of some of the appointments which I think not only were unwarranted but were a reflection on this parliament of Canada, I intend to vote against this particular bill.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: We have heard many comments regarding the operation of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in Saskatchewan; but in that province politics and agriculture seem to have the habit of getting badly mixed up.


Major James William Coldwell: They certainly do.


Victor Quelch: However, in Alberta we have not found that what has happened in Saskatchewan has in any way affected the efficient operation of the act in our province. As a matter of fact, in the constituency that I represent magnificent work is being done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It is largely owing to the fact that out there we have an excellent man as director. It so happens that he was a former Liberal federal candidate. He was defeated some 10 years ago, but he had been active in rehabilitation and irrigation work long before that. He had been recognized as an authority, and since his defeat he has been acting as director of Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act work in that district, and he has done excellent work. All the expenditures that have been made in that area have been wisely made. We feel that the people have received full value for the money expended. Therefore, I am not prepared to oppose this bill. The increase from $10,000 to $15,000 does seem reasonable and in line with the general increase in costs throughout the country.
Marvellous work has been done in that area in making it possible to carry large numbers of cattle on pasture lands that were without water until the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act provided dugouts and also provided assistance in establishing small irrigation projects by damming up dry creeks and by providing water for the various towns by establishing reservoirs. I should not like to see anything done that will in any way
30, 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act hamper the work of that organization. I realize that the situation in Saskatchewan may be different. I do not believe that what has happened in Saskatchewan has in any way interfered with the efficient operation of the act in Alberta.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the point of view expressed by my leader (Mr. Cold-well) and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Hon. members in all sections of the house, I know, appreciate the outstanding work accomplished under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act since it was passed 20 years ago, but I submit that the minister is showing very poor judgment when he places in responsible positions people who have been so active politically and who appear to be still active politically after having been taken on under P.F.R.A.
Mention has been made of the trips made by Mr. Ferrie, former member for Mackenzie. According to the return which has been brought down, the amounts paid to Mr. Ferrie have been quite modest, but he has not been employed by the department very long. It is not easy to justify to the taxpayers the expenditure of funds to enable Mr. Ferrie to continue his political activity in an area where he is so well known. If the minister had wanted to employ Mr. Ferrie in Alberta or Manitoba there might have been some justification, but not to employ him in a place where he is so well known.
For example, I find that late in December he made a trip to Norquay on December 6 in connection with the Swan river project. Then he went to Newburn to inspect the dam. Then he went to Fosston to inspect a dugout and drainage. I do not know how you would inspect a dugout and drainage on December 18. Then there was a trip to Watson and one to Buchanan. Then on December 21 there was another dugout inspection and on December 22 he was out to inspect a flowing dugout. I do not know what sort of a dugout that is and I do not know how one could inspect it on December 22. Up in our country everything is frozen up early in November. Then there was another trip on December 30 to inspect a ditch.
The total mileage was only 1,417, which at nine cents a mile amounts to $127.53. I admit that that is not a large amount when compared with amounts spent in other government departments, but it is very difficult to justify to the taxpayers in that area that it is necessary to have Mr. Ferrie riding around the country allegedly inspecting flowing dug-outs and drainage and dam projects in the
4246	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act middle of December when the ground is covered with snow and the lakes and rivers are covered with two or three feet of ice.
I have no personal axe to grind as far as Mr. Ferrie is concerned, but I do not think the minister should be given wider powers to spend money without referring the matter to his colleagues. As a protest against the use of public funds to send so many political workers throughout Saskatchewan, I propose to vote against this measure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to oppose this bill for the reasons already outlined, namely, that it gives the minister the power to spend larger amounts of money without having to obtain the approval of the governor in council. In view of the information which has been placed on the record this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), I think hon. members would be justified in voting against an approval to spend money without the approval of the governor in council.
I wish to direct my remarks particularly to clause 2 of the bill which repeals sections 10 and 11 of the act. Section 10 of the act reads:
The minister may, for the purposes of this act, and with the approval of the governor in council, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, or sell, lease or otherwise dispose of, any lands or premises that may be required for or included in any project or scheme, upon such terms or conditions as he may deem desirable.
With that section removed from the act there will no longer be vested in the minister power, in this instance with the approval of the governor in council, to purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, or sell, lease or otherwise dispose of, any lands or premises that may be required for or included in any project. The whole life of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the past depended upon the ability of the minister to acquire, with the approval of the governor in council in this instance, or lease lands for the purposes of the act. At the present time there is under lease in connection with prairie farm rehabilitation over 1,600,000 acres of pasture land. With this section deleted from the act I am wondering what will be left for prairie farm rehabilitation to undertake. Does it mean that there will be an end to further acquisition of land for pasture purposes? Does it mean that if the governor in council should decide to undertake the South Saskatchewan dam they will not have power under this act to lease property and therefore no power to acquire control of the site on which the dam would be erected?


I am not a lawyer and therefore I am not professing to give an answer to the question I am raising. If power exists for this specific purpose under some other act, then why should this provision have been in the act since 1939? Unless the minister can point out to me a provision in the Financial Administration Act, which would be a substitute for section 10, I cannot see how he is going to be able to carry on the very important functions of prairie farm rehabilitation which depend upon the leasing of land.
Section 11 of the act, which is also to be deleted, reads:
(1)	The minister may, for the purposes of this act, purchase or rent whatever machinery or equipment may be required in connection with the development, construction or operation of any project or scheme, but the purchase of any single unit of machinery or equipment of a value greater than five thousand dollars requires the approval of the governor in council.
(2)	Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act or law, the minister may sell any single unit of such machinery or equipment upon such terms as he may deem advisable and the proceeds thereof shall be paid to the receiver general, but the sale of any such unit, if its initial cost exceeded five hundred dollars, requires the approval of the governor in council.
I direct the attention of the house more particularly to subsection 1 of section 11 of the act which gives the minister the power to acquire machinery worth more than five thousand with the approval of the governor in council. If we are to delete section 10 and section 11, my question is this: Where does the power remain for the government to undertake the very functions of prairie farm rehabilitation which we all think are so important? In other words, if these sections are removed, does that spell the end of pasture leases in the future? Does that spell the end of the acquiring of machinery by the department? Does that mean that for all practical purposes prairie farm rehabilitation has been brought to an end and that the public of Canada in the future will not be able to expect the government to lease land or to purchase equipment? As I say, I hope my fears are groundless. I would certainly like an answer to the question I have proposed, because unless there are very definitely in the Financial Administration Act or some other act all of the necessary powers to replace sections 10 and 11, then this act, which has been a very good act, will for all practical purposes have been destroyed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, and members of the house, I have listened with some interest to the discussion which has taken place and in the light of what was said I can quite understand the attitude of some members. For example, the statement was made, in the midst of a presentation which I think had no place whatsoever in the discussion, that a past member of this house who it was suggested left the house under a cloud had been made a public relations officer-


John George Diefenbaker: That is the description of the Regina Leader-Post.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not go to the Regina
Leader-Post for descriptions of things that you do. Why go there for descriptions of things I have done? As a matter of fact, Mr. Dewar is in the same position as seven or eight others. He is not a man who is directing the personnel of P.F.R.A. He is a field supervisor holding exactly the same position as the ex-candidate in Alberta who was spoken of so highly a few moments ago. He has exactly the same kind of position in a limited territory. He has nothing to do with personnel in connection with the employees of the P.F.R.A. branch. That was why I asked the hon. member when he was speaking the title of the position which was held by another ex-member of this house. Their titles are exactly the same. Mr. Dewar and Mr. Ferrie hold positions as field supervisors covering a certain part of the province, just as does the gentleman who was spoken of by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch).
Having said that, I come back to what the bill is really about, because it has no relationship whatsoever to this kind of discussion. This bill did not have in it these provisions when it was drawn up in 1936, or when it was amended. It did not have the provisions relating to the purchase of machinery, the purchase of lands and the purchase of this, that and the other thing, all of which have been referred to in the discussion. Yet we have been doing all the things we are doing now. As a matter of fact the legislation was amended as we went along to give certain authorities under certain conditions. One of those authorities was the one read a few moments ago by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), section 10, which reads as follows:
The minister may, for the purposes of this act, and with the approval of the governor in council, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, or sell, lease or otherwise dispose of, any lands or premises that may be required for or included in any project or scheme, upon such terms or conditions as he may deem desirable.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
It goes on to explain:
The repeal of this section will mean that all P.F.R.A. land transactions will be dealt with in the same manner as are the land transactions involving government departments under existing legislation.
In other words, in answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia, the legal authorities who drafted the act say that there is provision in other legislation. I am not going to take the time of the house in going into all the terms of the different kinds of legislation we have to deal with, but the same authority which others have to purchase land for government purposes will be exercised by P.F.R.A., just as it is exercised by other authorities under the government and as it has always been. This was a special power given to the minister under special circumstances to deal with certain things. It has been thought that those special authorities are no longer required, and that is being removed.
Section 11 reads as follows-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two things I wanted to say first. Before six o'clock some suggestions were made that I think ought to be answered before there is a division on the question. It was suggested that the taking out of this section in the bill might create a situation which would be rather difficult. I must say that that would not be the case. I have in my hand the original bill, or at least the bill as it was passed back in 1937 and 1939. The suggestion made was that if we did away with sections 10 and 11, we would not now have any authority to do some of the things which we are doing. Section 11 provides for the purchase and sale of certain machinery and equipment. The act which now makes it possible for surplus property owned by the government to be sold makes it compulsory that any department which has property of that kind, such as machinery, must sell it under that act. Hence taking this section out at this time does not make any difference to the position as it has been ever since that act was passed following the end of the war.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question there? It is an extremely interesting
4248	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act point. If you will look at the Financial Administration Act, you will find that it covers the Department of Agriculture but it does not refer specifically to P.F.R.A. I wonder whether the minister had noticed that fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, I am looking for the bill itself which that is in, but I do not appear to have it. No, I have not looked at that at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I was wondering whether it was included.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that this bill is to be changed with regard to the particular section which is under discussion. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia, he was wondering whether the removal of section 10 would result in our not being able to do those things which we have been doing, if you, Mr. Speaker, will note the date on which that change was made, you will find it is 1939. In other words, we had been functioning under this bill for four years before that was put in. The real reason for the putting of it in at that time was the fact that we were setting up a great many pastures and doing other things not related to larger projects, because larger projects do not come under this act at all. They are under a special vote of the house. Hence in so far as the South Saskatchewan river dam would be concerned, it does not come under this particular act; it comes under a vote of some $7 million or $8 million which is in the estimates from year to year to take care of large projects.
But our difficulty in the early stages was this. When we were setting up, as we did, some 60 pastures to 70 pastures, we were getting small areas of land and when every one of those had to be taken to the treasury board to be passed and when treasury board did not meet sometimes for two or three weeks-and, as hon. members know from experience it is sometimes longer than that- it delayed the securing of these lands to a time when, with the short summers we have in the west, we could not get on with this work as rapidly as we had hoped to get on with it. We therefore brought in this section in order to take care of that difficulty.
As to the other matters which were referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia, the position is provided for in section 4 and section 9. Section 4 of the act states:
The advisory committee shall consider and advise the minister as to the best methods to be adopted to secure the rehabilitation of the drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and to develop and promote within these areas systems of farm practice, tree culture, water supply, land utilization


and land settlement that will afford greater economic security, and to make such representations thereon to the minister as the advisory committee may deem expedient.
I think that is as broad as anyone would desire it to be. In relation to what was stated with regard to the same matter by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he opened up just before the dinner hour, may I say this. He made the suggestion that this bill was the result of the great foresight of some of those who went before this particular government. I am not adverse to giving credit where credit is due in connection with these matters. It is true that an act was placed upon the statute books of Canada in 1935 by the Bennett government, but that bill provided for the expenditure of $4J million and no more. When we begin to discuss at the present time the building of, say, the South Saskatchewan river dam that is going to cost $60 million, it is obvious there never was a possibility under the act as it was passed at that time of building such projects. In addition to that, there was no provision in the original bill for the setting up of pastures. There was no provision for the greater part of what is looked upon today as those projects which make the act really worth while. It was simply an act to indicate to the province the means by which the province could proceed to take care of this problem.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask a question just for the purpose of clarification? Is the minister suggesting that the government contemplates the construction of this dam under P.F.R.A.?


James Garfield Gardiner: I just said that we are not.


George Alexander Drew: I suggest it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was pointing out that my hon. friend asked questions with regard to the South Saskatchewan dam this afternoon. The hon. member for Assiniboia asked questions with regard to the South Saskatchewan river dam as though it came under this act. But it does not come under this act. But neither did the setting up of the pastures come under the original act which was brought into this house in 1935. It was only after this government was set up that the act was broadened out with no restrictions upon the amount of money that was going to be spent beyond what we could persuade the house to vote from year to year, and no restrictions upon the time during which that money was to be spent. The original act restricted it to five years, three-quarters of a million dollars the first year and $1 million each year for four years thereafter. Then it was to come to an end; and the provinces

were to take the matter up from there and go on and spend money in the way they had been taught by the government of Canada that it should be spent in order to rehabilitate that area. When we came in we decided that was not a big enough way, that there was not sufficient vision in the minds of those who set up that legislation to take care of the problem. The question I was asked across the floor of the house by the then leader of the opposition, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, was the question as to how long we thought it would take to deal with this question. I said it would take at least 20 years and that it would require all the money that we could get from parliament during that 20 years time. The 20 years are now up.
I can understand the question coming from the hon. member for Assiniboia as to whether that is the intention in what is being done now. There was no such intention when this amendment was made to this act. It had nothing of that kind in mind whatsoever. In order to indicate that the power is still in the act I would read section 9 as it is in the act:
9. (1) The minister may, (a) subject to section 4,-
That is after having submitted the matter to a committee which is set up under the act and getting their views as to how it should be proceeded with.
-undertake the development, construction, promotion, operation and maintenance of any project or scheme under or by virtue of this act, or enter into agreements with any province, municipality or person with respect thereto:
And then (b):
(b) pay all necessary administrative expenses incurred under the act and all necessary travelling and living expenses incurred by officials or employees in performance of their duty.
If we had been amending that part of the section perhaps my hon. friend would have been quite right to have said something about the officials that were being appointed. But we are not amending that section. Then as to power:
(2) no single project or scheme under this section involving an expenditure in excess of ten thousand dollars in any fiscal year shall be undertaken without the consent of the governor in council.
Now, the reason the words "governor in council" were put in at that time was the reason I gave a few moments ago. There are times when you can get to council more readily than you can wait for the matter to pass through the treasury board. So, at that time we did say that this could be done by simply taking it to council. All we are saying in this bill is that the amount of $10,000 is to be increased to $15,000 to conform to the Financial Administration Act
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which was passed in 1952, I believe, and which made it $15,000 instead of $10,000. Then, we are suggesting again that it go, as every other vote of the kind does, to the treasury board before it goes to council; that is the amendment which is made.
This amendment does not increase the powers of the minister or the powers of the minister plus council, because it was simply a matter of taking it to council in the days when it was decided we wanted to have this thing done rather than have to take the regular course through the treasury board. Now, this amendment sends it back through treasury board as is the procedure in connection with all other departmental affairs and it takes the same course as similar votes do.
I submit again this is not giving extra powers to the Minister of Agriculture.
I should like to call to the attention of members the fact that all the arguments that were used this afternoon with regard to the danger of putting this authority under the Minister of Agriculture were used in 1936-37 when the act was being amended to make it read as it now reads. Everyone who spoke from the opposition side of the house objected to the Minister of Agriculture having these powers and said they would be misused or used for political purposes. All these arguments were used here this afternoon. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said he had no criticism to make of what had been done in the past; that this act had been one of the best measures for Saskatchewan that had ever been put through this house. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said the same thing.
I must admit that the hon. member for Assiniboia did me the honour of not using some of the arguments used by some other hon. members. Perhaps he had them in his mind. What I want to impress upon this house is that all these things were said in 1936-37. They were all said again when this section, to which objection is now being taken, was put in; the same accusations were made. It was said authority was being given to the Minister of Agriculture which he should not have because he would misuse it. Members come along now and say those powers have not been misused; none of the authority the minister had before has been misused, either the general amount that was left to the minister to take care of or the $10,000 that was put into this act. When it was $5,000 elsewhere, it was $10,000 here, but that was left behind when it was made $15,000 for the other departments and for the other branches of the agriculture department. Now, it is being said that in so far as the


HOUSE OI
[Stage Direction]
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act P.F.R.A. branch is concerned we are putting too much authority into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture and hon. members are afraid of what he is going to do in the future. I am prepared to say that, so long as I am Minister of Agriculture, I will be doing the same kind of things in the future as I have been doing in the past. The same kind of things as I have been doing in the past seem to have been very good except for a few appointments.
The act has developed and it has been doing things that have been more helpful to western Canada than anything that has been done under any other act. It may be pointed out that the position to which a past member of this house was appointed is not nearly as important as the title given to it by the hon. member for Prince Albert would suggest. This man is simply a field inspector. This fancy title, public relations officer, was taken out of a newspaper somewhere and submitted to the house this afternoon, and it makes it appear as though there were some special appointment to some special person. It is the same kind of appointment as I mentioned this afternoon which seven or eight other men in different parts of Saskatchewan have; two or three in Manitoba and two or three in Alberta have the same appointment. They are field inspectors. As the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said, in so far as the man in his area was concerned, in spite of the fact he had been the hon. member's political opponent, he was doing a good job and the hon. member had no objection to him.
The speech of the hon. member for Prince Albert makes me feel that probably I should regret the fact I have been in this house for 20 years and regret the fact that I was in the Saskatchewan legislature for 21 years before I came here. It seems to me, listening to that harangue, to be a disgrace for anyone to have ever been in this house or the Saskatchewan legislature and then get a job from anybody, particularly the government. If that is the attitude we are going to take towards men who have served their country as members of a legislature or members of the House of Commons, then I rather resent it. I can understand when my friend asks questions about Dr. Thomson, who had submitted a resignation which was not accepted. He carried on, and I can understand a question about that. At the same time I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that question has been discussed two or three times in this house already and I am quite sure it is going to be discussed when my estimates are before the committee. Since it is going to be discussed on another occasion,
[Stage Direction]

I am not going to break the rules by discussing it tonight. The question is one which can be dealt with at the proper time and in the proper manner.
I should like to emphasize the fact that this act has been on the statute books now since 1936-37. It has been utilized for all the different purposes for which it was set up. No one either on this side of the house or on the other side of the house or in the Saskatchewan legislature has ever suggested that one dollar of money has been misspent in the operation of this act or that there is likely to be a dollar misspent with the present set-up of personnel. Such a suggestion has never been made in any campaign that has been fought in the intervening years. I should like to say that, while it is not my suggestion that this bill be brought before the house, I have no objection to it. It would not have been my suggestion that we take away the discretion I now have to buy a piece of land in a hurry which we are going to flood with water, when we did not want to wait for a month or two to do the flooding in order to be sure we owned the land and not have to pay damages. It has been thought wise to have this kind of legislation with regard to other departments, and I have no objection to its being applied to this department and particularly P.F.R.A.
We have got along to the point where we can deal with these situations much more effectively than we were able to deal with them 15 or 16 years ago. We have had sufficient experience to make it possible for us to deal with them without this legislation. There is nothing in it which prevents us from going on with the general activities of P.F.R.A., and that is the question which concerned the hon. member for Assiniboia. We can go on just as we have. If we had any intention of cutting out the work which was being done we would not only have dealt with this one section and taken away two other sections which are not necessary to the carrying out of the act, but we would have taken away the effective sections which I just read. I would suggest we have the second reading of the bill, and go on to pass it.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister can tell the committee how many projects were undertaken during last year in which the amount spent was over $10,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to be able to tell the hon. member exactly the number put through in the last year which cost that amount. I hold in my hand the report for the year 1953-54 which of course is available to all hon. members. It has the total amount in it. I could look through it and give the information if it is necessary.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understood the minister to say he did not have the information to answer the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have it in the report, but I understand the rules of the house prevent the asking of questions of that kind when the answers are in print, and it is not usual to read them oil here.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not believe they are in the report. I have looked through the blue book of government expenditures and I do not know whether they are segregated or not. It is very difficult to get the information one wants. As I understand it, the amount of expenditures in the estimates this year is nearly $4 million. The minister said that when the bill was brought forward by the Bennett government in 1935 they allotted $4 million as a maximum. I point out to the minister that in those days $4 million was probably worth more than $8 million is today, so that probably they were more farsighted then than the minister gives them credit for when they were willing to spend $4 million a year and we are spending only $4 million a year at this time.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I should like to ask the minister a question on this clause. In recent weeks demands have been made upon the services of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in connection with flooding on the prairies. I am wondering whether, under this clause, which authorizes the minister to contract for sums upwards of $15,000, the services demanded by the flooding conditions can be met? Specifically, has the P.F.R.A. been assuming responsibility for the diking or has the expenditure reverted to the provincial and municipal governments?


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as the engineering work is concerned, up until last year or the year before, it had been done at no cost to either the municipalities or the provinces in connection with any activities that were properly associated with P.F.R.A. But we

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
insisted that in order to place the responsibility on whatever authority was undertaking the work being done, they should make application for the engineering work and, where application was made, it was definitely understood that we assumed no responsibility for doing the work. Under that arrangement we did make provision for engineering being done. But about a year and a half ago, or sometime during the year preceding last year, we had some difficulties owing to the fact they had greatly extended the irrigation activities in Alberta. When the St. Mary dam was constructed and water was made available from it, the province was then in a position to spend money in building up the area, putting in the ditches and canals for the spreading of that water over the area south and west of Medicine Hat. It was then decided that some of these engineering works would have to be paid for by the province concerned. Just how that decision will apply m connection with other works that are being spoken of now I am not in a position to say a the moment. They will be decided on their merits as we go along.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it from that that in the case of emergency conditions resulting from flooding the services of P.F.R.A. engineers will be available and the matter of payment will be settled at a later date. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is approximately correct. Of course there are certain works that we have had our P.F.R.A. engineers go over throughout the years. As a matter of fact there are not very many of the projects that are being talked about in connection with the recent flooding that we have not very definite information on and have had for a long time.


Owen C. Trainor: I wonder if the minister would take advantage of this occasion to answer a question which I put to him a few days ago. In a report several years ago the P.F.R.A. authorities made a definite recommendation as to flood control on the Assini-boine river in Manitoba. Can the minister state whether or not the government intends to implement that report? As the minister no doubt knows, flood conditions this year have been particularly bad on the Assiniboine river. While they have occurred almost perennially for a number of years past they were particularly bad this year. Would the minister be good enough to reply as to the implementation of this report, because Manitoba would be glad to have his answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like to question whether or not I am supposed to discuss all expenditures made under P.F.R.A. on this amendment. They would be properly discussed when my estimates are before the committee and those estimates will be coming up as soon as this bill is passed and we are allowed to go into committee of supply.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been any diking or drainage projects under P.F.R.A. undertaken in 1953 or 1954, and have such projects in the past come within the ambit of this limitation of $10,000, now being increased to $15,000? Have there been any contracts in respect to which the increase is now asked?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there has been no case of drainage under P.F.R.A. as far as I can recall. We are not responsible for drainage which is carried on by the provinces. There has been no drainage work that I can recall at the moment. There might have been occasional places where a certain amount of drainage had to be done in establishing dams to hold supplies of water, but there has been no drainage done as such.
The nearest approach to drainage which has been done, and which I think most people have in mind when they bring drainage up,, is that in the Dauphin area. That was not done under this act; it was done under the special vote put through for this purpose and largely because the claim was made that the water came out of a national park, being supplied with water from snow piled up there in the wintertime. That water was alleged to have flooded farms in the spring and the work was done under a special vote.


John George Diefenbaker: It is clear that at no time has there been any project for drainage or diking under the P.F.R.A.?


James Garfield Gardiner: I probably should not go so far as to say that there has been no diking done because when you are putting in an irrigation work some diking may be required, such as at Eastend where there was an overflow of water.


John Alpheus Charlton: In connection with the minister not wanting to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, may I say that I think we would be perfectly within our rights to ask for an explanation of any contract not costing over $10,000. This particular clause reads:
No single project or scheme under this section involving an expenditure in excess of fifteen thousand dollars in any fiscal year shall be undertaken without the consent of the treasury board.

1 submit that we should have a list of all those contracts. If the minister cannot give them to us now-


James Garfield Gardiner: I can send this one over to my hon. friend and then I can have another one sent in in a few minutes to every member of the committee.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am afraid that that would be rather delaying things if we were to do that at the moment. However, I think the minister should prepare a list of all contracts of less than $10,000. The minister is now asking that he be given the privilege of making contracts up to $15,000 instead of $10,000. How many contracts would there be? How important is it that the minister should have this right to spend another $5,000 on every contract. For instance, say a contract was for $60,000: the minister could split it up into four contracts of $15,000 rather than one for $60,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: How far back does the hon. member want me to go?


John Alpheus Charlton: Probably five years. We should have all contracts under $10,000 which the minister has had the privilege of giving out under the P.F.R.A. I want to make the statement that I am not criticizing the actual workings of the P.F.R.A. but I am criticizing the minister's right to give contracts up to $15,000. That is why we voted against the second reading. I do not think it is necessary or desirable. It will only be placing the minister in an embarrassing position inasmuch as he may be criticized for giving out these contracts on his own.
This afternoon the minister said he was losing a lot of privileges by the deletion of sections 10 and 11 of the act, but I do not think he is losing anything in comparison with what is being given to him by way of an increase in this contract limit. All he has to do is get the Department of Transport to purchase the land. As far as section No. 11 is concerned, with contracts up to $15,000 I do not think he will need to worry about renting machinery because he can get plenty of it at that rate. Will the minister give us a list or at least some examples of the contracts.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I would be breaking the rule. If the chairman is going to permit me to give them, I suppose I had better do so. I do not think it is within the rules nor do I think the committee should expect to have them read to it. I think asking me to do so is an effort to kill time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alpheus Charlton: Now, Mr. Chairman-
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: That is very obvious. There is something else coming up which the opposition thinks should not come up.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a question of privilege, the minister has accused us of wasting time.
I want to say again what I said this afternoon-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the Minister of Agriculture has just imputed improper motives in connection with the discussion which is taking place and I ask for the immediate withdrawal.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member had risen on a matter of personal privilege, and I think we should hear him.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was on a matter of personal privilege. The minister has accused us of trying to delay the house and wasting time. Mr. Chairman, the matter I brought up today was-


James Garfield Gardiner: He knows what to say. The Leader of the Opposition does not need to tell him.


John Alpheus Charlton: -with regard to the matter of bringing up the agriculture estimates and these three agriculture bills before the house at the same time as the agriculture committee is meeting. The minister says we are wasting time. I think we can counter with the fact that the house leader, and probably the Minister of Agriculture, has been juggling the debates in order-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I made a point of making it possible for the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand to complete his point of personal privilege, because I thought he was entitled to do so under the circumstances. He will permit me to say that he should state his personal privilege and not raise another point. I am of the opinion that any accusation of deliberately killing time or wasting the time of the house is unparliamentary and should not be allowed to remain on the record. I find myself in a slight difficulty because what I understood the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand to say was that the minister had said this was a waste of time. I believe that all sides of the house have said that a good many things are a waste of time. Anything that we do not approve of may be from our point of view a waste of time, and I would not like to leave the impression that it is unparliamentary to say that something is a waste of time. But if the Minister of Agriculture was making the
4254	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act statement that the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand was making a speech solely for the purpose of wasting time, then I am afraid it does not come within citation 257 of Beauchesne's famous third edition, which states:
It is not out of order to say that a member has obstructed the business of the house, or that a speech is an abuse of the rules of the house.
But if he were deliberately making a speech for the purpose of obstructing, not that his speech itself was in some person's opinion a waste of time but that it was done for the deliberate purpose of wasting time, then of course the right hon. Minister of Agriculture will have to remove that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege, and I wish to state the privilege quite clearly. The right hon. minister said that these speeches were being made for the purpose of delaying because something was coming up with which we did not wish to deal tonight. Mr. Chairman, the next thing to come up is the Customs Act, and we are ready to proceed with that, and I hope there will be no delay in proceeding with that. So no speech is being made on our side that has any purpose of delaying the proceedings of this house, because there is no reluctance on our part to deal with the next business. In fact we are most anxious to proceed with the Customs Act just as soon as possible.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, what I actually did say was that my hon. friend was asking me to read a list of expenditures on contracts for $10,000 or under, and that in asking me to do that he was asking me to waste the time of the house, and I did not intend to do that unless I am ordered to do it by the Chair. If I am ordered to do it,
I shall read them.


Mr. Fleming:: Pretty smooth.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The Chair is willing to hear the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. The house knows that the Chair cannot order any member to answer any questions or to make a speech on any subject. Since the question has been raised, I would express the opinion quite definitely that where a section of the act is for the purpose of raising certain requirements from contracts in excess of $10,000 to contracts in excess of $15,000, information as to such contracts let in recent years is in my opinion certainly pertinent to the question. But I am not ordering any member of the house to make any statement in the house.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the minister to read all the contracts under $10,000 for the last five years. But
[The Deputy Chairman.]

I do say he should give us some good examples and give some justification for raising this from $10,000 to $15,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no reason to be found in any examples anywhere as to why this is being asked for. In the first place it was asked for by the government as a whole because a provision had been put through under the Financial Administration Act. It is all stated here. No one needs to ask any questions about it. A bill was put through known as the Financial Administration Act, put through by this house, that amounts up to $15,000 could be put through in that manner. All this bill does is make it possible to do the same thing under the P.F.R.A. The hon. member for Prince Albert has pointed out, since we came back after the recess, that the bill does makes provision for the Department of Agriculture-


John George Diefenbaker: The act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act makes provision for the Department of Agriculture but it does not make provision for P.F.R.A. This bill provides for P.F.R.A., so that everything that applies to other departments will apply to P.F.R.A. The only change from what it was before, when it said $10,000, is that it now says $15,000, and that before as minister I had to refer it to council. Now, in accordance with what is done in other departments, I must refer it to treasury board. The only reason why it previously went to council was that under certain circumstances it could be put through in a shorter time, when it came direct to council rather than going through treasury board. There were delays with treasury board for a few weeks in summertime when many members of the government were away from here, and then that could be taken to a council of four or more members and passed upon. As it is now, I shall not be able to do that. That is the only restriction that there is in it. It does not enlarge the authority I have; it reduces it. Under the two sections that are being taken out, I had authorities which I no longer have.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister does not have to go to council or treasury board for anything under $15,000-


James Garfield Gardiner: Everything that goes to treasury board has to go to the council.


John Alpheus Charlton: Before you said that you had to go to council, that everything had to go to council. Now under this bill you do not have to go to either for any amount under $15,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, anything over $15,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is what I just said, and the minister contradicted me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that going to the treasury board takes longer and restricts me more in my actions than going to council direct, no matter what the amount is.


John Alpheus Charlton: I still submit that the minister does not have to go to either the governor in council or treasury board now with a contract less than $15,000, while previously he had to go to the governor in council for any contract over $5,000.


An hon. Member:: Ten thousand dollars.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, over $5,000 in some cases, and to the treasury board for a contract over $10,000. Now he does not go to either for anything less than $15,000. It is certainly not restricting in any way.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, apparently somebody is trying to curtail the minister's power, or at least slow him up a little. The minister says he has to go to the treasury board, and he used to go to the governor in council. Would the minister tell us how many contracts during the last year were required to be placed by him before the governor in council? That would simplify it. He would not have to read a large list but just tell us how many were over $10,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing on record here that would indicate that, or on any record you would find anywhere. I would have to go back and check on every council meeting that had been held and find out that I took a particular amount to council. That would make a delay of some time, but I could get that by the time my estimates are here.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has been saying it is in the report but it is not.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1
carry?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not submitted a single reason of any kind for this increase. He can do that only by giving us examples of what has been taking place of the sort of thing that would require an extension of this power.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman assumes that the Minister of Agriculture has been doing something that the government does not agree with-


George Alexander Drew: I said no such thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and has brought in a bill to remove the powers he has. No such thing
Prairie Farm, Rehabilitation Act has happened at all. There could not be any other reason for what he has just stated but that. That is the only one there could be. In other words, he is trying to find out what it was that the minister took to cabinet and asked cabinet to pass that made them bring in this bill to cut down his authority.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that at least the minister would deal with what I said. I cannot expect him for five minutes to keep to any relation to accuracy but I would have hoped that when he rose immediately after 1 spoke, he would at least deal with what I said. What I said was this, and I repeat it. I said that the minister had not given evidence of any kind to show any reason why there should be this extension. Before this extension is granted I would have hoped that even those on his own side would have suggested the advisability of examples being given of the kind of thing that calls for this extension. Not a single thing has been given. I do not expect to get any information about what took place in the cabinet. After all, I am not accustomed to that kind of thing. I am not accustomed to the kind of situation or the kind of course the minister follows where he talks in Saskatchewan about what the government is going to do and then we find out from the rest of the government that they have never decided any such thing. I was not talking about the cabinet. I was talking about what this minister can place before us as evidence to support the claim for an extension of his powers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, by what the hon. gentleman has now said I am convinced that he has a great deal more experience in that kind of thing than I have ever had. I have read a great deal about it in the past years but I am not going to recite it here on this occasion.


George Alexander Drew: Just stick with what you are asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has had given to him three or four times the only reason for it. The reason is given on the sheet. Take it and read it. The sheet says:
The purpose of the change is to make the act consistent with the existing ministerial authority to enter into contracts for sums up to $15,000, as contained in the Financial Administration Act and regulations.
That is the only reason it is in there. There is no other reason that can be given; and I am not going to manufacture one for the pleasure of the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I was not suggesting that the minister manufacture one. Perhaps he could
4256	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act tell us whether Mr. Dewar needs an extension of his power to deal with this matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might tell the Leader of the Opposition that his seatmate just across the aisle, at the time that Mr. Dewar left this house, said to him that he was the most courageous man he had ever known in his lifetime to take action such as that which he took. I can prove that statement if it is necessary to do so. Then the hon. member rises on the floor of this house this afternoon and makes a long sing-song about this man getting a job. If he is the most courageous man that he had ever met, I am a little bit surprised that he did not give him a job himself. As to this matter of dragging in names of members who have sat in this house, I may say that there is a member sitting directly behind you who was not at all easy at the time that discussion regarding Dewar was going on in this house.


George Alexander Drew: If we have not had anything else, Mr. Chairman, we have had a masterpiece of evasion because not one word that the minister has said has had any relationship at all to the matter before us. Will the minister not give as an example some single case that has arisen which calls for the extension of this power with regard to a department which is not operated on an exactly similar basis to the other departments? We are dealing now with P.F.R.A., not with a department of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not a single reason to ask for it.


George Alexander Drew: Then do not ask for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The time for my hon. friend to have been making the speech that he is now making was when the Financial Administration Act went through this house. I do not know whether or not he did so. I do not know whether or not I was here. But I do not recall any such speeches being made at that time. This bill says that I must do this. If the bill says that, or at least if the act says that, then of course this bill must come in. It was not a matter of whether I liked it or whether I did not like it. This Surplus Crown Assets Act says that any surplus crown property must be sold under the terms of this act and if any of the equipment of P.F.R.A. was sold in the interval since that act was passed under the authority given in this section, then it was sold illegally because that act says that notwithstanding anything that is in any other act, that is the way it must be sold. Then there is no reason for having this section in any longer and it is being taken out. The other one which is part


of it and which is not in the same position just simply puts this department in the same position where it has to get land in the same way as any other department gets land. There is nothing unnatural about that. It is the ordinary thing that is done. Again I say there is only one reason for the bill being here and that is to bring us in conformity with the terms of the Financial Administration Act and regulations.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Chairman, the situation can be summed up in this way. In the words of the minister, he has not a single reason why he wants this and now he wants us to pass it.


James Garfield Gardiner: You cannot take that from what I said. It is as a result of a bill which makes me say I have got to have it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utterly fantastic.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. I submit that the minister must at least say he needs this section before the house passes the section as it is before us. He either needs it or he does not need it. He has just told us there is not a single reason why he wants it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just as the hon. member pointed out a few minutes ago, when I am out in Saskatchewan I have no right or no reason to disagree with anything that this government does. I cannot do so as long as I stay in it. The government wants this act in order to conform with all the other acts under which we spend money, whether I have any reasons or not. It is not a big enough question even to be taking as much time as we are taking here tonight to talk about it, no matter how long we talk, even if we go to ten o'clock, so that my hon. friend does not have to do some of the things he does not want to do tonight.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the minister withdraw that remark. The remark implies that there is an improper motive in the discussion that is taking place. I have already pointed out that this is contrary to the rules and also contrary to the facts because we are ready to proceed with the Customs Act which has been announced as coming after this legislation. But we also have a right to discuss this particular act. I ask that the minister withdraw the suggestion that discussion of this act is for the improper purpose of delaying other proceedings.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In the remarks which I have just heard the Minister of

Agriculture make I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there was any assumption or insinuation which could be ruled as unparliamentary. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that in the warmth of debate on both sides of the house nobody is being deliberately complimentary to his opponents. But I cannot rule that the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture come in the class of unparliamentary remarks.
Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 410, to amend the Customs Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume the minister is going to make a statement.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, in order to meet the convenience of the house at this time I shall proceed with the second reading of this Bill 410, to amend the Customs Act. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding and perhaps I am somewhat to blame for that. It was not brought to my attention until this morning that we intended to proceed with this bill. During the years I have been in this house it has been customary to have the top officials of the department here, and especially when we go into the committee stage. I quite understand that at this point discussion should deal with the principle of the bill.
This is a simple bill and the essential purpose of it is to clarify and bring up to date certain sections of the Customs Act. Under the present law vehicles are required to report to customs when conveying dutiable goods. As the house is aware, the Department of National Revenue customs and excise division is now charged with the administration of other regulations, such as those involving the health of animals, insect infestations, diseases of plants, and so on. In addition, the departments of immigration and health are also concerned that everyone crossing the border should report. I believe that is normal procedure.
The only difference under this amendment is that, whereas only a person crossing the
Customs Act
border with dutiable goods had to report, now all persons who cross the border have to report to the nearest customs official. He may report there for matters having to do with immigration because immigration officials at border points are usually in the same offices as the customs officials. It may be that such persons would be bringing animals across the border, and under certain regulations which we administer those animals have to be examined and passed. The same situation holds true in connection with certain health regulations.
Under another section of the bill we propose also to amend the valuation sections in order to clarify and confirm our present principles of valuation. It is proposed to limit the period for appeals against the original appraisal.
A third section has to do with the powers of the tariff board. The tariff board will be empowered to hear appeals from departmental rulings affecting export as well as domestic drawbacks. This particular provision has been introduced in order to give the appellant what might be called a fairer chance with reference to matters which he might want to bring to the attention of the board, over and above the customs officials. At the present time, if goods are diverted from the use for which entry was gained at a lesser rate of duty, we can only make a demand for the proper duty from the person found in possession of the goods. It seems desirable to hold the original importer responsible in cases of this kind. Very often we have found that an importer will bring into the country goods on which duty has been paid and then it appears that the valuation of the goods has been changed. In the meantime, he has disposed of the goods to some person and we can only hold that second or third person responsible for the duty. We feel it would be better administration to hold the original importer responsible.
At the present time a lien holder has only 30 days from the date of seizure to apply for a judicial order declaring his interest in the goods or vehicle so seized. It is proposed to extend this time to 60 days. We believe that is a right which should be given to the lien holder, so the period for this declaration will be extended from 30 days to 60 days.
I do not know that there are many other principles involved in the bill that we are considering. What has struck me about the explanations my officials have given with reference to the valuation for duty purposes is that they are based mostly on the value in the country of export under comparable conditions. Very often present trade practices make it impossible to find comparable con-

Customs Act
ditions in the country of export. For instance, let me give you an example without mentioning any names at all. A company doing business in Canada may have their manufacturing plant in the United States, and may take the full output of that particular factory. The factory does not sell to other people in the United States. In that instance, there are not comparable conditions of sale. We feel that the departmental appraisers should have the authority to appraise those goods and apply the rates of duty that are applicable. That is just one of the instances.
I feel that the most important section in the bill is section 35 which has to do with the valuation for duty purposes. Hon. members will recall that a year or two ago we made an amendment to the Customs Act when the matter of dumping duty was brought up. Since that time we have had about 20 appraisers appointed in the different countries. By reason of having these appraisers, we have been able to get better valuations of the goods exported to this country. We have one appraiser in Japan, one in Poland and one in Czechoslovakia. Recently Czechoslovakia was anxious to export goods to Canada. We thought we could not accept their valuation unless an official of our department had access to their cost sheets and to their invoices which they sent out. They have agreed to that and we now have an appraiser in Czechoslovakia. I believe there are about 15 such appraisers in the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And none in the United Kingdom?


James Joseph McCann: Oh yes, we have had them there. These appraisers I mentioned are in addition to the ones we had a year or two ago when the Customs Act was amended. We have them, of course, in the countries with whom we are trading all the time. We have officials in the United Kingdom, in France and these different countries with whom we have agreements, countries that are extensive exporters to Canada.
As a result of having appraisers in the United States we have been able to establish certain duties. Hon. members will recall that in the debate that took place when the act was amended it was held by some that there was a lot of dumping into this country and there was what was called depressed and end-of-the-line selling. In order to cure that, we had our appraisers take valuations. The manufacturers concerned have given them the freest access to the information. We have had them take valuation of the lines of goods that were coming into this country about which complaints were received, principally textiles. I think perhaps the complaints were the result of the depression of

the textile business in Canada, which I might point out was world-wide and obtained in many other places. It was because of these complaints that our efforts were put forth in connection with textiles, frigidaires and certain electrical goods. As a result of that, where there was what was called depressed selling and end-of-the-line selling we went back over these invoices and took the prices at which the majority of the goods were sold. We had the right to go back over the average prices for a period of six or nine months, or a year-I am not sure of the exact time at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Six months.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, I believe that is right- six months. Had I the data here I could show thousands upon thousands of invoices, the information from which enabled us- and we did-to put on a price on what might be called end-of-the-line of fire sale or distress goods. We found that the prices at which those goods were entered into Canada were equal to or above the prices charged in the country of export in the days of their earlier and larger sales.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the government satisfied that the present bill conforms with the provisions of GATT?


James Joseph McCann: I am told by my officials that it does. When we come to that section hon. members will see a number of alternative methods by which we get at the valuation. However, we will discuss them in more detail when we get to them.
If we keep in mind the fact that these are values for duty purposes, then we will have a clearer understanding of why you cannot lay down in one rule or one paragraph what shall be the value for duty. Because there are circumstances affecting the situation that do not apply to all types of goods. My opinion, after studying the matter as carefully as I can, is that you cannot have one yardstick which will meet all conditions. And if the first yardstick is not right you have to use another one, and perhaps another one, until you get what you think is a fair market value in the country of export.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in a bill of this kind which lumps together a number of amendments to an existing statute, many of which amendments are not related to one another, it is not altogether easy to discern or isolate the principle of the bill. In a bill of this kind there are about as many principles as there are clauses.
However, after hearing the statement made by the minister I suppose the first question arising in the minds of hon. members would

be this: Why, in view of the indicated importance of the matters the bill contains, has it been delayed to this date? We have reached the late stages, we understand, of this session, and we are dealing with a bill which concerns matters all of which have been in existence for some considerable time. There was no mention of the bill in the speech from the throne. Its timing, to say the least, strikes one as being interesting.
There have been those of us in the house who have throughout this session been drawing to the attention of the government, as we did in preceding sessions, the fact that Canadian workmen have been losing their jobs as a result of the dumping in this country of goods that were being grossly undervalued for duty purposes, thereby creating a situation in which Canadian workmen were being called upon to compete against the prices of imported goods on an altogether unfair and unrealistic basis.
Now, no new situation has suddenly arisen in recent days to account for the introduction of this bill at the present time. It is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker. The only conclusion one can reach from the timing of the bill is that the government has been compelled at last to move, even at a limited pace, in the direction of meeting an existing threat.
It is not my purpose to attempt a detailed review of what the bill purports to do. There will be opportunity of course to do that in greater detail at the committee stage of the bill. But, sir, the minister has reviewed sections and has singled out one in particular. I am sure there will be no quarrel in any part of the house with those provisions of the bill which enlarge the right given to persons under the bill to seek relief from seizure or to seek to assert their right in regard to appraisals that are made. So far as the enlargement of the time or the clarification of the rights of appeal are concerned, of course the legislation will be approved.
But, sir, the minister had singled out as the most important provision in the bill the one relating to the amendment of section 85 of the act, pertaining to valuation for duty purposes. This provision will recall to the minds of members the rather stirring debates held in this chamber in December of 1953, at which time subsection 6 was added to section 35 of the Customs Act. That is the provision to which the minister has referred, which gave rise to a new power on the part of the minister to set a special value for customs purposes of goods that were to be brought in on an end-of-line or end-of-season basis.
Hon. members will not need to be reminded that in the course of the debate on that
Customs Act
measure, the famous Bill No. 29, we in this part of the house said that the measure was inadequate for the purposes the government had stated. The result of some days' discussion was to make it abundantly clear it is almost impossible to discuss a subject pertaining to trade or the strengthening of anti-dumping provisions of our existing legislation, even when the bill is introduced by the government, without many hon. members in other parts of the house attempting to bring in some old shibboleths and some old and very base and unwarranted accusations in regard to the position of parties on the subject of trade restrictions.
Sir, let me remind the house that it was the government that then asked the house to strengthen its hands and give it new powers to set special arbitrary valuations on goods imported into Canada. That power was sought by the government for the purpose of dealing with an existing dumping threat. Let us look back to the words of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that he used in introducing the bill on December 7, 1953, when, as reported at page 673 of Hansard, he said, referring to section 35:
It has been found in practice that the section as it is now worded has not been fully adequate to deal with certain practices which in fact constitute a special kind of dumping.
And later, at page 674, he said:
The importation of such goods into Canada at abnormally low prices may cause injury to Canadian industry which is not in any real sense related to its relative efficiency or productivity. The government believes that this situation needs to be corrected, and to this end is proposing an amendment to the Customs Act.
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, added this new provision, to which I have made reference, to section 35 of the Customs Act. But let it be clearly remembered, sir, that the purpose of this addition to section 35 of the Customs Act was to give the government additional powers to grapple with the problems of dumping of foreign goods in Canada, and particularly United States goods, as we were told at an early stage of the discussion, under conditions that Canadian workmen could not fairly be called upon to meet.
We said that the measure was not adequate for the purpose that the government stated it had in mind. We have waited, sir, for a year and a half for our vindication, and we see our vindication here in this chamber tonight, because the government is back asking the house to replace section 35 with a very different kind of section, a provision that is intended again to strengthen the hands of the government to deal with the problem of dumping as well as the problem of setting

Customs Act
valuations on goods that do not come strictly within the scope of the dumping definition, but are required to have special values set upon them for duty purposes. Yes, the government is coming back to eke out what was left lacking in December, 1953.
Just as we told them at that time, their provisions were inadequate for the purpose that they stated was necessary and to meet the need that was clearly known to the house at that time, and now they come back and ask the house to strengthen their hands to meet these problems. These are the threats to Canadian workmen; these are the threats to employment in Canada. We have seen what these threats have done in the field of textiles, in the field of electric goods and in others, and now the government is back. A year and a half have gone. Many a job no doubt has been lost in the meantime. Now the government, after prodding from the opposition, has asked to add what was left lacking in the face of our warnings in December, 1953.
Well, sir, there will be fuller opportunity to discuss the type of amendment that is now put before the house in this bill when we come to the detailed review in committee stage. But, sir, I hope that hon. members in this house who sought in December, 1953, to picture Her Majesty's loyal opposition as raising the old tariff cry will find in this measure tonight directed at them a rebuke coming from the government, because the government is saying to the house now and saying to its own supporters in this house that it needs more powers to grapple with dumping in Canada and to meet what is lacking today in the government's powers to establish special and arbitrary values for duty purposes.
Now, sir, one would like to know just why the government has waited so long, why the government had to be prodded and pushed into taking measures of this kind. Sir, the minister talks about the difficulties in relation to comparable conditions and a definition of what are comparable conditions. Sir, all these difficulties have existed for years. These are not new expressions in our legislation, and they certainly are not new expressions within the last year and a half. These are expressions that have been embedded in this section for years. Why then does the government suddenly discover now that there are difficulties in determining and defining comparable conditions?
Sir, I think the house will have some questions for which it will need an answer at the hands of the government. Here are some that occur to me. Is there dumping 
in Canada today? Sir, if there is no dumping in Canada today, or if the provisions of our customs legislation are adequate today in the matter of empowering the government to establish special values for duty purposes, then why is this legislation introduced? No; there can be only one conclusion, sir, namely, that the legislation is inadequate and it has been inadequate to prevent dumping, and that dumping is going on today, as we have told this house this long time past.
Then, sir, is that dumping going on today? By whom is it being done? From what countries are the goods being dumped into Canada? How long has this dumping been going on? How long have Canadian workmen been left at the mercy of inadequate legislation in respect of dumping, inadequate legislation in respect of the empowering of the government to establish special values for duty purposes? In what commodities is this dumping going on? How many Canadian workmen have lost their jobs as the result of this dumping, and why, sir, has the government delayed this long to ask the house to give it strengthened powers to grapple with the threats to the livelihood of Canadian workmen?
I asked the minister a question: is this legislation in keeping with the provisions of GATT? The minister answered in the affirmative. It is evident that the opinion of the Department of Justice is that the house is competent to pass this legislation within the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Sir, that recalls the changes made in this legislation in 1948. It will be remembered that in the legislation as it had existed up to that time there was provision in subsection 3 of section 35 that where neither the fair market value nor the equivalent of such value could be ascertained, the value for duty purposes should be determined to be not less than the actual cost of production of similar goods at the date of the shipment to Canada, plus a reasonable addition for administration, selling cost and profit. The Department of Justice was called upon to give an opinion, after the provisions of GATT came into effect, and they said that that provision in the Customs Act would have to give way in the face of article VI of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Article VI provided in part as follows:
No anti-dumping shall be levied on any product of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party in excess of an amount equal to the margin of dumping under which such product is being imported. For the purpose of this article, the margin of dumping shall be understood to mean the amount by which the price of the product exported from one country to another

(a)	is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country; or
(b)	in the absence of such domestic price, is less than either
(i)	the highest comparable price for the like product for export to any third country in the ordinary course of trade, or
(ii)	the cost of production of the product in the country of origin plus a reasonable addition for selling cost and profit.
Apparently, it was the view of the law officers of the crown that section 35, as it then read, offended those provisions of article VI of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Then in 1948 the government asked the house to amend section 35 so that it might conform with the provisions of GATT. The house did write that amendment into section 35, and from that point on there was provision that only if:
neither the fair market value nor the equivalent of such value can be ascertained, the value for duty shall be the actual cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment to Canada, plus a reasonable addition for administration, selling cost and profit.
In the administration that has been given to that provision since, it has been taken as fundamental that the provisions cannot be applied in any case whatever unless it is impossible to determine the fair market value or the equivalent of such value in the country from which the goods are shipped.
We are now told that the new provisions embodied in Bill No. 410 conform with the provisions of GATT. I should like to know why we have had to wait seven long years since GATT came into effect before this step is taken to strengthen the amended provisions of section 35. The weakening of section 35 was carried out in 1948 and we have waited now for seven years before the government moves to put back a little of the strength into that section that was abstracted from it in 1948.
There is one final matter which I put in the form of a question. As I have suggested, we indicated our view in 1953 that the legislation now embodied in subsection 6 of section 35 would not be adequate for the purpose. Here is abundant proof, after another year and a half of delay, that our contention was correct and that it has been fully justified. Why does not the government admit frankly the error of a year and a half ago? I ask the minister to say, now that it has been found that the legislation was unsatisfactory in its form and effect and in the powers it gave to the government, why it has taken them so long to find that their legislation was unsatisfactory for this purpose.
We are dealing with something of considerable importance. I wish to emphasize again
Customs Act
that no one has suggested that the house should follow a course not in keeping with the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It should not be necessary to make that statement, but in view of the way in which the house was invited to distort things that were said by members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in the debate in December, 1953, it apparently is necessary to make that statement.
We are now being asked to move in the direction of strengthening and clarifying the provisions of the Customs Act. Why have we waited so long? How much harm has been done in the meantime by permitting to continue on the statute books of this country legislation which was weaker than it ever needed to be even while still conforming not only with the letter but with the spirit of the general agreement on tariffs and trade?


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to talk on this bill tonight, but as the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) proceeded I began to wonder whether we were dealing with Bill No. 29 of last session. The question of tariffs is a most important and difficult one to handle, particularly in this country with our vast areas. We are a country small in numbers, but because of our great size, because of the large proportion of our export trade, trade is vital to us, and it is far more vital to western Canada than it is to eastern Canada.
At the present time this government is fighting a magnificent rearguard action in the field of international trade against the forces of trade restriction that the hon. member for Eglinton tonight is upholding as being-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I stated in my remarks that I hoped it would not be necessary and it should not be necessary to make the particular statement which I did at that time. I made it abundantly clear that there was no question here of tariffs or raising tariffs and that nobody was advocating that. I made it abundantly clear that everything that was being proposed, that everything that was being urged on our part, as it was in 1953, was in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I hope that there will be no distortion on the part of hon. members of this house, such as we have just noted by the hon. member. There is no justification, there is no warrant whatever for the kind of statement the hon. member has just made, and I hope he will be good enough to withdraw it.

Customs Act


Mr. Sinclair:: That is not a question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a question of the misrepresentation of something a member has said.


George Dyer Weaver: Perhaps I could be excused for misunderstanding what the hon. member said, but it seemed to me that I heard him say that the government was being prodded and pushed into introducing legislation which-perhaps this is my confusion-was in a direction different from what we would like to see in western Canada. I say that the government is fighting a rearguard action against anything that would tend to restrict our trade. I am sorry if I said anything that would conflict with what the hon. member felt he had said. I was not thinking entirely in terms of what he was saying. I was viewing this from the larger horizon of a world that would like to throw aside restrictions and trade freely, but cannot because of misunderstanding, because of international difficulties which the great trading nation to our south is trying to overcome; and it is confusing to hear debate such as we heard on Bill No. 29. It is also pretty hard to tell sometimes whether the hon. members who are speaking are in favour of or against trade.
The administration of the great nation to our south are going a long way toward trying to remove restriction and we can see from this distance the difficulty they are having. We wish them well in that fight, and the reason we do that is that it is most important to us that they win that particular fight. We have to gain time and avoid the effects of restrictions, which almost approach insanity at times, which would take us back into something like what we had in the thirties. We have to keep away from restrictions, and if we can hold the line, as the government has been doing, we will eventually win through. It will not be by criticizing them for doing the job they are doing in keeping away from going back on the tariff road that has been travelled so often in the past.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a word which perhaps I might not have added if it were not for the statement, to me utterly amazing and astounding, made by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver), whom I have always regarded as one of the fairest men in the house until I heard what he said tonight. That shocked me more than I can easily say, because if anything has ever been made clear it was made clear by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that the last thing we

were seeking was to restrict trade. All that this measure is doing, as has been pointed out on both sides of the house, is to try to make effective laws which are already on the statute books. But for the hon. member for Churchill to describe the government action as fighting a rearguard action against anything that would tend to restrict trade, that to me was a fantastic statement. As the hon. member for Eglinton has said, the government has come in here seeking to strengthen legislation which it brought in a year ago last December and which at that time we suggested had certain defects-I have the book open before me.
The hon. member for Eglinton was careful to ask the question as to whether what is now proposed was in accordance with GATT, which is seeking to keep the trade lanes open, so important to us in Canada, as we all agree. It is for this reason that I rise to object most strenuously to what the member has said. I do so because there are people of the baser sort up and down this country who will seek to represent what we are doing in that very way, but I never thought to hear it from the hon. member for Churchill. I hope that he will be frank enough to admit that he was wrong and to make it perfectly clear that he now understands the situation and that it is not the fantastic one he put before us a moment or two ago.


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


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Duty to report.
Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Mr. Boisvert:: It is a good piece of
legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am shocked to hear my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska say that legislation in such a severe form as that
Customs Act
is good. Let us understand what that means. My hon. friend says that in a case where the farmer is crossing the border and his farm is, let us say, within a mile or so of the border, he must drive 25 miles, whether in a horse and buggy or a motor car, to the custom-house before he stops, and he must there declare the full inventory of the vehicle and everything he has in it before he can then turn around and go back home, having done a round trip of 50 miles. Sir, between now and the next time this matter comes up, I suggest that it is worthy of further reflection and that some saving provision should be introduced to mitigate its rigours and curb its excesses, such as I have mentioned, which are bound to create severe hardship.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We ask that some common sense be used.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member for Eglin-ton, as usual, puts everything in its worst light. There are hundreds of points of entry along the Canadian border, and that is what this refers to. Previous to this amendment, it was only required that persons should report at the nearest point of entry if they had dutiable goods. Now under the system which we have at the border points, there are many other acts which are administered there, for instance, the acts and regulations relating to immigration and health, health of animals, insect infestation and diseases of plants. I am sure that the hon. gentleman does not seriously suggest that anybody can enter this country at any place along the border and not report to somebody that he is coming into Canada.
It is in order to clarify it that this section has been put into the act. The present law requires vehicles to report only when conveying dutiable goods or when the vehicle itself is dutiable. I would suggest that modern methods of transportation are the principal reasons or one of the principal reasons why we put this into effect. If the hon. gentleman had to deal, as I do and as my administrative officers do, with all the running there is across the line with automobiles at points on back roads and bringing in smuggled goods and the like of that, he would be the first to suggest that this legislation should be changed whereby it would be an offence if these people did not report to the nearest customs point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister says "these people". Look at the way he puts it. The minister talks about this smuggling and he says it would be a mistake not to require these people to report. Everybody wants to catch smugglers.

Customs Act


James Joseph McCann: No; any person.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I put a case on the basis of the extreme provisions of this act.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not dealt with that case. The amendment he is introducing requires that any person coming into Canada must report to the nearest custom-house or station.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He must do that before he can stop.


James Joseph McCann: What is wrong with that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Somebody says ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: As soon as we finish this debate in the committee of the whole we shall proceed with the supply motion.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 31, 1955