1955-03-11

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 242 (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 244, to consolidate and amend acts relating to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.-Mr. Deschatelets.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether he has received a letter from Mrs. Louis Ber-covitch of Montreal with reference to the conviction of her husband, Louis Bercovitch, some six years ago for manslaughter in the death of a gambler in Montreal by the name of Davis. If he has received this letter, in view of the allegation made therein does he intend to have the fullest possible investigation made to the end that the allegations of perjury and frame-up will be either answered or sustained?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not give me notice of his question so I have not been able to make inquiries. However, no letter has come to my desk. There may be a bit of a time lag between its coming to the department and reaching my desk, but it has not come to my attention yet. When it does we will of course, as a matter of routine, give it the careful attention to which my hon. friend has referred, and if the facts warrant it we will exercise the powers that we have under the code in that regard.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the serious allegations, would the minister not consider that an investigation would be in order by
officials of the R.C.M.P., whose integrity will assure that any suggestion of wrongdoing and injustice will be thoroughly investigated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has stated he has not seen the document. Perhaps when the minister gives a further reply to the hon. member a supplementary question to his answer may then be in order, but at this moment we are working on nothing tangible.



BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR-REPORTED DISCONTINUANCE OF PARTICIPATION BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house if a decision has been made by the Canadian government to discontinue taking space at the British industries fair this year?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have heard of no such decision. Whether or not we are taking space at that fair I cannot say, but I will be glad to make inquiries.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE HEALTH INSURANCE    SUGGESTED INCLUSION ON AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the federal government consider suggesting to the provincial premiers that the agenda of the federal-provincial fiscal conference to be held later this year include the question of health insurance?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I do not think it will be necessary to make any suggestions to the provincial premiers with respect to any of the matters that are of public concern at this moment.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF PUBLIC SESSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to propose to the dominion-provincial conference when it is called that its sessions be held in public.
1928	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): That question has not received any consideration up to the present time.
(Translation) :



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister read in yesterday's press an account of an address in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) stated that the red ensign had been the official flag of this country since 1945 and would remain so until parliament had chosen another?
Could he also tell us whether the red ensign is the temporary flag of this country, to serve until such time as parliament has adopted a permanent one or its official flag, and whether it will remain so until parliament has designated another, as the minister has said?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to read the hon. member's question in Hansard. I have tried to follow it as closely as I could, but I must say I have been unable to grasp its full import.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's decision not to call an immediate conference on unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: -is depriving many thousands of Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: -who have no jobs or means of support, of any chance of a solution of their problems, would the Prime Minister not reconsider his decision and call an immediate conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot agree with the premises of the hon. member's question as a basis for reconsideration.
[Mr. Fleming.!



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 10, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Sirncoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canada Grain Act to amend the statutory grades of western grain and eastern grain with respect to the grade No. 3 amber Durum wheat and all grades of soybeans as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards: to provide for the appointment of four in lieu of three assistant grain commissioners and to increase the annual salaries of the chief and other two commissioners from fourteen and twelve thousand dollars to fifteen and thirteen thousand five hundred dollars respectively.
Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: In discussing this resolution last evening objection was raised to the way the resolution was introduced. Objection was raised to the fact that it was introduced as a package deal. I know that if I am going to make a purchase of anything I want to be sure that the whole object is sound. If I am going to buy a barrel of apples and find some good apples on top, I am going to look into the bottom of the barrel to see what is there. In this case, the first portion of the resolution appears to be a necessary and timely move, but as we dig down into the barrel we find that the apples are not in particularly good condition.
We questioned the necessity for action at this time to raise the salaries of the members of the board of grain commissioners in the proportion that is envisaged in the resolution. Perhaps the work that the assistant commissioners have to do in the western provinces, if properly carried out, would necessitate the appointment of an additional assistant commissioner. Last night, however, I pointed out the inefficiency of one particular commissioner in investigating a contravention of the Canada Grain Act. I pointed out, too, that although two of the commissioners were aware of the charge they had taken no action. It was not until the matter was aired before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization that these policemen of the Canada Grain Act took action, and eventually did fine the company that was stealing half a cent a bushel from the farmers.
I feel that in any form of business it is necessary to have certain principles to which one must stick in promoting individuals from within the ranks. I have always assumed that the most desirable principle is to promote individuals according to their ability. As a vacancy occurred in the top levels, those who have been working for many years at

a lower level and who are qualified should automatically step up to the senior position. However, the government of today seems to adopt a different principle in making appointments to these lucrative positions. Perhaps ability is not a factor, because if we go over the members of this board of grain commissioners, we find that the chief commissioner, Mr. McKenzie, has an impressive background. He was a Liberal member in the Manitoba legislature and was minister of agriculture in that house from 1932 to 1936. He was also a director of the United Grain Growers.
We find another of the commissioners, Mr. Vallance, was a Liberal member of the House of Commons. The third commissioner, Mr. Milner, did not have the qualification of being a Liberal member in the legislature or the House of Commons. His next best qualification was the fact he had been president of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the manager of a line elevator company. It appears, however, that in recent years the government has become so lavish in their appointments that they diminished the supply. We note that Mr. Frank Chester, whose claim to fame was his defeat by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, was given a position at $10,000 a year on the Canadian farm loan board. Mr. Dewar, who was familiar with this house, was also taken care of, but I imagine the unfortunate good luck at the last election returned a lot of these expectant appointees to the House of Commons instead of the other fields of endeavour.
But the government was not taken aback. They appraised the situation and found that in Saskatchewan the acting house leader of the Liberal party in that province had been doing a good job for the Minister of Agriculture. We noticed his activities during the fall months, and in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 6, 1954, we note what Mr. Loptson said:
He told the meeting not to discount the possibility of a "dark horse" entering the contest. I think I am safe in saying you will see Dr. L. B. Thomson (director of P.F.R.A.) in the race.
A man who has been able to pick these winners would deserve a little consideration. I think those of us who are familiar with the political situation in Saskatchewan felt that he had made a good try but he did not win the prize. The Minister of Agriculture had not struck out yet. He looked around and found that the only son of this faithful servant was also a director of the United Grain Growers. Here, we have the same qualification as the two other commissioners, that of being closely attached to the Liberal party and closely attached to the United Grain Growers. The Minister of Agriculture
Canada Grain Act
took a wild swing at the ball, hit a foul ball, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce was adept at catching it, so the only son was appointed to the board of grain commissioners. If the government had found it necessary to appoint known Liberals to the board of grain commissioners, they could have followed this other policy of appointing men from within the ranks, because Mr. A. G. McLean was fairly well qualified.
In that same regard, as the minister will doubtless point out, they had to increase the salary to attract men to the position. We notice that two of the assistant commissioners are paid $8,500 a year, and the third one, Mr. Rayner, receives $9,000. It looks to me to be a fairly attractive promotion to go up to $12,000 a year, let alone up to $13,500. I do not feel we can entertain for one minute the fact that the salary increase was necessary to attract men to the position, because we find many well qualified men-I am thinking of wheat pool travelling superintendents-who are familiar with every aspect of the Canada Grain Act and who are currently living on a salary of $6,000 to $7,000. I think this principle of reaching beyond your business to fill a position is a very undesirable one. I notice that the Liberal federal government has had to do that three times in recent years in making appointments to the treasury benches. Perhaps they continue the same excuse there, that they could not find amongst their own members anyone capable of filling the position.
In discussing the salary increases of the board of grain commissioners, this police force for the grain industry, I feel it has been amply proven by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort that it is the Fearless Fosdicks at the top of the commission who are incompetent and not doing a good job. I do not think we should underestimate the good job that the men working in the service of the board of grain commissioners are doing. When one thinks in terms of men like the chief inspector, the chief chemist and the hundreds of other men who are not in this $12,000 to $14,000 category, but who are receiving incomes of three or four thousand dollars, he realizes that these are the men who are doing an excellent job. I believe they are the ones to whom the hon. member for Fort William was referring when he praised the commissioners. Coming from Fort William, he would assume that the board of grain commissioners were the men doing the work.


Mr. Mclvor:: I knew what I was talking about.

Canada Grain Act


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think the hon. member for Fort William made only one mistake, because in the course of his remarks he said that as long as we have the present Minister of Agriculture the farmers of western Canada are going to be well represented. From the evidence I have, I think he meant to use the word "Liberals"-that so long as Liberals are appointed, western Canada will be well represented.
When we investigate the various functions of the board of grain commissioners we find the act states explicitly that:
The commissioners and the assistant grain commissioners shall each ot them devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this act, and shall not accept or hold any other office or employment.
In view of that provision in the act, I am wondering how it is that one of the commissioners holds a full-time job as transport controller. It looks to me as though something is incompatible with the act. The transport controller has the tremendous task of allocating box cars throughout western Canada-indeed throughout Canada as a whole.
On February 4 I inquired from the government as to the number of box cars the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. have. I thought it would be a simple matter to phone the transport controller to get that information. Certainly it did not appear to be top secret. However, in the answer the government said the information was not available. In other words, the man who is responsible for the allocation of box cars at various divisional points in western Canada does not know how many cars these two great railway systems have.
As I pointed out last night, in considering any salary increases at this time one should have in mind the economic conditions in Canada, and should consider the salaries of men who are doing very important jobs in other sections of the economy. Let us look at the salary schedules, and compare them with schedules in other important jobs. We find that Dr. C. H. Goulden, an extremely well qualified man, a man whose services through his rust research have meant millions of dollars to the western farmers, and who has recently been appointed director of experimental farm services, gets $10,500 a year. We see that Dr. K. W. Neatby, another highly qualified and experienced man, receives $11,000 as director of science services. Then, the director of the marketing service receives $10,500 a year.
On the basis of the qualifications of these men, and having in mind the salaries they receive, I do not see why it is necessary to increase the salaries of political appointees on

the board of grain commissioners. I am not: saying for one moment that the salaries of Dr. Goulden, Dr. Neatby and the director of marketing services are high enough-in fact, I think they are too small, in view of the qualifications these men have. But I do say that it would be better to increase salaries at their level, rather than down at the other end of the scale with men whose abilities and qualifications are in doubt.
Lest there be any misconception, let me say that we in this group are in no way critical of the members or the salaries on the Canadian wheat board. They are competent men, and proved themselves so when they appeared before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. Further, their salaries are paid out of the earnings of the Canadian wheat board and not out of the treasury of Canada, as is proposed in the present instance.
The Canadian wheat board has been of inestimable value to the farmers of western Canada. I maintain that if these policemen of the Canada Grain Act, the board of grain commissioners, had been as efficient as the members of the Canadian wheat board, many of the problems now existing would have disappeared.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we object to the package deal. We are interested in receiving further information about the first part of the resolution, namely the grading of No. 3 amber Durum wheat and all grades of soybeans. There is not much information on the subject in the resolution. But if the minister insists upon wrapping this up with a rotten ball of twine, and including the annual salaries of the chief and other commissioners, in one case an increase of $1,000 and in the other of $1,500, then we cannot accept that package deal. We must object to it.
If the minister would agree to split the resolution, and introduce it under two separate headings, we would be in a position to act as we think we should on each issue. When this matter comes to a vote we will have to support the farmers of western Canada in their objection to the lack of efficiency in the board of grain commissioners, and their opposition to any increase in salaries at this time. I do not suppose we can expect western Liberals in the House of Commons to vote against this increase.


Mr. Harrison:: That is right.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Because, after the next election, you will be one of the ones looking for the appointment.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: And that is right.


Mr. Julras:: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to speak on this resolution, because it is in many respects similar to other resolutions we have had dealing with other boards. However, my reason for saying a few words at this time is chiefly because of what was said last night by the hon. member for Assiniboia. And, as a matter of fact, I could include all his colleagues in the C.C.F. party.
They have taken a most unusual attitude, indeed a very strange one. I regret very much that they have chosen to debate the merits of the resolution purely on a basis of personalities. I do not suppose there is anything we can do about those persons with whom the hon. member for Assiniboia and his colleagues fall in love or out of love. That is their privilege. But what they have been saying in that connection has very little relevancy in the discussion on this resolution, as such.
What we are asked to do, and what is involved in the resolution, is to increase the salaries of the commissioners. It does not matter who are the commissioners. Some are commissioners now; they may not be commissioners tomorrow; but the salaries will remain the same. The salary increase is for the board of grain commissioners. We all know-and I think our socialist friends should be the first ones to admit it-that the board of grain commissioners is a very important board. It is looked upon as one of the most important boards in western Canada. For that reason I am surprised that they, since they come from western Canada, should be the ones to oppose this board being placed on the same footing as other important boards in the country. Surely we should be the first ones to approve this resolution to place the members of that board in the same position as other boards, the members of which have received salary increases in the last few years.
I rise particularly to deal briefly with the references that were made yesterday by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) to the sittings of the agriculture committee last year. There again I was very much surprised, because as chairman I understood that everybody had come out of the sittings of the committee last year well pleased with the information that was given there. It is the first time that I have known members to rise in their places and leave the impression, and particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia, that they were not satisfied with the sittings and the findings of the committee last year. There is no question that the evidence given in the committee does not bear out in any way the assertion of the
Canada Grain Act
hon. member for Assiniboia, as recorded in Hansard of yesterday. He referred particularly to the incident of the document and the chairman of the board of grain commissioners. Well, it was one of those things about which there was a little misunderstanding as to the exact identity of the document that was referred to the night before. That happens many times in all committees. As a matter of fact, in that particular case the chairman of the board of grain commissioners had referred to the document previously, so that he was certainly aware that it existed. However, he did not exactly identify it as the one to which the hon. member was referring at that time. The hon. member rises in his place in this house and says that that is clear evidence the chairman of the board of grain commissioners is inefficient and does not know his job. We have to draw the line somewhere. I certainly think it is leaving an entirely wrong impression.
I come now to the other gentleman who was mentioned last night and again today, namely, the transport controller. Reference was made to him and much ado was made about the statement he made in the committee last year. Hon. members who were on the committee will recall that when he made that statement he said that when he was in the grain business-and he was in the grain business many years before he was appointed to the board of grain commissioners -he encountered certain practices. The hon. member for Assiniboia makes a big story out of that and says that he has never encountered it. That is a matter of opinion, if he says he has not and the controller says he has. Many of us know that it has taken place at times. That is the whole point, but it is not within the confines of the act. It is something that has happened. At times some farmers are willing to accept a little lower grade in order to get a little higher price or to get delivery-it would not apply at the present time-of their grain at this time. It is not something that we condone, but the point is it is one of those side instances that do take place.
With respect to the transport controller, I feel very strongly that he has been doing a magnificent job in that capacity ever since his appointment. A very large percentage of the farmers would agree with that statement. They are all aware of what the transport controller has done. They admit that he has done a big job, and we all know that it is a tremendous task. It is not an easy one. He has done it efficiently and with great success.
The hon. member for Assiniboia and a few others might criticize the box car distribution.

Canada Grain Act
We are not supposed to discuss that issue on this resolution, but the whole question was gone into quite thoroughly in the committee. It is fair to say that on that issue there is quite a difference of opinion between the two western provinces. The problem is far more acute in the province in which the hon. member for Assiniboia resides. The evidence shows quite clearly that it is not nearly as acute in the other two provinces, and the situation is quite different. After discussing the whole matter at great length in the committee, we all came to the conclusion that nobody had an acceptable ready solution to the problem. As a matter of fact, the report of the committee so stated and that was the way in which it was presented to the house. Nobody had a ready solution to offer that would be acceptable to the farmers. What was the recommendation in the report? The recommendation in the committee report was simply that we leave the matter in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to try to work out a solution somehow. When the farmers and the three pools, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Manitoba wheat pool and the Alberta wheat pool, which market a very large percentage of the grain in the western provinces, appeared on this very question they also, except possibly Saskatchewan, had no clear-cut suggestion acceptable to all.
The hon. member referred to the overages. I am glad that he did. There is a good illustration of the effective, informative and useful information that was given to the committee last year. All hon. members will recall the numerous discussions that took place in this house up until the time the committee commenced its sittings. All hon. members will also recall that the hon. member for Assiniboia particularly rose in his place in this house again and again and talked on overages and how everybody on the prairies was being robbed on account of overages, and many of his colleagues spoke on the question.


Mr. Argue:: The hon. member should quote me on that.


René Jutras: It is not merely a coincidence that after the committee commenced its sittings we never heard a single word from our socialist friends or anybody else in this house on that question. It appeared to have settled the question. I might say in passing that if anybody wants any information on the situation as to overages all he has to do is to go to the evidence of the agriculture committee of last year and he will find that this whole question was thoroughly and completely dealt with by the representatives of the three western pools.
I Mr. Jutras.]


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Weir:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can he tell me at what time, if at any time, the report of the agriculture committee of last year was moved for concurrence in this house so that the contents of it could have been discussed?


William Gilbert Weir: Very important.


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot discuss something that you have no opportunity to discuss.


René Jutras: I do not think there was any disagreement as to the report. If the hon. member has changed his views or his mind, that is a different thing, but the report was presented to the house the same as any other report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Assiniboia could have moved adoption of the report if he wanted to.


René Jutras: I am satisfied that the committee of last year was more effective than any of the committees in the past, but I may be prejudiced because I was the chairman. However, if anyone will read the evidence I think he will find that all these questions were dealt with quite fully.
During the debate last night and again today reference has been made to the appointment of commissioners, but the resolution before us does not deal with the appointment of a commissioner. There is one assistant commissioner to be appointed. The titles may sound similar but the functions of these two positions are quite different. As I say, the resolution provides for the appointment of one assistant commissioner.


William Gilbert Weir: For Saskatchewan.


René Jutras: Originally there were three assistant commissioners appointed in order to have one in each province. I understand that the purpose in appointing the extra assistant commissioner is to give Saskatchewan two assistant commissioners.
I am surprised that it should be a socialist hon. member from Saskatchewan who is objecting to the appointment of another assistant commissioner, particularly in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Kindersley who has just resumed his seat after complaining that the board of grain commissioners had not dealt with the subject matters he had brought to their attention as quickly as he would have liked. With the appointment of another assistant commissioner this objection should be met. I suggest that instead of speaking against the resolution the hon. member should be supporting it.

The whole thing is that at the moment this resolution has nothing to do with personalities. It is simply a question of putting this important board in line with other important boards in the country. I suggest that it is only fair and equitable that we should do it and that it would be in the interests of this important commission that we do it as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is similar to other resolutions that have been brought in from time to time in that it contains some things which all of us are desirous of securing, but in order to secure those things certain other matters are included with which we are in entire disagreement. In other words, to obtain that which is good we are being asked to swallow a pill of that which is not good.
This resolution divides itself roughly into three parts. The first part has to do with the important export market, as I see it, for Durum wheat which is in demand for the making of macaroni. As the law now stands, grades Nos. 1 and 2 of Durum require confirmation to the best varieties of this brand. In the case of No. 3 an equally good grade can be obtained with a variety less desirable for the making of macaroni.
The amendment simply means that one grade further is advanced. I think that generally this meets the requirements of the farming communities in the western provinces, particularly those which in recent years have gone extensively into the production of Durum wheat. They have done this because of the higher price and because this wheat is not subject to the quota system which is applicable to hard wheat.
Then there is the question of overages, to which the hon. member who has just spoken referred a moment ago. I think the general plan outlined last evening by the senior hon. member for Halifax meets the very serious criticism which has been made in recent years with regard to overages. While the elevator companies in general have been able to say that the percentage actually acquired in overages is very small, the total purchases that were made during the course of the year have amounted to a large sum of money. I remember when in the house in 1951 the late Mr. Fair asked a question to which a return was made which revealed that as between 1945-46 and 1949-50 the net overages in the elevator companies amounted to 9,982,016 bushels of grain, or almost 10 million bushels. Of that total there were 5,621,938 bushels of wheat. In 1945-46, which was the year in which deferred weighovers took place, the amounts in some cases were
Canada Grain Act
nothing short of stupendous. One elevator company showed an overage for that crop year of 800,760 bushels while another showed 434,707 bushels. Those were tremendous overages, and while the explanation may be given that the percentage was small, the amount was fabulous in quantity.
The changes which have been placed before us by the parliamentary assistant are those which have been asked for and they represent to a considerable measure, if not completely, the representations which were made in the committee of last year.
I come now to the general overhauling of the grain act. What I find difficult to understand is the fact that legislation by way of amending an act as important as this one is brought in in a piecemeal fashion and consists of a haphazard system of spasmodic amendments. Farmers in general would like to see the grain act gone into in detail. I believe that there is need for an exhaustive inquiry into the whole question of grain grading, handling, mixing and storage. A thorough study should be made of receipts from farmers and deliveries by companies by grades, and into the condition of all grain purchases since 1945, so that the western farmer in particular may understand the true position.
Such an inquiry could cover such matters as grain inspection and the general practices followed in order to find whether the farmers' interests are being fully protected.
This legislation has been on the statute books for about 43 years. An extensive examination of the statute was made in 1930, but in my opinion the experiences of recent years demand a further extensive consideration. I am not going to suggest a royal commission. The hon. member who just preceded me mentioned the agriculture committee of last year. I was not able to attend at the committee because of my absence from Ottawa at the time.
I read the evidence of that committee and I agree with him that the committee really grappled with the problems before it as few committees have done heretofore. I believe a committee, even the agriculture committee, could go into this matter in detail and examine it closely. This is not a partisan matter. It is a matter which affects the welfare of agriculture in this country in general and the grain producers in western Canada in particular. I believe a committee of parliament could do a tremendous job in conducting an examination of the grain act and in suggesting amendments. There are many hon. members in this house who are desirous of tackling this problem and who would be only too glad to do so but to whom

Canada Grain Act
the opportunity to do the work they are qualified to do is not always available to them because an overwhelming government majority are in opposition.
I think a committee of parliament, or the agriculture committee itself, might undertake this responsible task of dealing with grain handling, grain storage and the general administration of the board. It could also make a study of the effects of large sales of poor grade screenings by elevator companies on the marketing of feed grains in eastern Canada. This is a problem which has been brought to my attention from time to time. It is a problem which could be considered by the members of this house who have the agricultural training and professional knowledge necessary to find a solution. This problem is a matter of everyday concern to them. Out of such an investigation would come not this halting, uncertain, spasmodic type of amendment, but a complete revision of the Canada Grain Act to meet conditions which have changed and which are constantly changing.
Having said that, I now come to a reference to the board of grain commissioners. I feel that that board, and I think I speak for the vast majority of the western farmers in that connection, should have appointed to it representatives of actual farm producers. Indeed, I would go even further and ask for the appointment of trained grain men who could offer valuable and professional advice to the commission. I would ask however for the appointment to that hoard of a majority of farmers.
I do not wish to enter into a criticism of individuals. When a man has served in politics and then received a position on a board he is sometimes subject to criticism. I am going to speak of an individual who was a former member of this house. I refer to John Vallance. John Vallance was a strong and powerful member of this house.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He was a man who had
strong opinions. Although I did not sit in the house while he was here I believe that he was convinced of the rightness of everything which was done by the government of which he was a member and a supporter. The work he did on this board deserves the thanks and appreciation of the farmers of Canada. I think John Vallance did an excellent job and he never allowed any partisanship to enter into the decisions he made. We are not here for the purpose of destroying the reputations of others with whom we disagree. I am very strongly of the opinion that there is something seriously wrong with the

allocation of box cars to the western farmers. Some few weeks ago I brought this to the attention-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, is there not a bill before the house which discusses distribution of box cars?


John George Diefenbaker: I am referring to Mr. Milner. This was discussed last evening and I am referring to it today in that connection,-


The Chairman:: Order. If the hon. member was in the house last evening he will remember that I was forced to suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that, in view of his bill on the order paper, the question of box cars should not be discussed on this resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, Mr. Chairman. I was not here last evening but I read the debate. I intended to say something about Mr. Milner, if I had been given the opportunity, which would not be a criticism in any sense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How about talking about Mr. Milner and not about box cars?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Mr. Milner is the controller and looks after transportation and that is why I mentioned him in particular. If my right hon. friend would just allow me to develop this thought he would see that it would bear no reference to Mr. Milner other than in a sense of non-criticism. I think the problem does not rest on Mr. Milner's shoulders and I do not personally join with those who criticize him to the extent that he has been criticized. I believe he is trying to do a good job. I must observe, however, that the situation relative to transport control has not been what it should be. When we come to raise the salaries of the members of this board and increase its membership it is natural that the question arises, what appointments are being made? Certainly I believe that any increase in salaries should be delayed. I believe that the appointment of Mr. Loptson is one which cannot conceivably be excused or justified. A producing farmer should be appointed to the board. Mr. Loptson has not been in politics but the appointment has too much resemblance to a political reward given to the son in return for the political activities of his father. No one hearing of that appointment could have any other opinion concerning it when they consider the trained men who are available for that position. I think parliament, and the opposition to the extent it can, should resist a course which is so directly in the nature of a political reward as the case in question. We in Saskatchewan find ourselves in the

position of being forced to conclude that the senior positions in the P.F.R.A. and the P.F.A.A. are positions where Liberal M.P.'s and ex-M.L.A.'s find a place of refuge in their time of need, trouble or defeat. I think the appointment of Mr. Loptson is one which is not justified in the opinion of western farmers in general and it suggests something which one does not want brought into the field represented by the board of grain commissioners.
Reference has been made to Mr. McLean. I do not know anything about his position directly but I do know that the last appointment to the board was one which has caused an unprecedented degree of criticism in the western provinces. I think if the government had really intended to make the board of grain commissioners an efficient and effective body it should have given more consideration to the representations of agriculture in general and western agriculture in particular when the last appointment was made. There are many men who are actually farmers who could have made a valuable contribution to the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, this resolution refers to a number of matters on some of which there seems to be complete agreement. I think we are all agreed that it is desirable to change the grading of Durum wheat and to return the terminal overages to the wheat board instead of to the treasury as previously provided. There seems to be objection to increasing the salaries of the board of grain commissioners. There has been a general increase in salaries during the last 12 months. Salary increases have been granted to almost every board except the board of grain commissioners, and the purpose of this provision is to do for the board of grain commissioners what has been done for other boards in the service of the federal government, no more and no less. The amount of the increase was approved by treasury board, and there is nothing unusual about that change in the act at this time.
There has been criticism about the work of the board of grain commissioners. It is a strange thing. The board of grain commissioners has many important duties. It has charge of the inspection of wheat. It has charge of protecting wheat in transit from the farmers to the markets abroad. It has charge of the weighing of wheat and of the operation of a chain of terminal elevators. No one has mentioned in what particular the work of the board has been deficient. Certainly the grade standards are the highest in the world. The reason we can sell our wheat while the Americans are giving wheat away is that buyers know the exact type
Canada Grain Act
of wheat they are going to receive when they buy Canadian wheat according to grade, and they are willing to pay a price for that security.
As far as weights are concerned, we had difficulties about weights in the old days having to do with the out-turns of export cargoes. That problem has all disappeared owing to the work of the board. I have heard no recent criticism of the work of the weighing department. I have heard no criticism of the way in which the board operates its terminal elevators. I believe that is an efficient operation. I fail to see how an inefficient board can be efficient in so many directions and I fail to see how an inefficient board can bring the reputation of Canadian wheat in the markets of the world up to the standard it has achieved in this particular year.
Last year I attended a number of the meetings of the committee on agriculture where the efficiency of the board of grain commissioners was discussed. While there I heard every witness say that in his opinion the board of grain commissioners was doing an excellent job. That was said by the presidents of the three wheat pools. It was said by the president of the United Grain Growers and it was said by other witnesses from the grain trade of Canada. There was no difference of opinion there.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister agree that the heads of the grain companies to which he has referred unanimously disagreed with the opinion of Mr. Milner with respect to agents taking excessive dockage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what my hon. friend is talking about.


Mr. Siuder:: Nobody else does.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the hon. member for Assiniboia does. I thought I listened very closely to the evidence given before the committee. I have been talking about the work of the board. If my hon. friend will look at the evidence of the witnesses before the committee I think he will see that my statement is correct, that every witness stated that in his opinion the board of grain commissioners is conducting an efficient operation.
There has been criticism of the personnel of the board. One member of the board retired a few days ago because he had reached the statutory age limit, and it was necessary to fill the position. It is my responsibility to fill the position, and in doing so I asked for advice. I wrote to the three producer grain companies operating in Saskatchewan and

Canada Grain Act
asked for recommendations. I obtained three recommendations from the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The pool recommended three men each of whom was a director of a wheat pool. The United Grain Growers recommended a director of that company who had been a director for eight years, I believe. The farmers union also recommended a person who was not a director of that organization.
Each of the five men was very carefully investigated. I had reports on all of them from people whom I consider to be reliable witnesses. I thought a basic requirement was that a member of the board of grain commissioners should be an actual wheat producer; in other words, a dirt farmer. I am told today that we should have filled the vacancy by promotion from within the board, by moving up a member of the staff of the board. That is a new thought. I have never heard that demand from the prairies. I thought I had heard them all but that is a new variety.
I looked into the qualifications of Mr. Loptson. I took into account the fact that he had been a farmer all his life, that he farmed 1,750 acres of land. May I say to my hon. friends who speak so freely of their farming experience that that is a sizeable farm. I should think it would amount to about the aggregate acreage farmed by all those in the group of men who have been discussing this particular measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not as much as one of our members.


William Gilbert Weir: You have got some capitalists over there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Loptson is a man who has not previously been in public life. He is a man who has been active in community affairs, a man who is known as a successful farmer and a successful businessman. I looked into the qualifications of the other four men and it seemed to me that Mr. Loptson had the best qualifications. I asked him to come to Ottawa to discuss his views about the position, as I did with the others. It seemed to me he was the best man for the job. I may say that when I decided he was the right man I was not aware that his father had been in public life. I learned that about the day that I signed the recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some members say "oh, oh". I do not live in Saskatchewan and I do not sit in the legislature of Saskatchewan. But now we are told that

appointing Mr. Loptson to this position must have been a reward to his father and that Mr. Loptson must be a great Liberal because his father was a Liberal. I should like to ask members of the C.C.F. party how many of them are C.CJT.'ers because their fathers were C.C.F.'ers. I ask the hon. member for Prince Albert if he is a Conservative because his father was a Conservative. I think I know the answer to that one.
Let us not be ridiculous. I do not mind fair debate, but when we hear it sai'd that because a man has served as a Liberal member in the provincial parliament his son must naturally be a Liberal and that the appointment of his son is a reward to the father, may I venture to say that the son is probably much better off than his father and well able to stand on his own feet. Let us not take that argument quite as seriously as it has been presented today.
It is said that the Liberal party never makes an appointment without taking care of a Liberal. I have noticed particularly that when any member of the C.C.F. party leaves the House of Commons he is subsequently found in the employment of the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan. There are men in the house now who were previously defeated, were then in the employ of the provincial government of Saskatchewan, and are now back in the House of Commons. That is all right, but let us not be-


An hon. Member:: Too pure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -too pure about matters of that kind. I do not know that I need to say anything further. The hon. member for Calgary North seemed a little confused. He was discussing the appointment of an assistant commissioner to the board as another member of the board. He criticized the fact that this man was to be appointed for Saskatchewan. As has been said in the course of the debate, there are three assistant commissioners on the board, one for Alberta, one for Saskatchewan and one for Manitoba. The fact of the matter is that over half of the wheat from the prairies is grown in Saskatchewan and the number of country elevators in Saskatchewan is about twice the number of country elevators in either of the other two provinces.
The board of grain commissioners has represented to me that one assistant commissioner in Saskatchewan could not do the job adequately. He just could not visit all the country elevators in rotation, as he should, within 12 months. The proposal, therefore, is to divide Saskatchewan into two districts and appoint a second grain commissioner to cover the new territory. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion of the details

of the bill should wait until we have a copy of the bill. That is all I have to say at the moment.


Mr. Gardiner:: While we are discussing
personalities, I should like to announce to the house that the Campbell rink from Avon-lea has won the Canadian championship for curling. They have won by going through the competition without a defeat.
While I am on my feet, I should like to corroborate what has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He indicated a while ago that he did not know Mr. Loptson was a son of the Mr. Loptson who has been, not leader of the Liberal party at any time as was said last night, but who was appointed house leader for one session. He has never been at any time leader of the Liberal party. I wanted to say, too, that the minister did not know that this gentleman came from my constituency, as he does. I believe that should answer some of the suggestions which have been made. As a matter of fact, I came into the house the day after the appointment was made and congratulated the minister across the aisle on having made the first appointment of this kind from my constituency in the 20 years I have been here. I believe I could name several very important appointments that have been made from the constituencies of hon. members on the other side of the house, particularly the C.C.F. party.
These appointments of persons who have been in politics before are quite natural. I would hope that the provincial government in Saskatchewan was acting on the same reasons as Liberals and Conservatives have in the past when making appointments of exmembers. I believe we have learned from association with these members what their worth actually is. We are making use of the experience these men have gained while they have been members of this house. I could name two or three well known members of the C.C.F. party who, when they left this house as a result of defeat, went back to Saskatchewan and obtained positions with the Saskatchewan government for anywhere from 12 months to 2 or 3 years. Two of them have actually been taken into the Saskatchewan government after going back there. This sort of action is not taken by one party any differently from any other party. Then, I see two of them who were defeated on one occasion sitting over there in one seat. One of them took a job with the Saskatchewan government between elections until he got back here, and the other one had a first-class job with the C.C.F. party while he was waiting to get back again. I do not know
Canada Grain Act
that we are going to get anywhere discussing that sort of thing in relation to appointments of this kind.
I doubt if there is a single man on the other side of the house who even knows Mr. Loptson. If he had been politically active, I should like to know why they do not know him. My reason for saying that is that I have not heard a single one of them refer to him by the name by which he is known. He is not known as Stanley Loptson out in Saskatchewan. When it comes to talking about experience emphasis has been placed on the fact that he is the only son of the Mr. Loptson who was, for one session, the house leader in Saskatchewan; that has been played up. Well, he is the only son of a man who was one of the most successful farmers in western Canada and, as a matter of fact, one of the most successful Icelandic settlers in western Canada. The son has been with his father throughout his whole lifetime. They have managed 1,750 acres over the years. They have produced farm commodities of a kind that has led others into the production of such things as rape seed and other forms of farm production in greater numbers perhaps than any other farmer. They are mixed farmers. They produce livestock as well as wheat. In addition to that he has sufficient ability to run two hardware stores, one in Saskatchewan and one in Manitoba, and run them successfully. He has also run a first-class garage. If a man can do all those things as successfully as he has and yet is not capable of filling a position of this kind, I should like to know what is to be said for members of this house who, when they are defeated and go back home, cannot make a living without getting a job from the Saskatchewan government.
This man is comparatively young, he is in his 40's. He was not suggested by anyone who had any political axe to grind. He was suggested by the president of the United Grain Growers. What is the United Grain Growers? The United Grain Growers is a farmers' cooperative that was set up by the first farm organization we had in western Canada since we started growing wheat. It was a company set up by Mr. E. A. Partridge, who was the originator of the idea of having a board such as we have been talking about. The old Grain Growers Grain Company first suggested a board of grain commissioners around the beginning of the century, under the Manitoba grain act, and brought into being the farm co-operative organizational life of western Canada. It was Mr. E. A. Partridge of Sintaluta who started the organization of the United Grain Growers in that town. It was made up entirely of farmers. The co-operative has gone on from that time up to the moment

Canada Grain Act
I think it covers all three of the provinces with its elevators and farm organizations. It is the original co-operative in western Canada. While the pools have been growing up, while establishments such as the Saskatchewan co-operative elevator company and others have grown up in the province, the United Grain Growers has grown up and functioned right alongside of them. It was this organization that suggested Mr. Loptson to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
As the minister said, it was after he had decided to appoint Mr. Loptson that he learned Mr. Loptson had some relationship to a member of the Saskatchewan legislature. I know that he learned it then because it was in a conversation with me after he had decided to appoint him. I suggested to him, "Well, you know who he is." He said, "No, I do not know who he is, but I know what his qualifications are from the representations I have received from the United Grain Growers." Of course, I told him he was the son of a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, but that did not result in the minister not appointing him. I presume if I had said to him he is not a fit person to appoint because he is a Liberal, well, he would not have appointed him. Even if I had said he was not a fit person because he was a member of the Saskatchewan farmers union, he would not have refused to appoint him. He is an active paid-up member of the farmers' union and has been working on that continuously. He is not a person who comes to the house and says, "I am all for the farmers, because the farmers are the greater number of voters in my constituency." He is a man who has been a farmer, and made money from it. And then he invested some of what he made in other activities, and was successful in everything he touched.
Then, he has been a member of the board of United Grain Growers now for six years. I knew nothing at all about his capabilities as a grain operator. I would not have thought of proposing him as a member of the grain board, from any knowledge I had. But when the president of United Grain Growers, the old original company, said, "We have had him six years and we want him put on the board", and then when the whole board of United Grain Growers met-not in Saskatchewan, but in Calgary-and unanimously passed a resolution that they wanted him, then all I wish to say to this house and to anyone else interested in it is that so far as I am concerned I would be as much influenced by the opinion of the board of United Grain Growers as by any of the other farm boards. I would not be any more influenced by this board than I am by the opinion of other farm boards.


An hon. Member:: Did you ask for the opinion of the pools?


James Garfield Gardiner: The pools had a meeting to decide whom they would support. Three representatives of their own board wanted on, and there was not an actual recommendation for any one as against the others.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a
recommendation from the wheat pool board for all three.


James Garfield Gardiner: In short we were asked to pick whichever we wished. The United Grain Growers did not make a decision like that. They met in their board and they decided unanimously that they wanted Loptson appointed. Their elevators and organization cover all three of the western provinces, and they selected a man out of Saskatchewan because they thought, for the reasons given a moment ago by the minister, that the man should come from Saskatchewan.
Now, I am going to say this, so far as Mr. Loptson is concerned-and I know him as well as any member in the house knows him- I know him as a successful businessman and as a successful farmer and as a man who is a hard worker and who will give all his time and skill to this particular job, just as much as he has given to his own business and his own farming. I am sure that he will make a success of it. I would not be at all surprised if the same members-if they are allowed to sit here long enough to find out- who have been criticizing him here today, will be saying, "Well, we did not know him, after all; he has done a good job." And if you bring him down here some two or three years hence, before the committee on agriculture, he will at least give as good an account of himself as the members of the committee do.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture in congratulating the Campbell brothers of Avonlea, Saskatchewan, upon winning the Macdonald Brier trophy, and on becoming Canada's curling champions. It is particularly fitting that this trophy should come to Saskatchewan, which this year is celebrating her fiftieth anniversary. Perhaps I might be pardoned for injecting a personal note in stating that I had the privilege and honour of attending Avonlea public and high schools with all the Campbell brothers-Garnet, Don, Glen, Lloyd and Gordon. There are five brothers, and a combination of four of these brothers has made a championship rink.
They are all farmers, and that is something else I wish to point out. The skip, the youngest of the brothers, is just 28 years of

age, a graduate of Avonlea high school, and is now farming. Don, the man playing third, joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But he decided to exchange his position in the R.C.M.P. for the occupation of farming, and went back to farm in association with his brother Lloyd. Glen, who plays second, is a chartered accountant, a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan. He, too, decided to return to the Avonlea district and farm. Lloyd, who plays lead, is the most extensive farmer of the Campbell brothers. And because he had such large holdings his brothers Don and Glen gave up responsible positions to become associated with him as farmers.
The fifth brother, Gordon, who is not on this team but who has often appeared on Campbell brothers curling teams, and who ranks as a curler with his brothers, is an engineer, a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan. He, too, decided to make farming his lifework. I think it is most fitting that the honoured and respected Campbell brothers of Avonlea, Saskatchewan, should be Canada's 1955 curling champions.
I wish to refer now to the information given the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he referred to the recommendations made to him as to those who might be suitable for appointment to the board of grain commissioners. If I heard the minister correctly, he said that the Saskatchewan wheat pool had made three recommendations, and that the three men recommended were all directors of the pool. He said that the United Grain Growers had recommended directors of that organization, and that the farmers union-presumably the Saskatchewan farmers union-had also recommended a man for the position.
I think it is a real affront to western farm organizations that the man who was appointed to the board of grain commissioners did not come from either the wheat pool organization or the farmers union. It is true that the United Grain Growers is a farm organization, of a type.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is from the farmers union.


Hazen Robert Argue: But he was not recommended by the farmers union. If the minister wants to put it that way, he could put the 50,000 membership of the Saskatchewan farmers union in a hat, reach in and pick out a name, and it would probably be a member of the Saskatchewan farmers union and also of the Saskatchewan wheat pool.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might get on myself, because I am a member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know if that would be an improvement or not. As an hon. member points out, it would be a coincidence. And it
Canada Grain Act
seems to be a most amazing coincidence that the man appointed to this board has not only been closely associated with the Liberal party, but the minister who is responsible for the appointment did not really know whom he was appointing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, just let us be correct about this. I understood that the man who made the recommendation to me is not a member of the Liberal party. I had no reason to believe that Mr. Loptson is a member of the Liberal party. He has never been active in the party, to the best of my knowledge.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not be surprised if he had been a member of the executive of the Minister of Agriculture in his riding, in the Liberal organization. I do not know. But he comes from the minister's riding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you do not
know, why say so?


Hazen Robert Argue: You just said that you had no idea as to whether he was a Liberal or not. I am just saying that you are guessing he was not and I am guessing that he was.


James Garfield Gardiner: But you have been stating that it was a political appointment and the minister has just said he did not know his politics.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know if it had been the Department of Agriculture, there would be no question about it. There would not even be a debatable point, because for 30 years the Gardiner machine has been notorious in the province of Saskatchewan. And with respect to the Gardiner machine, I placed a question on the order paper asking for the personnel of that machine, and we should find out who they are. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about Saskatchewan that if the appointment had been made in the department of the Minister of Agriculture, there would not be any argument about it. Why, he could have his resignation pending at any time and be on his way to the Saskatchewan Liberal convention in Saskatoon. He could run into foul weather and be right back in good standing with the cabinet. The governor in council, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is probably the most influential member, certainly the second most influential member, apparently considered the so-called resignation and he passed no opinion; he turned his face the other way, tore it up and forgot all about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: What position are you going to take when you leave here?


Hazen Robert Argue: I expect I shall be here a long, long time. My main interest in the past has

Canada Grain Act
been the welfare of agriculture, and I expect my main interest will continue to be the welfare of agriculture. There is a way out for this government with respect to the appointment it has made. I am suggesting to the government in all seriousness-


William Gilbert Weir: Appoint the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure there would be no such recommendation from any hon. gentlemen opposite in that regard.
I am suggesting to the government that there is a way out. The way out is this. When it comes time to put two additional new persons on the board of grain commissioners, those persons should be recommended by the wheat pool organizations and the farmers' union organizations. It is my opinion that no man on the board of grain commissioners should be other than a man who has the confidence of the wheat pool organizations and the farmers' unions in western Canada. The farmers' unions have come to Ottawa year after year ever since there was a farmers' union, after the U.F.C. had become the farmers' union. In each and every brief that I can recall having read they asked the government and pleaded with the government to appoint to such responsible boards as the board of grain commissioners a person recommended by the farmers' unions.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why do you leave out the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Hazen Robert Argue: I cannot talk out of both sides of my mouth at once and talk simultaneously about the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the farmers' union. But what I have said is that the two men who are to be appointed at some time in the future-I imagine that one appointment would in the natural course of events be made fairly soon-should be recommended by the wheat pool organizations and the farmers' union. One person should be recommended by the wheat pool organizations and the other by the farmers' union.
I was speaking about the briefs the farmers' unions have presented to the government and to members of parliament year after year. In every one of those briefs-


James Garfield Gardiner: Why do you leave the Canadian Federation of Agriculture out of the picture?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will get around to them just as I get around to the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers' unions have recommended that a man be appointed who has their confidence. As a matter of fact, they have gone a good deal farther. They have recommended that a person appointed to a board such as the

board of grain commissioners should be directly responsible to the farmers' unions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what they have recommended to the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that my hon. friend's idea of responsible government?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pointing out that is what the farmers' unions have recommended, that is all. Apparently the government did not consider it at all. The government has not even gone so far as to consider the man recommended by the farmers' unions, and that is a direct slap in the face to the farmers' unions of western Canada by the federal government.
There is a way out, as I have said. It is for the government to appoint a man who has been recommended by the farmers' unions.
The Minister of Agriculture mentioned the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Well, of course some of the main organizations that go to make up the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are the three western wheat pool organizations. I am sure that the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and Dr. Hannam, head of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, could agree quite readily on the person that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, representing the three western pools, would recommend as a member of the board of grain commissioners.
The minister said there was no evidence before the agriculture committee that there was any inefficiency. The heads of the grain companies had said that grade standards were good and the practices followed under the Canada Grain Act were reasonably good. But we had-and the minister saw this himself-the board of grain commissioners unable to give adequate information, unable to explain, for example, why net overages happened to be in many instances three times or four times as much as gross overages. I had no idea as to how that would come about, and the members of the board of grain commissioners could not explain it. But some time later I happened to have lunch with Mr. G. A. Mills, who is president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool employees' association He pointed out to me how such a thing could happen. It was very simple after he had explained it to me. For example, he said if an elevator agent is buying No. 3 barley and in it there is too much wheat, that wheat could be cleaned out and it would go into the wheat bins and increase the net overages of wheat. It would have no effect, as I understood the explanation, on the gross overages at all. He went on to explain other

methods by which net overages could exceed gross overages. When the board of grain commissioners were asked about it they could not explain it. The only explanation given was this. It may at best have been a facetious remark, because surely Mr. Milner would know better. He said probably the reason why most of those overages came about was that the elevator agents were taking excessive dockage in exchange for upgrading of grain.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Provencher. If I took down his words correctly he said that at no time did he hear it said that such a practice was done within the confines of the act. If he had read the answer given by Mr. Milner at page 256 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee in relation to a hypothetical question by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek he would have known differently. The hon. member asked this question:
Is there anything in the Canada Grain Act which would prevent me, if I took in a load of grain, thinking it was No. 4 and the elevator man thinks it is No. 5? The majority of farmers like to see their elevator men at the end of the year come out even. They do not like to see overages or shortages. They endeavour not to place him in a short position, so therefore they are inclined to compromise on the grade. He may think it is No. 5 while I think it is No. 4. We discuss the matter and if he allows me a grade and it is marginal grade, I may be aware that it is a marginal grade, and he will say: I will allow that as No. 4 while I think it is No. 5, but I will do so if I may have additional dockage. I may have to take less than I ordinarily would but if I do not object to it and am of the opinion that I may lose a grade in that way I will accept it. What is wrong with that?


Mr. Milner:: I do not see anything wrong in it.
He was asked pointblank whether it was legal to upgrade in exchange for taking additional dockage. These are the words, and his answer was:
I do not see anything wrong in it.


William Gilbert Weir: Is my hon. friend now talking about wheat that is bought and paid for by the local elevator or of wheat being shipped subject to grade? If he is talking about wheat that is taken in by the local agent and paid for, that is an arrangement between them which he pays for and takes responsibility for.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am talking about the evidence given by Mr. Milner; I am talking about Mr. Milner's evidence, which was completely contrary to the law and completely contrary to the provisions of the Canada Grain Act. That is what I am talking about.
The reason we had witnesses from the grain handling companies in western Canada 50433-123
Canada Grain Act
was that we were unable to get satisfactory evidence from the board of grain commissioners. So the wire went out, "Come to Ottawa and give evidence". A great many points were cleared up. These were people who knew the grain business; the heads of the line elevator associations; of the Saskatchewan wheat pool; the Manitoba wheat pool; the Alberta wheat pool; the U.G.G., all of them highly competent men in the grain business, men who knew the answers and who gave the answers. They had to come before the agriculture committee because we could not get the answers from the board of grain commissioners.
That is why I have referred to inefficiency in this house and in the agriculture committee in the past. I repeat that the evidence or the lack of evidence in many instances by the members of the board of grain commissioners indicates the present personnel to be inefficient and incompetent.
That being the case, when the government are appointing a new person to the board of grain commissioners I think they should take the largest agricultural organizations in western Canada into their confidence and appoint a man only if he has the recommendation of at least one of the two main organizations. I would go even further and say that the government should endeavour to get the two main organizations to come to some agreement and recommend a man to fill that position.
The time may come when the salaries of the board of grain commissioners should be increased. It has been pointed out this afternoon as well as last evening that there are a great number of men in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce who are highly efficient and who carry out important work but who are receiving salaries much lower than those now received by members of the board of grain commissioners and certainly lower than the increased salaries recommended in this resolution.
I think when the time comes to recommend increases in salaries it should be proved to us that inefficient personnel have been replaced by efficient personnel.


Mr. Weselak:: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from the curling province of Canada I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been extended to the Avonlea curling team upon their recent victory. They must be good to have beaten Manitoba and they deserve it.
I welcome the announcement by the minister that the recommendations contained in

Canada Grain Act
the report of the committee regarding terminal overages will be carried out by means of an amendment to the act. With regard to the appointment of an assistant commissioner, the need for such appointment was indicated in the evidence given before the committee last year. I believe that this appointment will fill a definite need.
A recent appointment to the board of grain commissioners was that of a practical farmer, the type of appointment which has been asked for by the farm organizations over the past years. This man appears to be capable and efficient and he has made a success in his own affairs. I do not think that any appointment made by the government would meet with the approval of our friends to my left.
I had no intention of entering this debate until I heard in this house an unjustified attack on the Canada Grain Act and on the personnel and operations of the board of grain commissioners. It is to this phase of the matter that I intend to direct my attention.
Along with hon. members to my left I sat on the agriculture committee last year and my over-all impression was that the board was doing a very good job. Naturally my impression did not agree with that expressed by other hon. members during this debate. I feel that in their destructive statements the C.C.F. members are not doing a service to the farmers of Canada by unjustly undermining their confidence in the board of grain commissioners.
As I said before, I sat on the committee. As my memory did not recall sufficient incidents to support the statements made in this debate I took the trouble to examine the evidence to see what the representatives of the various farm organizations, who also sat through the hearings, thought of this particular board. I was not surprised to find that their opinions differed entirely from those expressed in the speeches made in this house and I thought that in all fairness they should be put on the record.
The evidence given by Ben S. Plumer, president of the Alberta wheat board, appears at page 400 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee, where he is reported as having said:
We have no particular comment to make on those reports other than to congratulate both boards on the outstanding services which they have contributed to the grain producers of western Canada, especially over the past few years when record crops have been produced.
And then at page 408 he had this to say:
We believe that the Canada Grain Act, competently administered as it is, by the board of grain commissioners provides ample protection for the producer in assuring him of accuracy in weights, grades and dockages, to conform as closely as possible to government standards.

Then on page 457 we find Mr. Bill Parker, president of the Manitoba pool elevator association, being examined by the hon. member for Lisgar as to whether he agreed that tens of thousands of farmers had lost confidence in the board of grain commissioners. Mr. Parker then went on to say: From my own observation, I would say that is not a fact and I speak particularly for Manitoba. If I may, I would like to read two or three resolutions that we had last year in response to requests for information that were sent out to the locals in the country. On February 23, 1953, the farmers' unions of the three provinces made a presentation in Winnipeg to the board of grain commissioners and on the following day they made a presentation to the wheat board. These were public presentations. It was given to the press in full and some of us felt that the publicity given to it gave undue emphasis to criticisms, which we felt, rightly or wrongly, were not entirely justified. Having in mind that the farm organizations for 40 years have worked towards the provisions of the Canada Grain Act and have always been interested in its administration, and more recently intensely interested in the operation of the Canadian wheat board. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we were greatly disturbed at the publicity given. We sent these briefs to our locals, asking if they would be good enough to consider them and give us their opinions. We have answers from 80 of the 208 or 209 locals. Those that did not answer, you can make your own interpretation as to their reactions. Four of those associations did support in some measure the contentions or criticisms embodied in those briefs. Only one supported them unconditionally. Incidentally, that one is an association which had not yet considered an annual report, and their knowledge of the grain business is, to say the least, rather meager. Three of them were older and had been in the business for some time and they did feel there was some justification for some of the criticisms. If I can find it here I would like to read you one or two resolutions, which go for the vast majority that did answer and make comments on the briefs. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that they were constructive, they were made by people who were in the business 15 to 25 years, who really had some knowledge of both acts and of the administrative boards in both capacities. This is the answer from the Kronsgart association in southeastern Manitoba:
"That since the whole tone and content of the two briefs in question tend to weaken confidence in these boards and thus impair their efficiency, and since farmers, through their own organizations, have striven for many years to bring these boards into existence, and since it is evident that they have and are doing a difficult job efficiently, we wish to counteract, in some measure, the adverse influence in the two briefs in question by expressing our full confidence in both the board of grain commissioners and the Canadian wheat board." From the basswood association in the central western part of the province:
That the arguments contained in the M.F.U. briefs do not represent the views of this board of directors, and that we are pretty well satisfied with the operation of the two boards.
Just one other, from the Fairfax association in the southwestern part of the province:
After a very lengthy study and discussion on the M.F.U. submissions to the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners, this board of directors of Fairfax co-operative elevator were of the unanimous opinion that the present wheat board and board of grain commissioners are doing a satisfactory job under present conditions.

We consider many of the submissions of the M.F.U. are childish and impossible; they are attractive but impractical.
Now I repeat that those resolutions are representative of all answers received, excepting only four. These answers quoted and others in different language and in different resolutions fairly well indicate the opinion of those who did take the trouble to answer and consider the briefs; three others supported some parts of the criticism. That, sir, is the best answer I can give you to the question.
Speaking later on in regard to the same matter he had this to say;
I think in respect to the weighing in the gross that there is protection under the Canada Grain Act; and so far as I am aware the board has administered the act in respect thereto in the interest of the farmer.
Now, in respect to grading, the board or the act does not contemplate that there shall be an inspector at every country elevator. Getting correct grade and dockage is the farmer's own responsibility, as I said yesterday; and if he is not satisfied with the grade and the dockage, or if he has any doubts in the world about the dockage, or about the grade, our instructions are never to argue with the farmer. The farmer is always right so far as the elevator agent is concerned. And there are provisions under which he may take a sample which should be representative of the load of grain concerned; and there is a sample box provided for each farmer, and he can get it and put the sample in it and send it to the board of grain commissioners chief inspector, and his grading is final.
The farmer must exercise some responsibility in respect to his own grades. Surely, he does not expect the government or the board to protect him at every turn.
The act, in my opinion, gives full protection to the individual farmer, provided he reads the act and uses it. So far as our association is concerned, we have spent a lot of time trying to persuade or trying to have the farmers understand what their own personal rights are and that they should exercise them to the full. That is the best answer I can give you.
In the evidence given by Mr. Cecil Lamont, president, North-West Line Elevators Association, at page 490 of the report, the following appears:
I would like here to refer to an action taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This is an official statement issued by Roy C. Marler, chairman of the prairie section of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I quote from this statement:
The prairie section of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met in Regina on Wednesday, June 10, 1953. The meeting discussed a number of problems affecting western agriculture, such as the international wheat agreement, freight rates on grain and the sale of coarse grains by the Canadian wheat board.
The following resolution was passed unanimously: Resolved that this section declare its confidence in the personnel of the board of grain commissioners and the Canadian wheat board and the administration these boards are giving their respective acts. The Canada Grain Act has been built up over the years by the constant efforts of the farm organizations to protect the interests of western farmers. As now framed the act does afford the protection for which these organizations had hoped. The western section has every confidence 50433-123J
Canada Grain Act
that any comprehensive study of the act will show that no extensive revisions are necessary at this time.
A resolution was passed also expressing appreciation and confidence in R. Milner and his work as transport controller.	,
Well, we are not members of this Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We follow its work, and we are in full accord with this resolution in all respects.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the opinions of the presidents of the Manitoba and Alberta pools, of Manitoba locals and of the federation of agriculture, all representative and speaking for the grain producer without motive or prejudice. The president of the Saskatchewan pool had no real criticism except for the matter of box car allocation, which in my opinion would indicate that he was in agreement with the opinion I have just quoted. These men and the organizations they represent are responsible bodies with more experience individually than can be found collectively on the C.C.F. benches, and I would be inclined to accept their opinions in preference to those given by/ people who seek to foster political issues*


William Gilbert Weir: I perhaps should not project myself into this debate this afternoon, and I am a little reluctant to do so in that I have not been a member of the committee on agriculture and colonization which has devoted a great deal of time to the study of grain marketing matters in recent years. However, it is interesting to note the difference in emphasis placed on the matter of grain handling today as compared with the situation some 20 or 25 years ago.
I shall claim no credit for having dealt extensively in the grain producing business. Nevertheless, I can look back to my boyhood days when I delivered grain to elevators and note the change which has taken place since that time. I wish to deal, however, with the farm movement generally and the time when it was more particularly concerned with two features of grain marketing. One was the out-turn standards from terminal elevators, and the other was the control over any overages which might accumulate in terminal elevators.
These two matters have been rather effectively taken care of, and as the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated this afternoon our out-turn sample or standard is now recognized throughout the world on our final certificate as the quality and grade of grain which was delivered and which has been accepted on that basis. As a result of this Canadian grain sold on the standard enjoys a considerable and a sound reputation. Similarly, the control of overages at terminal

Canada Grain Act
elevators has also been taken care of, largely through the provision for the confiscation of overages over a certain percentage.
Since the period before the 1920's the problem ' has drifted back more and more to the local elevators, and new problems have developed in this connection. One of the chief difficulties in recent years in the handling of grain, if there have been difficulties, has been the congestion, the inability of country elevators to handle grain in a normal and ordinary way as they would if there were not congested conditions. I think each of us will admit that it is not possible for even the best equipped elevators to give the type of service the elevator companies would like to give. Nonetheless I think every elevator company and elevator agent endeavours to give the best service possible.
I would like to re-emphasize the statement by the hon. member for Springfield to the effect that the Canada Grain Act places the responsibility, yes, and the authority and the right, on the farmer to a larger extent than is apparently accepted by members of the C.C.F. group. When a farmer delivers grain to an elevator it is a situation involving two individuals. There can easily be a difference of opinion as to what grade or dockage a particular sample of grain may carry. I do not need to tell hon. members who have operated combines that one may get an entirely different sample of grain from either side of the same field.
Second, this is a matter involving a particular product which concerns two individuals. If these two individuals, the farmer and the elevator man, can agree as to the grade and dockage the sample of grain should have, there need be no further argument. Settlement is made and the ticket is issued on that basis. That is the agreement and arrangement made between them. More than that, my friends talk so much about dockage. In our country we have now got to the stage where we have plenty of dockage of grain. I am amazed sometimes that the elevator companies are able to break even because of the amount of dockage in much of the grain in some areas of my own district. I will limit it to that for fear I get into trouble if I go beyond that.
As far as dockage is concerned, every elevator man today is provided with a set of screens of the same calibre and size as are used at terminal elevators. The farmer delivering his grain has a right to have it weighed and measured and the weight established per measured bushel. He can have it screened right in front of him and the dockage calculated. He has the opportunity of seeing that for himself. That operation is

done mechanically, and there can be little argument about it. There may be an argument as to grade, but there should be no argument with respect to dockage when it is established in that manner.
Again, the farmer can accept the grade or dockage or he can say, "No, I do not want to take it. I am going to ask you to load out this grain or take it in"-whichever he likes -"and send a sample to the board of grain commissioners to have it graded there". That is his privilege, and he can require the elevator agent to take a uniform sample out of the load of grain delivered. He can see that it is properly mixed and put in a container with a lock on it, and he can carry the key away with him. The sample is then sent to the board as his sample and is graded officially by the officials of the board of grain commissioners. That of course is final.
Compare that with other types of grading. Take the case of the man who delivers a hog to a packing house. It is graded by a government grader. That grade is final and there is no recourse from it. But the farmer delivering grain can have it graded at the local elevator, and if he does not like the grade he does not need to accept it. When his car of grain goes through Winnipeg and the board of grain commissioners arranges for a sample to be taken from the car the farmer may find some difference in the grade from what the local elevator man was prepared to give him. He still has recourse to a sample of the grain taken at unloading. In most elevators that is done by an automatic mechanical sampler, which guarantees a uniform sample out of the whole carload of grain. When that is done and tests are made the farmer has some assurance that it will be properly examined and a mechanical test made of the dockage. I presume they have good mathematicians to figure out what percentage of dockage applies to that delivery of grain.
I emphasize again, notwithstanding all the arguments other people advance to the effect that there is something wrong in the marketing of grain or the administration of the Canada Grain Act, that I think they are making a mistake in not impressing more and more on the individual the rights he has under the existing legislation. He has his part to play in seeing that he gets what he is entitled to, and provision is made for him to get it.
I am not going to say anything more about that feature of the matter. But I must say that I cannot sit here this afternoon and listen to what to my mind is pretty much, if not entirely, an attack of a personal character on individual members of the board of grain commissioners without making some

reply. I do not mind saying that I am personally interested in that I have known all the members of the board for a long time. I was very glad to see the hon. member for Prince Albert stand up and say what he did this afternoon about one member of the board who was at one time a member of the House of Commons.
My hon. friends in the C.C.F. group keep coming back and emphasizing the point of view that the only persons who should be appointed to boards of this nature are dirt farmers. I do not do anything else but dirt farm when I am not attending the House of Commons, and if I were turned out to pasture from here tomorrow there would be no other place for me to go but back to the farm.
I want to say something about the background-and I do so deliberately-of the members of the board of grain commissioners as I have known them. I think I can disabuse the mind of any reasonable person in the house as to their affiliation, their close connection and their background in the farm movement of western Canada. In referring to a more recent appointment to the board of grain commissioners the Minister of Agriculture mentioned Mr. Partridge, one of the early pioneers in the farmers movement of western Canada. I think he was the gentleman who was perhaps more responsible than anyone else for creating the point of view in the farmers' movement generally that the manner in which they could remedy many of their difficulties was to get into the business for themselves.
The other man associated with him in that effort was the late Roderick McKenzie of Brandon, Manitoba, one of the active members of the early farm movement in this country, a man who was secretary of the farm movement in the province of Manitoba in the early days, the father of D. G. McKenzie, the present chairman of the board of grain commissioners. For years the present chairman acted as his father's assistant in stamping, sealing and mailing letters all over the country. He was also secretary of the united farmers of Manitoba for a number of years and was, I believe, a member of the Canadian council of agriculture which represented the farmers of western Canada in the 1920's.
That may not be enough for some hon. members as to the background and approach to his duties, if you like, of this man. It is true that Mr. McKenzie entered politics in the province of Manitoba, where he made a real contribution. He was almost commandeered to take office. What positions did he hold in the government of Manitoba? At
Canada Grain Act
one time he had charge of our hydroelectric power commission, and was responsible for developing the policy that has done more than anything else that has happened in our province to bring rural electrification to the farms of Manitoba. He was responsible for initiating the policy that is the pride of every farmer in that province.
Not only that, he was also minister of agriculture. I suppose my hon. friends will say that as minister of agriculture he did not come in contact with the farmers at all, that his position had nothing to do with the farm movement and he was removed entirely from it. My hon. friends talk about the background of persons entitling them to appointments of this character, but I am at a loss from what they say to know what kind of background a man should have.
I might also say a word about my very good friend of long standing who was at one time my guide and director in the House of Commons, when I first came here in the 1930's. I refer to John Vallance. He was an immigrant. He came to our province and then went to Saskatchewan. I know something of his early history. While he may have been a little more fortunate than the hon. member for Maple Creek, whose family did not have a place for him to move into when he was born, Mr. Vallance actually lived in a sod shanty on the plains of Saskatchewan for a number of years. He homesteaded there. He grew up there. I believe he was the first reeve of the first municipality organized in that area. He was part of the farm movement there, and farmed extensively in that province. Then he came down here as a member of parliament; from Scottish immigrant boy to a member of the House of Commons of Canada.
He fell by the wayside in a political contest and, if my memory serves me right, took a position as assistant commissioner under the Canada Grain Act in Saskatchewan. I would think that would certainly give a man a very good point of view. He was in touch with elevator agents and with farmers, and I think that would fit him in a creditable manner for appointment to the board of grain commissioners.
There is one other thing I think hon. members have overlooked in so far as Mr. Vallance is concerned. There is no one here on any side of the house who has made a closer study of, or paid more attention to, the Canada Grain Act than has John Vallance. He was here before 1930 when there were a good many arguments over the grain act. He was one of the most active members in the complete revision, either in 1930 or in 1928, of that act. I do not think there is any

Canada Grain Act
person who has any better insight into the whys and wherefores of the different sections of the Canada Grain Act.
I am not well acquainted with Mr. Milner, but I am going to say this to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think he was particularly fortunate in being able to select a man of Mr. Milner's capacity and background of experience to join the board of grain commissioners. He is a man experienced in the grain trade, who successfully operated elevators of his own. If that is to condemn a man for the position of administrator on a board having to do with the marketing of grain, then I think it is too bad for us. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested here this afternoon, the board not only administers the Canada Grain Act but it also has to administer a number of terminal elevators which the government owns. I feel the minister is to be commended for going out and attempting to secure a man to come on this board who has had some practical experience in the operation of elevators.
Now, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am guilty of something not very many members do in coming to the defence of people in the manner in which I have. But I have felt that the attacks which have been made on the board of grain commissioners over some years now, even to the point of singling them out individually, have been wholly unfair and wholly uncalled for, and I welcome this opportunity to say what I have said.


John Hornby Harrison: It had not been my intention, Mr. Chairman, to take part in this debate. I do so only briefly, and my decision to take part in it at all can be attributed to some of the remarks I have heard in the last couple of hours and the attitude taken in this debate by my friends in the C.C.F. concerning these supposed political appointments. I am very surprised to hear them take that attitude. It is a well-known saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I do not know of any group that lives in a house containing more glass than my hon. friends opposite. I possibly could go into quite a few instances, but I shall just take the odd one.
The Minister of Agriculture pointed to a couple of gentlemen who rather give the lie to the idea that no political appointments are made by the C.C.F. Perhaps it would be well to take a look at the record of our knights in shining armour over there. If we go back to 1944, I have a newspaper clipping here quoting the leader of the C.C.F. in this house. In the city of Saskatoon, on June 9, 1944, he is reported to have said:
The day of the political heeler in Saskatchewan will be at an end If the C.C.F. is elected. Mr. Coldwell promised.
fMr. Weir.]
I think you will remember my remarks last year-


Mr. Castleden:: You ought to be supporting us.


John Hornby Harrison: -when I said that if a C.C.F.'er says he is going north, you go south and you will catch him. This is along that line. This is what the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar said at Saskatoon, but we have two gentlemen sitting right together, who, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed out a minute ago, confound that very statement. Then again we have the case of Mr. Bentley, who is well known to my friends opposite.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; the hon. member for Mackenzie, having risen on a point of privilege, has the floor.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member has made disparaging remarks about members sitting over on this side of the house in referring to political heelers. I should ask that he withdraw that statement.
While I am on my feet, I might also reply to the Minister of Agriculture by saying that I was never in the pay of the Saskatchewan government. While I was in the position of treasurer of my party my remuneration was a good deal less than it would have been if I had been farming. My income, while I was away from here, was not derived from my work as national treasurer. I just had that position a short time after the election.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just before you give a ruling on that point, Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Assiniboia said that I was running a political machine. How much worse is this statement than that? I think there had better be more withdrawals if you are going to ask for this one.


Mr. Sinclair:: They can dish it out, but they cannot take it.


John Hornby Harrison: I am very pleased that the hon. member for Mackenzie has brought up this question, because if he had listened to me carefully he would know I was reading the words of his own leader who was talking about political heelers. If the hon. member has any objection to make to that, he had better take it up in the proper quarter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Just before the member for Meadow Lake proceeds I think it might be advisable to clear up the points raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie. I was listening closely to the member for Meadow Lake. I am not of the opinion he made any accusations or imputations which called upon me to intervene from the chair.

I might say I was listening carefully at the time. As I understood it, the expression to which objection was taken was in a quotation, and did not refer to members at all. The hon. member for Mackenzie, feeling possibly that offence had been given, took advantage of the opportunity to place his position squarely before the house, a procedure any hon. member feeling aggrieved has the right to take.
I am not ruling that to this point the hon. member for Meadow Lake has said anything he must withdraw; but I am suggesting to him that I have the impression his remarks are tending to get a long way from the subject matter of the resolution before us, and if they continue in that direction it may become necessary for the Chair to intervene.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege, since apparently my name has been linked with statements made by the hon. member for Meadow Lake as well as by the Minister of Agriculture. The minister implied that I was unable to make my own living. I do not know how much he does understand, but surely he must know that I did make my own living, and in his own home town, for about ten years.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same job I used to have.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, the same school. The only time I had any difficulty making my living in Saskatchewan, or later when I was at Yorkton collegiate, was when, 48 hours after I accepted the C.C.F. nomination, I was told to hand in my resignation because of the influence of the head of the Liberal party in that city. I just thought I should keep the record clear.


John Hornby Harrison: In answer to your remarks, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I was bringing that aspect of the matter before the committee because it already had been dealt with by the hon. member for Kindersley, and also by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he made reference to the Gardiner machine. I had hoped that in reply I might be able to say a word about the C.C.F. machine.


Hazen Robert Argue: Your machine is getting rusty.


John Hornby Harrison: When there is talk about political appointments, then I think we should cite some made by hon. members sitting opposite me. I shall deal with one in particular, and let it go at that. We had in the House of Commons at one time a gentleman by the name of Bentley, who was known to my hon. friends. When he went back to Saskatchewan there was no job open for him in the C.C.F. government there, so they made one. His title then was director of staff training. That is rather interesting, if one just goes by the
Canada Grain Act
title. However I had some experience with this staff training. One of the first things he did was to address letters to all ministers in the government of Saskatchewan. His letter, dated August 9, 1949, was in these words:
Re Field Officers
Would you please supply me with the names ol all the field officers in your department, together with their addresses, and the areas in which they work-by constituencies, if possible.
That was the work of this gentleman. It indicates the kind of work he was doing, and it is certainly a lot different from the appointment to the board we are now discussing.
I have still to meet the gentleman who has been appointed in this instance, although he lives in Saskatchewan. So I do not think he is very active politically. I have also run into some of the field officers trained by my friend Mr. Bentley, and I must say he is a good trainer. Last election I got into one poll after one of his well-trained field officers had been to see the farmers in that area, and had toh' them that if they did not have a C.C.F. majority at that poll the hay leases would change hands.


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about P.F.R.A.?


John Hornby Harrison: You do not like it, eh? Then what happened?


An hon. Member:: Name him.


John Hornby Harrison: The result was that some of my own Liberals came to me and said that they were going to vote to make sure there was a C.C.F. majority at that poll, and there was.
Then in another poll, just adjacent to it the returning officer had difficulty in getting people to serve at the poll. They were afraid of the repercussions that might develop in that area in connection with hay leases. That is the kind of thing we are getting in Saskatchewan. So it is odd to hear my hon. friends taking exception to what they suggest is a political flavour in this particular appointment.
I believe what I have said covers the situation fairly well. Certainly if the gentleman appointed in this instance had been very active in Liberal circles I would have met him and, as I have said, I have yet to see him.
Then, in common with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, I take exception to the personal attack made by hon. members against the grain commissioners. These men have proved satisfactory; and just because in the odd case they have been connected with politics, or have been Liberals, that should not be held against them. Certainly if we are to take the qualification laid down by the hon. member for Kindersley, that the

Canada Grain Act
appointment should go to the best man for the job-and I am not disagreeing with him in that-then naturally there will be more Liberals appointed than anything else. That would be true if for no reason other than that of mathematics, because there are more Liberals than anything else.
I am suggesting that we should not take the judgment of the hon. member for Kindersley, because he made one speech in Saskatchewan in which he said that he saw no one having intelligence on this side of the house.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I was looking at you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Exhibit A.


John Hornby Harrison: I do not think he will find too much agreement with what he said, for the simple reason that we have in the government men of intelligence, men who are recognized for their high qualifications by people in all parties in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are just the exception.


John Hornby Harrison: All one can do is discount the kind of judgment that prompts that kind of statement.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is now five o'clock. Is the committee ready to adopt the resolution?


Mr. Low:: Before adopting the resolution I have a word to say, although I do not wish to hold up the matter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being five o'clock, and as this committee has not power to extend its own life indefinitely, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 178, respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Pembroke-Mr. Forgie-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed, pursuant to standing order 110, that all these divorce bills be sent to the committee of the whole together? I refer to order No. 41 to order No. 201, inclusive.
IMr. Harrison.]


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the procedure you are now asking us to agree to is possibly necessary. However, in one sentence I should simply like to say that unless we very soon have a progress report on another method of dealing with these bills in this house we shall not be able indefinitely to continue agreeing to the suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing order 110 provides that bills may be referred together. If the hon. member objects to the procedure I shall send one at a time to the committee.


Erhart Regier: I do not object, sir.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Daisy Ruth Kirk Stanistreet.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Irene Christina Edwards Mackay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Barbara Elinor Richardson Jones.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Wira Pushkar Tereshtshenko.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Stella (Ste-phania) Burnatowska Holowaty.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Harry Evert Finlayson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of George James Nangreaves.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Carmela Lanza Morash.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Meyer Francis Doyle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Julia Mary Collen Dwyer Rose.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Bela Koschitza Brawerman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Maxine Samuels Resseguier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Ginette Monique Cornu Lebegue.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Eugen Hart-berg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Joseph Pierre Emile Jasmin Rheaume.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Elizabeth Jane Marcelin Belanger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Hugh McCrone Dunsmuir.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Hazel Winifred Edwards Welcher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Joan Audrey Baur Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Pauline Alice
Leduc Sponagle.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian Greenberg Seligman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marie Antoinette Demers Vigeant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Yoneyuki Watanabe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Leslie Sutcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Rita Ursule Labadie Huot.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Evangeline N. Rodinos Zolotas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Maria Lutz Kaczmarek.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Clare Taylor Belanger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Jean Claude Robitaille.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Ida Meitin Wooden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Fleur-Ange Francoeur Therrien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Maria Christina Vettore Austin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Roland Le-febvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Augustine Denonville Leclere.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mary Therese McSheffrey Richard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Pierrette Mar-san Short.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Greta Irene Kokko Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Yolande Sega-tore Grandillo.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Annie Laker Gillen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Juliette Bertha Langlois Miller.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Arthur Johnston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Bela Antal Kelecsenyi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Joseph Roger Gerard Doucet.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Elsie Amelia Armistice Wood Lavoie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Joseph Rene Romeo Lafrance.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Gweneth Leslie Clarke Atkinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Muriel Claire Wilson Hart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Violet Doris Hubbard MacGregor.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Christina Mellis Campbell Squires.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Katharine Hamilton Ellis Bishop.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Sheila Kathleen McNaughton Best.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Pearl Mendel-son Markus.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Leona Dalton Dawe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Ethel Tietle-baum Segal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Sheila Mary Power Stone.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Vera Grace Westley Stewart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Freda Margery Turton Pellerin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Sieglinde Rosa Wolf Coss.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Marie Vina Lebel Duhamel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Florence Pearl Loader Varden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Smith Tero.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Elizabeth Annabel Clouston Grandjean.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Miriam Rabi-novitch Yampolsky, otherwise known as Miriam Rabinovitch Pollack.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of George Angus Robinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Gerald Willy Moore.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Desneiges Primeau Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Gladys Krassner Garoff.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Margaret Aitken Robertson Comis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Marie Rose Barsey De Board.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Maureen Theresa May Baker Reed.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Henry Schoen. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Harold Archie Donaghy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Beatrice Ellis Oakes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Rose Blum Brenner.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Georges Ovide Normand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Marjory Grace
Darling Downey Picktell.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Francis Joseph Ellis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of John McKinnell. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Ada Garland Skakle Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Shirley Elizabeth Saul Hutchison.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Rotha Dodgson Webb.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Barbara Norma Demaine Davies.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Reta Muriel Hadden Moffit.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Meta Avard Wheatley Griffin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Emma Melite Latvaityte Vairogs.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Marie Jeanne D'Arc Marcelle Bernier Lemieux.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Lois Audrey Jemima Patch Howell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Dorothy Izen-berg Lenetsky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of George Reilly Hunter.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Donald William Downie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Rita Barlatti Devlin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruby Kitts Shea.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Margaret Pearl McNamara Rowlatt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mabel King-horn Marshall.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Shirley Norah Farrar Mizener.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Jane Schubert Clark Bernard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Irene Joan Fabian Jefford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Lois Silby Walker Torunski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Lillian Dorothy Menzies Drennan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Henry Edwin Lasnier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Elsa Kremer Ellmaurer.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Christine Bennie Kelly Mooney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Shirley Patricia King Craddock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Nomi Meijero-wicz Goldenstein.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 116, for the relief of Edith Dora
Hyndman Ross.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Irene Annetta Thomas Bromby.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	118,	for	the	relief	of	Arthur
Edmund Oliver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	119,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Zawiski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Mary Jagiello Kaczynski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	121,	for	the	relief	of	Eleanor
Honor Connolly Sutcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	122,	for	the	relief	of Marie
Laurenza Suzanne Bolduc Hawkins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Daniel Joseph MacLean.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Berthe Mon-petit Goupil.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Joseph Albert Roland Archambault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Evelyn Held Schulman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Antoni Dmysz. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Eunice Levine Yelin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Joyce Hodkin Gilhooly.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Pauline McDonald McDerment.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Velma May Robinson Macaulay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Mary McDonald Gauthier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	136,	for	the	relief	of	Andrew
Henry Pytel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of James Wong, otherwise known as Yon Hong Ark.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Ruth Nathan Finkelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	139,	for	the	relief	of	Richard
Robert Tomlinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Sheila Elsie Clarkson Flintoft.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	141,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Edouard Alexandre Brunelle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Ruth Evans Silver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Mania Rissman Neftin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	144,	for	the	relief	of	Lucien
Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John William Newton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Rita Forest
Leblanc.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 147, for the relief of Marcelle
Topping Paradis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of John Edward Foran.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Evelyn Woolls Gallagher McDougall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Edward Satel. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Mollie Litvack Rabinovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Nora Elizabeth Wolverson Powell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Hazel Miller Clark.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Zofia Janina Hurny Slesicki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Carmen Cortez Leigh Pitt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Paraskevy Moshonas Moshonas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Mary Lee Wilson Couttie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Giacinta Villarosa Colucci.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Irene Dora Baker Pearson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Gisela Kunz Cobel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Aline Rousseau Laporte.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Dorothy Arlin Wintrobe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Hazel Irene McKay Puttee.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Demetra Denis Varverikos Kotsos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Therese Des-champs Pare.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Beatrice Edith Paige Bouchard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Sheila Edith Emily Little Staniforth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Elias Helakos, otherwise known as Louis Childs.-Mr. Hunter.'
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Albina Legault Desjardins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Maia Piibe Paul.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of John Russell Watt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No.	174,	for	the	relief	of	William
Watson Southam.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Marie Joyce Kane Grant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Anton Josef Cermak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No.	177,	for	the	relief	of	Myriam
Micheline Weil Goldschmied.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills

Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 193, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company and the corporation of the city of London.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member for
Middlesex East not going to give us at least a short statement on this bill?


Harry Oliver White: Yes, I will. I am very well acquainted with the London and Port Stanley railway, Mr. Speaker, and the difficulty the city of London and the London railway commission have encountered over the years. The explanatory notes in the bill are very complete, and I think any further explanation need only be a brief one. The London and Port Stanley railway is an electrified line carrying freight and passengers between London and Port Stanley on lake Erie, a total distance of some 25 miles. Since 1914 the railway has been operated by the London railway commission as agent for the city of London under a 99-year lease from the railway company.
The city is the holder of 95 per cent of the common stock and of ail of the bonds which have been issued from time to time to finance the operation. The bonds have been in default for both principal and interest for many years and greatly exceed the value of the railway assets, so there is no equity for any shareholders.
The effect of this bill and the agreement which it ratifies is to transfer the assets of the railway to the city and extinguish the liability of the railway company, which will simplify the operation of the railway.
In the bill there is quite a long explanatory note which sets forth the history of the company over a long period of years. I know the difficulty the city has encountered in financing, managing and handling the affairs of the company. This bill is to simplify the whole procedure so far as the city of London, the railway commission and the public utilities commission are concerned.


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

Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills to come up for second reading, namely bills numbered 196 to 231 and 233 to 241.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would it not be better just to take them down to No. 231 first, and then move on to the other page when we come to it? We should not facilitate the passing of these bills too greatly.

Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: The divorce bills I am referring to are separated on the order paper. Order No. 239 has to do with the second reading of a bill in connection with a telephone company. It is immaterial, but since we are dealing with divorce bills in one motion by unanimous consent I thought we would deal with them all at once. I presume the hon. member has a special reason for making his request. Therefore I shall ask that divorce bills 196 to 231 be taken in one motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Olga Mai-kowski Hocaloski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Mary Evelyn Martinson Ross.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Donald Muir Langton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Albert Ritchot. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Annie Esther Vetter Meister.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Carmen Lister Lees.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Dawn Elsie Coles Ekers Bowen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Marion Murray Redburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Anna Pearl Lingo DesMarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Phyllis Geraldine Brown McLean.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Eva Lilly Ware Deslauriers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Agnes Rose McKiernan Popadick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Rosalind Elaine Beinhaker Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Louis Kenneth Laurin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Eva Amelia Richardson Keyton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Francois-Xavier Lange.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Aline Pelland Myre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Roscoe Winston Percy Soule.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of June Patricia Potter Cashman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Paul-Emile Roland Boisclair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Kathleen
Swanson Butler.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 217, for the relief of Freda Lutsky Perzow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Susie Earle Young.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Joseph Willie Walter Stonehouse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Alexander Jakobszak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Margaret Thomson Kelso Midlick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Pansy Joy Cowen Kirby.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Isabel Taylor Page Kingsley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	224,	for	the	relief	of	DorothyWinnifred	Patricia	Lawson Disken.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Annie Kofman Liebman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Harry Els-worth Allton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Desire Cherry Szabo.-Mr. .Hunter.
Bill	No.	228,	for	the	relief	of	William
Edward Shanassy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	229,	for	the	relief	of	Fernand
Seguin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Joanna Florence Ritchie Leinonen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Joseph Teles-phore Origene Dragon.-Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 232, respecting the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company Limited.
(Translation):
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company^ Limited. This company, established in 1907, operates mainly in the province of Quebec, particularly in Bonaventure and Gaspe counties.
For this reason it is felt desirable to have the name in French as well as in English, as is provided in the bill.
The company also requests authority to increase its capital stock from $100,000, divided into shares of $100 each, to $2 million, divided into shares of a par value of $25 each.
The capital sum required for the operation of a small local telephone system a half century ago is no longer adequate to meet the necessities of a territory which is now undergoing a great economic expansion and whose

population has been in need of better and enlarged telephone communications for a long time.
This telephone company is now faced with growing demands for better equipment and extension of its facilities to individuals, as well as to several communities which are deprived of adequate communication in Bonaventure and Gaspe counties.
All other powers requested by the company through this bill are necessary to any telephone company that wishes to extend its services and are normally granted to telephone companies operating in this country.
The counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe are on the eve of unprecedented industrial progress, thanks to their rich mineral resources whose development is only now getting under way.
Two of the main factors which have so far delayed the normal development of this scenic part of the province of Quebec are on the one hand the lack of adequate hydroelectric power in sufficient quantity and at reasonable rates, and on the other the lack of quick and modern means of communication with the larger centres of the province and of the rest of the country.
Quebec Hydro is at present completing a gigantic project which, through underwater cables laid on the bed of the St. Lawrence river from the north to the south shore, opposite Matane county, will extend the benefit of electric power to the mines of Gaspe and the whole of the peninsula.
By virtue of this bill, which will increase to $2 million the capital stock of the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company, that company will be able to carry out a program of development and modernization of its telephone system, a program which calls for the investment of more than $1 million during the coming years.
For the last ten years or so the Gaspe peninsula has been undergoing a complete change in its fisheries and its agriculture along with its commercial and industrial expansion.
Seaports, wharves and fishing harbours have been built at great cost on the north side as well as on the south side of the peninsula. New shipyards, including that of Gaspe, are modernizing fishing fleets and changing the age-long Gaspe fishing industry. One of the largest plants for the production of fish by-products has just been built in Paspebiac, in Bonaventure county.
Private Bills
In recent years a federal experimental farm for the farming people of this important district of the province was also established in Bonaventure county.
Improvements to the Matapedia-Gaspe railroad branch line have certainly been noteworthy and continuous.
A belt highway, fully paved on practically its whole length, runs around the peninsula. Good roads, allowing both summer and winter [DOT] traffic between the counties of Gaspe North, Gaspe South and Bonaventure, were built inland, and connect Mont Louis and St. Anne des Monts with Murdochville, Gaspe and Cascapedia.
It is now the turn of the telephone network of the Gaspe peninsula to undergo the transformations and modernization which have been expected for so many years.
On many occasions in the past, and especially on March 13, 1952, I drew the attention of the house to the urgency of carrying out the improvements of the telephone network which serves both the Bonaventure and Gaspe constituencies.
I am therefore pleased to introduce this bill providing for an increase of the share capital of the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company to $2 million, allowing this company to go ahead with a development program, to face the increasing demand for better equipment, and to improve and extend its services.
The telephone network modernization program will cost the company more than a million dollars, of which almost half a million will immediately be invested in the installation of new equipment in the following localities: Oak Bay, Carleton, New Richmond, St. Alphonse, Caplan, Bonaventure, New Carlisle, Paspebiac and Port Daniel, in the county of Bonaventure, and Chandler, Grande Riviere, Cap d'Espoir, Perce, Barachois, Gaspe, Riviere au Renard and Cap des Rosiers, in the county of Gaspe. In these communities the company will multiply its lines so as to decrease to a considerable extent the number of party-line subscribers.
This company already has on file close to 600 applications for new telephones, both business or private, in the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe. At present the company cannot act on those applications because of the heavy load its lines are carrying at this time. The Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company Limited proposes to instal 3,000 new telephones on its lines between now and 1957. For all those reasons, I believe that the house should not hesitate to grant the powers requested in this bill.
1954	HOUSE OF
Private Bills
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, this bill has to do with the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company, doing business in the province of Quebec, more particularly in the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe. Under the provisions of the bill the company is seeking an increase in its capital stock in order to improve its facilities and extend its services. The purpose of the bill is to obtain authority to increase the capital stock of the company from $100,000, divided into shares of $100 each, to $2 million, divided into shares of a par value of $25 each.
The capital sum required for the operation of a small telephone system a half century ago is now found to be entirely inadequate to meet the necessities of a territory which, as I have explained fully in French, is now undergoing a great economic expansion, and wherein the demands of the population for a better and enlarged telephonic communication system are constantly increasing. The telephone company is faced with a growing demand for better equipment and extension of its facilities, which will require an investment of well over $1 million during the coming years. The Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company wishes to obtain under this bill other powers which are necessary for the undertaking of a telephone business and which are normally granted to telephone companies throughout Canada.


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


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Dorothy Katherine Beattie Gunston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Ellis Hamilton. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Joan Shirley Davies Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Joseph Leon Gilles D'Avignon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Mary Ritchie Fleming Benjamin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Doris Wagner Arkin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Lena Robitaille Barre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Antonio Michetti.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Joseph Andre Roland Roy.-Mr. Hunter.
IMr. Arsenault.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for assuming a few moments ago that I had a good reason for asking that this group of nine bills for which second reading is being asked be separated from the group of 36 bills to which second reading was given a few moments ago. This is almost a record when we consider the 161 bills to which we gave third reading a few minutes before that, making a total of 206 for today.
There are a couple of bills in this group about which I wish to say something. I did not want to delay the chance of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) to present the bill which is on the order paper in his name, and that is why I asked this group to be called separately. It is not my intention to single out the particular bills included in this group of nine which I have in mind, but I would say that the two cases in question are ones with which I am familiar.
Indeed, I went over to the other side of this building, to the other place as we sometimes call it, and sat in with Their Honours the members of the Senate committee and listened to these cases. Having seen Their Honours in action I was impressed, as I have been from reading the evidence, with the thorough job which those appointed to this task are trying to carry out. So far as the cases I heard are concerned I must say that Their Honours certainly did their best to see to it that proper evidence was brought before them and that the investigators in particular did not put anything over on them. I was also impressed, particularly with reference to the two cases in this group which I have in mind, with the helplessness of Their Honours and the helpless situation in which we find ourselves


Mr. Speaker:: I interrupt the hon. member with hesitation, because as everyone knows he spends considerable time studying the rules, but since we are not allowed to comment upon debates which take place in the other house does he think that in debating these bills in this house he should comment upon the proceedings in their committees?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On this point, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order for us to read from the reports which the Senate committees make and which are sent to us, surely it is in order for us to report on what we have heard with our own ears from time to time-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interject here, there
is a great distinction to be made. If their
printed reports are sent here the members



II, 1955

[Stage Direction]
may comment upon whatever is contained in the reports. The reports belong to the house and are part of its proceedings. But what the hon. member is now attempting to do is describe what has taken place at a meeting of a committee concerned with divorce bills in that house. I am afraid the hon. member is dealing at this moment with a subject which is not altogether covered or allowed by our rules.
Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not necessary for me to argue the point with you, sir, because not only do I have knowledge of what I heard with my ears but I also have the report in my hand of one of the sittings to which I was referring and I can send it to Your Honour, although I did not wish to single out and identify an individual case which is one of the nine before us.
If I may now deal with our position in this house, since Your Honour prefers that we do not discuss the situation in which Their Honours find themselves over there, I would like to say that although we have the power to grant a divorce and thereby separate a man and wife we are powerless to do anything in regard to the children. This situation arises in a great many cases and I think it underlines the serious difficulty which confronts us in dealing with these nine cases or in divorce cases generally as they come before us. We cannot deal with these matters through and through, so I think they should not be dealt with here at all.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 185, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).
He said: As I indicated on first reading, the purpose of this bill is to have the political affiliations of the various candidates placed on the ballots. From time to time in elections there are candidates with similar names on the ballot papers, which causes a great deal of confusion amongst the electors. For example, in the general election of 1953 there were six ridings where at least two candidates had the same name. In one riding there were two candidates named Langlois and one named Langlais; in another riding, two named Poulin; in another riding, two named Robi-chaud; in another riding, two named Cassel-man; and in another two named Meunier. This illustration takes into account only those
Canada Elections Act
cases where the names are identical. In many cases names are similar phonetically or in some other way, and a great deal of confusion arises from this situation. Electors might have considerable difficulty in determining which candidate belongs to which party.
Probably more serious is the fact that quite frequently at nominating conventions I am sure the best man is not nominated because his name is similar to that of a candidate running for another party. An example of that exists right now in the constituency of Battle River-Camrose, where a by-election is pending and where there are two candidates named Smith running for office. I am convinced this will cause a great deal of confusion to the electors in that riding. Three of the provinces in Canada have already adopted this legislation and are finding it most effective.


An hon. Member:: What provinces?


Ray Thomas: British Columbia, Alberta and
Saskatchewan. We feel this legislation will be equally effective in relation to federal ballots. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate confusion in federal elections so far as ballots are concerned.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: would like to make a few remarks concerning this bill based entirely upon my observations of the general reactions of people of all parties in my area in relation to this matter. I have heard many expressions of satisfaction concerning the fact that in our provincial elections in British Columbia, as has already been mentioned, reference is made on the ballot papers to the political affiliation of the various candidates. My observation is that people in my area, generally speaking, feel it is a sensible thing in the age in which we are now living.
I have heard a great many expressions of dissatisfaction, particularly at the time of a federal election, concerning the fact that there is no similar provision in the federal elections act. I can recall discussions which took place in British Columbia at the time this particular arrangement was introduced, to the effect that in some way it contravened the constitutional theory upon which our parliamentary institutions are based; but certainly its introduction into the British Columbia election act has not had a shattering effect upon our parliamentary institutions in that province as far as I can see. Certainly one has to accept the fact that political groupings of various sorts have become a permanent part of our parliamentary structure, and that in all likelihood this will continue in the future. Undoubtedly a great many people in the country today are

Canada Elections Act
much concerned when they cast a ballot as to which of the various political groupings they are supporting as they are with respect to the individual candidate whom they support. I felt I would like to say these few words in support of the bill which is before the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, I am sorry; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) wishes to speak.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words against the bill. I must admit I do not feel very strongly one way or the other, but I think I have too strong a streak of Scottish ancestry in me to want to spend money unless I can see that the spending of the money is going to achieve some good result for the country.
Frankly I cannot see that the results in the provincial elections in British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan were any more intelligent than the result in the last federal election, held immediately following those provincial elections. We got that result in the federal election without having the ballot papers made a yard long with all these unnecessary names of political parties, and I for one believe that the onus is certainly on those who want a change made by adding the names of the parties.
The hon. member who introduced the bill pointed out that you can have Smith versus Smith. We will say there is a case where there is a Smith who is a Social Crediter, a Smith who is a C.C.F.'er and a Smith who is a Liberal. I must say that if the voters of any constituency are not intelligent enough to find out which Smith belongs to which party it is a sad commentary on the level of intelligence in that particular political party.
I am well aware that over the years there have been some very smart tricks played politically. I can remember hearing about the father of a former premier of Ontario, Hon. G. Howard Ferguson. Back in the days of John A. Macdonald he had great difficulty in retaining the official Conservative party nomination, but he emerged victor in one dominion election by the simple expedient of having tacked on a tree outside each polling station in the riding of Grenville, I believe it was, a short letter reading, "I commend my friend, Mr. Ferguson, to the support of the electors", and signed "John A. Macdonald". Of course there was quite a ruckus after the election, because the next day it turned out that the John A. Macdonald 
who had signed the letter was not the famous Sir John A. Macdonald, the prime minister, but John A. Macdonald the blacksmith in the home town of Mr. Ferguson's father.
I submit to hon. members that the change now suggested would make for no improvement over what we now have. If it is true that you can have confusion in the names of candidates, it is also true that you can have confusion in the names of parties. I have heard it said that there would never have been a Social Credit government in British Columbia if a great number of the voters had not been confused by "Social Credit" and "socialist". We have had one speaker each from the Social Credit and C.C.F. parties support this proposal, but we who sit in the house know very well that these parties are poles apart. Yet it is a fact that their own supporters in the province of British Columbia gave the other party second choice votes because it was not sufficiently clear in their own minds that Social Crediters were very different from C.C.F.'ers. Therefore I submit that this proposal would simply mean an unnecessary cluttering of the ballot and an unnecessary expense, and I for one propose to vote against it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Has he had the experience I have had of going into isolated communities and having to explain who the people were that were running for the several parties? Would he tell us what means such people would have of discovering these things?


Elmore Philpott: My suggestion to the hon. member would be to talk about himself and his own party, forget all about the other parties and let the voters decide.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I think one or two of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) could be answered before a vote is taken on the bill. The hon. member says he feels the proposed change would not bring about any improvement over the present situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He does not know what party he might belong to next time.


Solon Earl Low: The trouble is that my hon. friend is confused about just what party he does belong to. That is where the difficulty arises in his own mind. I am sure the hon. member has considered the whole matter in the light of general results rather than the confusion that often results in particular cases. It is because of the confusion that arises in particular cases that we have presented the bill. The hon. member admits

that some pretty smart tricks have been played in past elections in this country. I am not going to argue with him there because I know personally of some of those very smart tricks. There have been a good many of them through the years. All that I know about took place before there was a Social Credit party in Canada, so it could not have been our group that introduced them.
Let me point out to the hon. member for Vancouver South that the bill proposes to make at least one of these tricks impossible in the future. That is why it is introduced. Let me point out how very confusing it is to present to the people of a constituency the names of two candidates that are the same and ask the people to vote on them. Our federal constituencies are very large. Most of them have upwards of 50,000 voters, with many of them coming close to 100,000. It is virtually impossible for any person, no matter what his name, to become known definitely to all these voters. In the main the voters have to depend for some lead to the identity of a candidate on the ballot itself.
Let us take the present situation in Battle River-Camrose, referred to by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Here you have two candidates by the name of Smith, a very common name. I am not going to suggest that the Liberals, who held their nominating convention after the Social Crediters had held theirs, deliberately selected a man by the name of Smith in order to confuse the people of that constituency. I would not lay a charge of that kind. But the fact is that after the Social Crediters had nominated their candidate they did select a man by the name of Smith, and they knew full well at the time that there would be no indication whatsoever on the ballot as to the political affiliation of the Smith they nominated.
I point out this quite obvious fact. If there is any confusion whatsoever as to the two Smiths in the minds of the people, the beneficiaries of that confusion will certainly be the party to which the hon. member for Vancouver South at the present moment owes his allegiance, because there are so few actual Liberals in that constituency that any confusion-


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking.


Solon Earl Low: -would benefit the Liberal party and nobody else. That is something which we feel deserves very careful consideration, and the reason the bill is introduced is to remove the possibility of local confusion and through such confusion any injustices in the votes.
When my hon. friend says the change proposed would make no improvement in the
Canada Elections Act
present situation, he overlooks the fact that any time there is a mistake in identity in marking a ballot, there is injustice. If you can make any change in the elections act that will remove the possibility of injustice, he knows full well that you are making an improvement over the present situation. He could not argue that with anything but a smile on his face.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to see that there is justice in all cases whether or not we are concerned, and that is why we proposed this bill. In his argument my hon. friend suggested that if this bill is made law there is a possibility it might cost the taxpayers of this country more money. Well, that is silly. Does my hon. friend think for one moment that the printing of three or four more small words on a ballot is going to cost the people of this country any more money? He knows that is not so. The chance is that it will cost them a whole lot less in the long run in that people will make absolutely certain by having information on the ballot such as is proposed in this bill. Injustice and mistaken identity will thus be avoided. I say that the whole case put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South has been utterly silly.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kooienay East):: I have no particularly strong feeling with respect to the adoption of this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I have.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You have?


Pierre Gauthier: Yes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps that will be the factor that will determine how I shall vote.


An hon. Member:: You cannot decide for yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the deputy whip speaking.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It amuses me somewhat to
hear members of the Social Credit party infer that Liberal party members might seek some advantage by using the name of the candidate of another party.


Solon Earl Low: They have done it before.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I wonder, then, what was the purpose behind the province appointing a minister of health and welfare whose name is the same as that of our illustrious Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). The most amazing part of this whole bill is that it is introduced by a member of the Social Credit party. I recall that back in 1952 or 1953, during one of the general elections in British Columbia, the hon. member

Canada Elections Act
for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who is, as I understand it, the leader of the Social Credit Association of Canada-


Solon Earl Low: He is the president.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I stand corrected. The hon. member for Macleod is the president or leader-[DOT]


Solon Earl Low: He is the president.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: All right, the president of the Social Credit Association of Canada; and that member has stated from time to time on the platform that social credit is not a political party. Now, what would appear on this ballot? Supposing the name was Ray Thomas; what would he put down at the bottom as his political affiliation? He would not be able to put anything because he does not belong to a political party. The statement of the hon. member for Macleod was that it was not a political party but something that came from the heart. What are they going to do, draw a picture of cupid on the ballot? What absolute nonsense.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I And
myself considerably confused by this bill. My friends to the left have puzzled me often by their financial theories, but this elections bill bothers me, I think, just as much.
I want to remind the house, first of all, that I suppose the most individualistic and free enterprise thing that exists in life today is a political party. It is an association of friends. I believe it is true to say that you will find practically no reference in any statute to any kind of political party. It is just an association of friends, more or less like minded, who for reasons that are often mysterious to the rest of us join together and form what is called a party.


William Gilbert Weir: Where did you get a copy of my speech?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall make mine very brief so the government whip will have time to make his.
The reference in the bill is to the name of the political party or interest represented by the candidate. I want to raise two questions there. "Or interest"; what does that mean? Does that mean lawyers or doctors or undertakers or anybody you like? What does it mean? Second, suppose on the eve of an election a couple of friends decide to form a new party. Let us call it the populist party or the XYZ party, anything you like. Suppose I were a candidate, and suppose the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) were the president. We form the party just before the election-find any grand name for it you like-and as I understand it, provided I get a certificate from my friend that
[Mr. Byrne.)
I am the recognized candidate of our party I may have myself put down as such on the ballot.
How many of these are there to be? Seriously speaking, it seems to me to verge on the fantastic. There is no definition of a political party; it merely says "political party or interest". What does that mean? I suggest this provision has not been very carefully thought through, and altogether it would appear as though it would create confusion. I cannot see how the electoral officer can be guided, because the situation I put forward is not a fantastic one. There may be only four parties now, but we might run into an election with 14 parties, and the electoral officer would have to carry out the directions of this provision. I do not know whether or not he would have any discretion but it seems to me that if anyone wanted to put up a joke, if anyone wanted to organize a party just before an election and make the whole thing foolish, this would open the door wide for him to do so. I am afraid I am going to have to ask to be allowed to vote against it.


William Gilbert Weir: I only want to say a word or two following the line of thought expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). There is one other possible development that might be difficult to take care of under this bill, and that is if a man changed his affiliation on the eve of an election. Suppose he ran under another banner; where would he be? My hon. friends of the Social Credit group, if they continue, might find that in some constituencies they have more than one candidate all trying to run under the Social Credit banner. Have they considered how they are going to differentiate between them?
I think the real point in this matter is that we are not elected here as parties, we are elected as individuals. The party is only used as the machinery for the election. The party is only used as an instrument for the election, and we are here as individuals. I do not see why the elections act should be changed to say that we are elected as party people.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: In view of the objections that have been raised to the bill, I think we could judge the effectiveness of this measure by the experience in parts of Canada that have legislation of this type. All of the objections that have been raised by previous speakers, and particularly the last two speakers, have not been borne out by experience in Saskatchewan. I think it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that all these imaginary faults will arise. We have conducted elections in Saskatchewan where the

name of the candidate and that of his party-have been on the ballot, and I do not think that form of ballot has in any way complicated the holding of the elections. I do not believe confusion has arisen in any circumstances from putting party labels on ballots; and I can recall several instances where, before party labels were placed on ballots, we did run into difficulties of that kind. For instance, mention has been made of two persons having similar names.
So I suggest in all seriousness that the objections raised against the bill are not sound. In some parts of Canada we have had this type of ballot, and nothing in their experience has indicated that the bill now before the house would bring about the difficulties envisaged by those opposing it.


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of arousing the derisive laughter of my friends in the corner I think I should take the traditionalist view of this, and repeat what has been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), that nowhere in our federal elections act is there any mention of any political party. In our experience in the past in trying to draft the elections act we have always carefully avoided mentioning political parties, and for the reason-you may laugh at it-that whatever we may do in practice, members of parliament are sent here to give our constituents the benefit of the best of our judgment and the best of our ability to determine what should be done in the interests of the country as a whole.
Except perhaps during the time when we were occupying the hustings, for many years we have done our best to say that we are non-partisan in our outlook on matters coming before us. It seems almost an insult to tell a man he is a politician. Now, under the guise of a great reform, we are asked to label ourselves as politicians. We will come here and, in the words of some statesman of long ago, we will be all for the party and none for the state.
It seems to me we have not reached the stage in this country where we are going to set up throughout the country political machines and political organizations to which members will become so attached that it will be very difficult for them to take an impartial and non-partisan view of matters coming before the house. If on the ballot paper itself an individual who proposes to become a member of parliament labelled himself, for the time during which he will be a member, as the supporter of such and such a party, it would be extremely difficult for him, both in conscience and in the view of his electors, to say that from now on he repudiates the
Canada Elections Act
pledge he made to his electors when he said he was a Liberal, a Conservative, a Social Crediter, or anything else you may mention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he apply the same argument to the literature put out by candidates during an election campaign?


Charles Gavan Power: Quite right; but none of that literature is official, other than being official in the sense of the party. It is not sanctioned by the parliament of Canada, nor by the people of Canada represented in the house by their members.
Up to the present time we have religiously avoided what is suggested in this bill. I remember the trouble we had in framing the elections act in order to have enumerators from two political parties making up the lists. We had to find such language as "a representative of an opposite and adverse political party" if I remember correctly. During the first overseas election-I am not speaking of the one in 1917, but the one in 1940

we refrained from stating the political allegiance of the persons who were candidates. I admit frankly that we received innumerable complaints on that score. But in 1945, if I recall correctly, there was some kind of arrangement made whereby political parties were not recognized but leaders of groups in the house were given recognition. It was stated either on the ballot or in the literature-I think perhaps it was in the literature sent out by the returning officer-that such and such a candidate was endorsed by the leader of the opposition or by the leader of the government, or something of that nature. But I doubt if the word "Liberal" or the word "Conservative" or "C.C.F." was on the ballot, though, in saying this, of course, I am speaking only from memory.
Besides, I doubt if we can here, by legislation, give to the leader of the government, for those of us sitting on this side of the house a copyright on the name "Liberal". I have as much right to call myself a Liberal, even though I might oppose some of the policies of the right hon. gentleman who leads us. In the same way, hon. gentlemen sitting in the opposition can call themselves Progressive Conservatives and still not ask for the endorsation of the hon. gentleman sitting opposite.
Under the circumstances, then, I do not oppose this because it is an innovation, but rather because, in conformity with the customs, the habits and the traditions of our parliamentary institutions, I would strenuously oppose placing on the ballot paper the name of the political party to which a candidate adhered.

Canada Grain Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canada Grain Act to amend the statutory grades of western grain and eastern grain with respect to the grade No. 3 amber Durum wheat and all grades of soybeans as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards; to provide for the appointment of four in lieu of three assistant grain commissioners and to increase the annual salaries of the chief and other two commissioners from fourteen and twelve thousand dollars to fifteen and thirteen thousand five hundred dollars respectively.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make a very short statement with regard to the resolution that is before the committee. The wording of the resolution itself, together with the statement that was made last night by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, indicate that the legislation that is to be based on the resolution will contain provisions with which we can agree. Moreover, the indications are that the legislation will contain provisions that have been asked for, and in substantially the form asked for, by the farm organizations of western Canada. We are particularly pleased to know, from what the parliamentary assistant to the minister said, that the bill will contain provisions that substantially implement the recommendations of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization of the last session of parliament regarding the crediting of overages to the Canadian wheat board instead of to Her Majesty in the right of Canada.
There may be provisions in the bill with which we cannot agree, but we will not know that until we have a look at the bill. It may be that there are certain provisions that we would oppose and oppose vigorously, but we do think the government should have the right to introduce the bill. Therefore we feel that the resolution should be carried, and we shall support it.


Mr. Trainor:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate not because of any specialized knowledge of grain production or grain handling, but solely to register a protest against what I consider to be unwarranted charges against several individuals of whom I happen to have personal knowledge.
The hon. member for Assiniboia has levelled a charge of incompetence, inefficiency and perhaps worse against two gentlemen for whom I have a very high regard. The chairman of the board of grain commissioners is a man of outstanding reputation in the province of Manitoba. As was said this afternoon, he is a man who has a long history of service to the farmers of western Canada. He certainly is a man who should be supposed to know a great deal about the handling of grain, and as such I would regard him as an eminent person to discharge the duties of the chairman of the board of grain commissioners. It is true he is a Liberal, but this is perhaps just unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps it is not a vital handicap to enabling him to discharge the duties incident to his position.
With regard to the second person who has been mentioned in the hon. member's criticism, namely Mr. Milner, a member of the board, I also have personal knowledge of him. I know he has spent practically a lifetime in the grain business. It amuses me somewhat to hear the proposal to pay Mr. Milner a salary of $14,000 per annum questioned, because I know that over a period of years he has probably commanded three times or four times that amount in the private grain trade. Those companies paid him this amount of money for no other reason than they expected him to make money for them. This is to me certainly an indication that Mr. Milner is eminently qualified for his job.
I would think that on reflection the hon. member for Assiniboia might possibly change his conception in this regard. Perhaps his attitude to date indicates, let us say, a certain measure of immaturity of judgment.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to say anything further on this matter after having spoken briefly last night. Since the hon. member who has just taken his seat has seen fit to take the floor in support of some of the commissioners whom the hon. member for Assiniboia criticized-and he documented his criticisms and accusations-I, as a person speaking for the farmer members of this house, recognize that he had a legitimate complaint when he said the examination of the conduct of the board by the agriculture committee last year did not indicate that they

were carrying on the business of the board with full knowledge of the grain act. I think he sufficiently documented his accusations to prove that to all hon. members. I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon, or the Minister of Agriculture, in any way was able to refute his accusations.
It may be quite true that the chief commissioner knows the grain trade. As the hon. member who just took his seat indicated, he was in the private grain trade for some 40 years. As far as I am concerned that-


Owen C. Trainor: He was never in the private grain trade.


Edward George McCullough: The
grain exchange.


Owen C. Trainor: No, not in the grain exchange either. He was the former representative of the farmers.


Edward George McCullough: I am
speaking of Mr. Milner now, who was taken out of the grain trade and put in as one of the commissioners, not the chief commissioner. That is what I meant to say.
It is true that during the struggle of the farmers to get justice in the marketing of their grain, sir, they were up against the private grain trade and the Winnipeg grain exchange. For years and years members from [DOT]western Canada have come to this house and asked that the futures market on the Winnipeg grain exchange be closed so we would have a different method of marketing our western wheat. Every single champion of western Canada who has come to this house has supported the proposition of the Canadian wheat board.
We are all very happy to have an orderly method of marketing our wheat, namely the Canadian wheat board; but we do not feel that we are getting justice when we have people taken from the private grain trade and placed on the board of grain commissioners and then have hon. members rise in their places and say that, simply because they have some knowledge of the grain trade, they should necessarily be members of the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a question? Is the hon. member aware that Mr. Milner was nominated for his present position by the Alberta wheat pool? His was an Alberta appointment. He was nominated by the Alberta wheat pool, I have been getting abuse this afternoon because I did not take the nominee of the Saskatchewan wheat pool.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I am pointing out that some of us, particularly in this group, are not satisfied with the knowledge or rather lack of knowl-
Defence Production Act edge indicated by the commissioners when they were before the agriculture committee last year. I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia and others when they say that great care should be taken in the appointment of these men. We feel that the composition of the board should be satisfactory to the great farm organizations.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out this afternoon, the government can offset any criticism by the farm organizations and get out of this present situation if in future when any appointments are to be made they accept the choice of either the wheat pools or the farm unions of western Canada. Unless that is done we will still be facing injustice. It has taken 50 years for the western farmer to build up his farm organizations in order to get a measure of justice. We have that under the Canadian wheat board.
We feel that the grain act is the farmers' charter. If it is carried out in the proper way we can have some justice in the production and handling of our wheat. We have built up our own elevator system in the west, but the allocation of box cars is under the control of Mr. Milner and the board of grain commissioners. The car order book system is also under their control, and we feel that we have not been able to get a satisfactory allocation of box cars. Therefore it is quite understandable why we are taking exception to what is being done.
In closing may I say that I think the hon. member for Assiniboia has substantiated his charges, and I go right along with him in the statements he has made.
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 48; nays, 21.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 245, respecting the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 10, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Defence Production Act to increase the salary of the Minister of Defence Production from ten thousand dollars per annum to fifteen thousand and to repeal section 41 which provided for the expiry of the act on July 31, 1956.
Mr. Green:: The understanding was that the national defence resolution would be the first to be considered, and then the fisheries treaty.
1962	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: This resolution was called last night.


Howard Charles Green: The order of business given us last night was that the national defence resolution would be second, then the great lakes treaty and then the defence production resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are changing the order, that is all. It was named last night. My hon. friend likes to lead the house,
I know, but I do not think he is entitled to do it on this occasion.


Howard Charles Green: I do not intend to take any insults like that. The leader of the house, the Minister of Finance, gave us the order of business last night, and I do suggest that that course should be followed. The Minister of Finance is reported on page 1926 of Hansard of March 10 as follows:
Mr. Speaker, there has been a slight change in the order in which I gave the matters last evening. Tomorrow, we shall continue with this debate, and then take, in the order I indicate, the resolution with respect to the National Defence Act; the fisheries resolution; the resolution with respect to the Defence Production Act; Bills No. 183 and No. 184, as well as Bills No. 188 and No. 189.
In view of that definite statement as to the order in which business would be taken I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it be followed this evening. It would be difficult to carry on business if we did not follow these orders, because other parties have their people here ready to take part in these debates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, but I cannot be available for some time and I would like to get this bill through. However, I am not going to press it unduly, although I am rather busy these days.


William Gilbert Weir: Undoubtedly what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has read was announced last night, but it would be a matter of convenience to the Minister of Defence Production if we could take this bill. Otherwise, if there is objection to it, we will have to stand by what was undertaken last night; but it would be a matter of some convenience if this resolution could be proceeded with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I could offer a suggestion which the two sides might consider. Certainly the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has read exactly what was said last night. There has been no suggestion in the meantime that any change would be made. Could we proceed with the resolution of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) for an hour or so and then some back to this resolution? Those who are interested in the resolution regarding the


Department of Defence Production might be able to collect their wits in the meantime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be quite happy if we could agree to complete the discussion tonight. Would that be possible?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned I am prepared to go on, but I would be glad to defer to my colleague the Minister of Defence Production. However, I shall be here if I am required.


Ray Thomas: I wonder if the Minister of National Defence would make his statement tonight, and then we could revert to defence production and carry on with that. If this were done we would at least have the statement of the Minister of National Defence on the record for the week end, so we could carry on with it at the first of the week.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave the country shortly and I shall be away for a month. I would like to get this bill disposed of, but if the house does not wish me to proceed with it I shall retire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the resolution not in the name of the Prime Minister, anyway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is, but he asked me to deal with it.


William Alfred Robinson: When a situation of this kind arises it leaves the Chair in a rather difficult position. Having heard the views of the various parties and the suggestion of the hon. member of the Social Credit group, it might possibly be agreeable with the Minister of National Defence to proceed with his statement, which would give hon. members an opportunity to proceed with the other resolution at a later time. I am certain that hon. members would wish to accede to what appears to be an urgent request by the right hon. Minister of Defence Production. Would the hon. members agree to that suggestion as a compromise?


Howard Charles Green: We would be willing to allow the Minister of Defence Production to proceed if he wishes to do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This resolution was debated at some length yesterday by the hon. member for Eglinton. Had the program of business been such that I had followed him yesterday, I would have spoken at greater length than I will do now. However, I would like to say a few words with regard to the point of view he expressed yesterday.
It is true that the bill to be based on this resolution is more far-reaching than might be thought from the brevity of the resolution and the bill itself. That fact arises, of course,



II, 1955

[Stage Direction]
from the intention to wipe out the expiry date, which has the effect of making the Department of Defence Production as permanent as any other department of the government.
However, I do not share all the alarms expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Eglinton, nor do I go along with him in likening the act being amended by this resolution to the Emergency Powers Act or to the War Measures Act. It seems to me if there is going to be defence purchasing and defence procurement on a scale of any magnitude it is necessary for the government to have powers to protect the economy of the country against the inflationary effects of those purchases and procurements.
When this legislation was brought in in 1951 we felt those powers were necessary. Indeed, if we have any quarrel with the minister or the government regarding the powers contained in this legislation it is because of the fact they have not used the powers that are in the bill to prevent the cost of living from climbing to the extent it has. I think there is no question about the inflationary effect of defence procurements, purchases and building. In my view the cost of housing, which is higher today than a few years ago, is a direct result of expenditures by the government under the heading of defence. That being the case, it seems necessary that there be powers to control the economy. Certainly there is a wide difference between this legislation and the Emergency Powers Act. That act was wide and undefined. As far as this legislation is concerned, at least we know what it contains.
Nevertheless, as the hon. member for Eglinton said yesterday, it is true that before passing the bill it will be well for us to look at the Defence Production Act which is now on the statute books and realize what it is that we are re-enacting. Naturally we will do that before we come to the second reading of the bill itself.
I have one further comment to make in connection with this proposed legislation. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce will recall, I drew attention to the fact last year, when the Salaries Act was being amended, that there was no provision in that act for the salary of the Minister of Defence Production. Neither he nor I worried much about that omission because, as he put it on page 2323 of Hansard of February 23, 1954: However, if the salary were to be increased the act would have to be amended, or an item would be put in the estimates for that purpose. Frankly I think it is just on oversight. I think the salary in question might just as well have been listed here, but it is not listed and I am not going to ask for an amendment. Somehow or other I hope to get my salary.
Defence Production Act
We all know he gets his salary as the Minister of Trade and Commerce so this is merely an academic matter. Therefore the amount really is not in issue, but it seems to me it should be put in the same statute that provides for the salaries of the other cabinet ministers. That provision is made in chapter 21 of the statutes of 1953-54, which sets out the salaries of all the other ministers of the crown and also the salary of the Solicitor General, even though his position is in a slightly different category. It seems to me a bit untidy to have all the other salaries provided for in one place and the salary of the Minister of Defence Production specified in the act which provides for the department itself.
I suggest seriously, for the purpose of keeping these things tidy and having them where they can be readily found, that before the bill is brought in consideration might be given to taking the provision for the salary of the Minister of Defence Production out of the Defence Production Act and putting it in the Salaries Act, along with the salaries of the other cabinet ministers.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Eglinton indicated yesterday, the official opposition are not opposing the salary increase for the Minister of Defence Production or the proposal to make the department permanent, but we do believe that before this is done there should be a thorough review of the powers granted by the Defence Production Act. When the defence production bill was under debate in 1951 second reading was moved by the Prime Minister, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the speech and he had this to say about the bill, as found at page 836 of Hansard of March 2:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize-
These are the words I wish to emphasize, -that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
That was the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 2, 1951, four years ago. He himself said at that time that the Defence Production Act as introduced, and as it stands today, contained special powers which should not be of a continuing nature. We adopt the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the introduction of this very same legislation four years ago, namely that there are some powers in the act which should not be of a continuing nature. We suggest with the utmost sincerity that a look should be taken at these powers in the Defence Production Act, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself

Defence Production Act thought should not be of a continuing nature, because of course the proposal now is that all the powers in the act are to be made permanent in that the section giving the department a life of only a period of years is to be repealed by the bill which is to follow the resolution.
The hon. member for Eglinton yesterday listed different powers in the Defence Production Act which he thought should not be made permanent. I do not intend to go over all of them again this evening, but I do wish to point out three or four which it seems to me it is very unwise and unnecessary to place in any measure providing for the powers of a permanent department.
First of all, under section 23 of the Defence Production Act power is given to the minister -not to the cabinet but to the minister-to make a person undertake a contract. If they refuse the minister can compel them to contract. One of the penalties for refusing is that the minister can, under section 27, appoint a controller to take over the business, not only take over the part of the business producing the article he requires but their whole business, even though only a small part of it may have to do with the production of the article required by the minister. Under the act this power can be exercised not only by the minister but by his appointee. These are terrifically wide powers. Section 23 reads in part as follows:
Where a person who has been requested to enter into a defence contract on terms and conditions that the minister considers to be fair and reasonable has refused or failed to enter into the contract, if the minister is satisfied that such person owns or controls facilities that are suitable for or can be adapted to the work required to carry out such contract and that his refusal or failure was without reasonable excuse, the minister may direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions and within such period as the minister considers to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the defence supplies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject matter of the contract if it had been entered into.
That gives the minister or his appointee the widest possible power. Section 27 contains the power to put a controller in charge of the business. In one case it can be done where a man has refused to contract. Perhaps I had better read the section so that memories will be refreshed as to how far it goes. It reads as follows:
Where the minister is satisfied that
(a) a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform the contract in a businesslike and efficient manner . . .
(c) a person to whom a direction has been given under section 23-
That is the section I just read.
-or who is required pursuant to a regulation to give priority in the carrying on of his business to

the production of or dealing in defence supplies, or construction of defence projects has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction or regulation or-
Here is another amazing power.
-the minister is satisfied that he will so fail or is likely so to fail, the minister may authorize another person, in this act called a "controller", to carry on, until the minister otherwise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person.
The controller the minister puts in charge of the business is given the widest powers by the following subsection:
(2) Where a controller has been appointed to carry on a business or a part thereof, he shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner thereof for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof, except that the owner shall not have any right to control the business or that part thereof and the controller may, subject to any instructions of the minister, do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof.
There is no freedom left to business in Canada, Mr. Chairman, so long as that particular provision remains on the statute books of our land. Then there is a further power in section 29 to inquire into a person's business. The section reads:
29. (1) The minister may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause an inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to or incidental to or arising out of a defence contract or any group or series of defence contracts or any dealings in or with defence supplies, and may appoint a person or persons by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.
A later subsection provides that an investigator appointed by the minister may or may not allow any person whose conduct is being investigated to have a lawyer. The subsection goes just that far. In these provisions we have a potential tyranny in our land.
There is a further provision in section 28 concerning the cabinet. All the other powers I have cited can be exercised by the minister alone, but this section 28 reads:
The governor in council may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, by-law, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that the cabinet can override a statute of this parliament, a statute of any provincial parliament or a bylaw of any municipality if they see fit. They can say to a businessman, "Here, you need not comply with any of these other laws or bylaws; you have to do what we say, or else." If the businessman does not comply he may become subject to the heavy penalties contained in this act.
When this Defence Production Act was being discussed in 1951 we complained about

the drastic powers. We pointed out that those powers were identical to powers taken by the government in wartime. These are not peacetime powers, these are full wartime powers which the government took in 1951 and is now trying to put on the statute books of Canada in a permanent measure. In the debate which took place in 1951 I questioned the Prime Minister on that point. I am reading now from page 908 of Hansard for March 5, 1951:


Howard Charles Green: Then, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any further powers would be required to carry out defence production if we were actually in a third world war?
Here is the answer:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not anticipate there would be. I think the enabling sections here are expressed in language which probably would be broad enough to apply; but of course, with respect to that, as with respect to all our other moves in this connection, we would expect to declare any change in policy to parliament, and we would have to be asking parliament to appropriate moneys, so there would be ample opportunity for parliament to concur or refuse to concur in the carrying out of any further policy that was declared.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has said that
this bill as presented contains all the powers that would be required in the event of a third world war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not want to promise
the house that if we ran up against something where the courts said this was not good enough we would not come back to parliament; if we thought it should be done, we would ask parliament to authorize it-
Here are the significant words in the Prime Minister's statement:
-but I think the law officers have drawn this in language that should be sufficient to cover all the enabling powers apt to be required.
There is an admission by the Prime Minister that the Defence Production Act contains all the powers that the government could foresee being required if we were in a third world war. The bill which is to follow this resolution makes those powers part of the permanent law of this country.
I refer also to the Department of Defence Production report for the period from April 1 to December 31, 1951. This was the first report after the department was set up. I find this at page 14:
Although the powers now in effect are virtually the same as those which existed during the last war, it has been understood that these powers would be used to the minimum extent necessary.
There the department itself also recognizes, as the Prime Minister had previously recognized, that the Defence Production Act contains the full wartime powers.
About a year ago the Prime Minister was faced with the question of whether the Emergency Powers Act would be continued in effect. This act, of course, was a twin to the
Defence Production Act Defence Production Act. We were complaining about both these statutes. The Emergency Powers Act had to be renewed last year, otherwise it was going to expire. The Prime Minister finally decided that it should expire, and this is what he said when he made his statement to the house, as recorded at page 4229 of Hansard for April 29, 1954:
However, I can assure my hon. friend at the present time we have come to the conclusion we will not at this session ask parliament to extend the Emergency Powers Act. We felt it was a grave decision to make because there is still a pretty explosive situation existing in the world. I hope the situation will not require the exercise of any but normal powers by the governor in council. But should it develop that there would have to be, in the interests of the safety of the nation, powers exercised that are not normally conferred upon the governor in council by existing legislation, we would have to resort to the War Measures Act.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, there is just as much reason for getting the Defence Production Act on a proper basis, under which there will be no greater powers than those that should be granted by the parliament of a free nation which is not at war. If the nation were at war, or if there were apprehended war, there is, as we all know, power in the cabinet to bring into effect the War Measures Act, under which the government would have all the power it could possibly need.
In introducing this resolution yesterday, the Prime Minister pointed out, at page 1904, that the peak of the defence program was past. We are now in the position where, on the authority of the Prime Minister himself, we can say the peak of the defence production has passed. He went on to say that the government kept these powers because of certain things, and he mentioned aircraft production, the production of electronics and some other war goods of that type. I do not believe anyone in the house would object to the government taking very wide powers in connection with the production of aircraft, for example, or munitions of war. No one wants to handicap the defence department in its work of keeping the defences of this country strong.
The difficulty is that the Defence Production Act does not define defence supplies as consisting only of aircraft, electronics, ships and munitions of war. The act defines defence supplies in such a broad way that they include everything. They include underwear for the troops; carpets for barracks and every other conceivable thing. I refer to the definition of "defence supplies" contained in section 2 (f). It reads:
"Defence supplies" means:
(i)	arms, ammunition, implements of war, Vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, watercraft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals-

Defence Production Act
There is no restriction on "animals". I suppose it includes everything from cooties to elephants.
-articles, material, substances and things required or used lor the purposes ol the defence of Canada or lor co-operative efforts for defence being carried on by Canada and an associated government.
(ii)	ships of all kinds-
Not only warships, but "ships of all kinds".
(iii)	articles, materials, substances-
This, by the way, is the clause which gives the all-embracing powers:
(iil) articles, materials, substances and things of all kinds used for the production or supply of anything mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii) or for the construction of defence projects.
That, in effect, covers the whole of Canada's productive capacity. Practically anything produced in Canada can be placed by the minister in the category of a defence supply. We suggest that one way to get out of the difficulty would be for the government to revise the definition of "defence supplies", and put in only the things over which it needs these drastic controls.
There is no excuse in the world for assuming this all-embracing power over practically everything that Canadians can produce. Parliament in a free country should not be asked to give these powers to any department of government on a permanent basis. Yet that is what we are going to be asked to do in the bill which will follow this resolution. Once these powers go on the statute books in permanent form they will never come off. The authority will be there for all time. It will be there a long time after the present Minister of Defence Production is out of the picture.
Some people might say, "Oh well, give him the power; let him have whatever power he wants." But this question goes far beyond any one man. This power is going to be on the statute books, available to whoever may be the minister of defence production a year from now, five years from now or ten years from now. It is a dangerous precedent to establish, in giving power to any department of government.
Where does Canadian business stand as long as there is a law of this kind on the statute books? Every business in this nation is under the thumb of the Department of Defence Production by reason of these powers. They are all under the threat of that department. Whether or not those threats are ever used, there is the power in the department to threaten every business in Canada.
The Minister of Defence Production has made his attitude very clear on legislation of this kind. I was questioning him in 1950,
tMr. Green.1
at which time we were considering a bill which became the Essential Materials (Defence) Act. Here is what he said on September 8, 1950, as reported at page 460 of Hansard-and this was the present Minister of Defence Production speaking at that time-
I suggest to the committee that a word from the government is more effective if there is a law in the background that can be applied in case the response is not all that may be desired.
Is Canada, is Canadian business, to be subject to possible dictatorship of this type? There was the attitude taken by the minister in 1950. Here are the powers taken in 1951, when the minister himself-this same minister-said that the Defence Production Act contained some powers that should not be continuing powers. In 1951 the Prime Minister said these were wartime powers, and the minister's own department repeated that statement in its annual report of 1951. Now, today, we have the final pay-off, when the government asks that these powers be made permanent.
Mr. Chairman, the appetite for arbitrary powers is still with those on the government's front benches. The war has been over for ten years, but the appetite for those arbitrary powers is still there, or the government would not be asking for the passage of this measure at the present session. Yesterday in my judgment the Prime Minister took the situation very lightly; he did not seem to be worrying much. He said, "Oh, well, we have to have aircraft produced, and we just want to carry on with these powers". There was no mention about the story of four years ago, that they were only going to be temporary. Now the Prime Minister is coming in and asking to have these powers made permanent.
I merely repeat the suggestion I made in opening this evening, and it is this; that before the measure is put through the government should review the powers contained in the Defence Production Act. Just let parliament have a look at these powers and decide which of them should be given to the Department of Defence Production. In addition, let the government take another look at the definition of "defence supplies". The Department of Defence Production should not be given on a permanent basis the powers it was given in 1951. We are urging the Prime Minister and the government sincerely and seriously to take another look at this measure before having it enacted into law.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the present act was put on the statute books in 1951. This is 1955. I must say that so far as defence production is concerned I find it difficult to distinguish between the situation in 1951 and the situation in 1955.

In 1951 we were starting a $5 billion defence program. I think something like $4,500 million has been spent on that program, and the work of the department is not in any way diminishing. I think we have today some of the most difficult projects in hand that it has ever been the responsibility of the department to undertake since it was formed.
I quite agree that all the powers set out in the act should not be continuing powers; but I do maintain that if they were necessary in 1951, they are just as necessary today. My hon. friend reads out these paragraphs as though they were fantastic.


Howard Charles Green: They are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I can tell him that every one of those powers has been exercised during the period I have been in charge of defence production in this country, and exercised not once but many times. The reason they were put in the act is that experience during the second world war indicated that that type of power is necessary to mobilize the industry of this country for war.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question? Has the minister used those powers within the last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; they have not been needed. Another thing, with respect to the alarm that my hon. friend expressed about the position of industry, that has never been suggested by industry. I know of no one who does not take defence contracts, all the defence contracts they can get under this act; they are very glad to do so, and I have yet to have any complaints from industry that the powers of the act are unusually broad.
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, there is a continuing need for a department to carry out the procurement functions of the Canadian defence program. The requirements of the Department of National Defence for the foreseeable future are of sizeable proportions. The people of Canada expect the armed forces to be ready at a moment's notice to perform their duties in the defence of this country and to fulfil our international commitments. I feel that the Department of Defence Production must be so constituted that it can perform its functions with similar dispatch. I feel it does not make sense from any point of view to have a strong military force without the backing of an equally strong procurement agency, properly equipped to do its job.
The hon. member for Eglinton has implied that because there have been no adverse repercussions from the revoking of the Emergency Powers Act, there would be none if
Defence Production Act the Defence Production Act were changed. This is not true. The two acts are not the same, and the powers of the Emergency Powers Act were much wider than those of the Defence Production Act.
Not only is the authority of the Defence Production Act needed to enable the department to act quickly in an emergency, but it is needed to carry out the continuing functions of the department in line with our present defence commitments. We are just embarking on the construction of the mid-Canada early warning line, which is the largest project of this kind we have ever undertaken. On the aircraft side a number of major production contracts, such as the Britannia, have just started and will not be completed for some time. New developments in the field of modern weapons, for example guided missiles, will place heavy responsibilities on the department in the years ahead. Furthermore, the need to maintain and keep up to date our present defence potential will require a high level of defence procurement. In other words there is every indication that the volume of defence orders will continue to be sufficiently large to warrant the continuation of the Department of Defence Production on a non-temporary basis, and with full authority to operate effectively.
There is no need for me to repeat the remarks of the Prime Minister on the need for a more permanent basis for the department in order to attract and retain the type of person needed to carry out the very responsible procurement functions of the future. I would, however, like to say something of the way in which the procurement functions have been carried out, and the use that has been made of the powers embodied in the Defence Production Act.
The best example is the way in which the control of essential materials was handled. As you will recall, in the early stages of the present defence program, some measure of control was needed to ensure adequate raw materials, primarily for the defence efforts of our allies. These, however, were kept to a minimum, and once the world supply situation improved all controls were removed, and at the present time there are no orders in effect. On the priorities side, assistance is given to Canadian defence contractors to participate in the limited priorities system that is still in operation in the United States.
However, the supply situation can change very rapidly, particularly for certain strategic materials which are not produced in sufficient quantities to meet large-scale defence requirements. It is, therefore, important that the authority to introduce control measures should be readily available.
1968	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
Just to show how quickly that can change, I have a report that just arrived from Washington headed "Daily Report for Executives". It points out that nickel, copper and aluminum are all in short supply, and it discusses the need for putting these metals under control. We also received an announcement from Washington of the likelihood of stopping the export of scrap iron to Canada. A large part of Canada's scrap iron has always been imported from the United States, and if that move materializes we can have a very tight market in scrap iron, to the extent that it might seriously cripple our production of finished steel. These situations in times such as these are always possibilities; in fact they are more than possibilities, so why in the world should we strip ourselves of the powers to deal with those situations as they affect the national defence program of Canada?
The hon. member for Eglinton has questioned those sections of the act dealing with the control of essential materials and has implied that Canadian industry generally is apprehensive over the continuation of these powers. In actual fact the situation is just the reverse. The first request for the introduction of controls comes from industry. Even today I am under considerable pressure from Canadian manufacturers to recommend to the governor in council the re-establishment of certain control measures.
In order to carry out procurement functions properly the department must have certain powers, regardless of whether it is a temporary or a permanent department and regardless of whether it is dealing with an emergency situation or a continuing defence program. Among these powers is that of renegotiation. I am sure all hon. members will agree that there must be control over costs and profits on defence contracts. Experience after the last war on the renegotiation of contracts was invaluable in setting up our present policy and procedures. The very existence of the renegotiation section has, I feel, contributed to keeping the record very satisfactory, and so far there has been no need to invoke this section of the act. However, the need for such authority still remains and will continue as long as we are dealing with defence orders of the present magnitude, such as are represented by the major aircraft and electronic contracts to which I have referred.
In discussing the question of the need for a properly constituted department to carry out procurement functions, I would point out that we have had an opportunity to gain a good deal of experience in how this should be handled. We have gone from the department of munitions and supply, through the


department of reconstruction and supply, to the period when procurement was handled by a crown company, Canadian Commercial Corporation, and back again to a department. There is no doubt in my mind that the Defence Production Act provides for the type of department that is required for Canada's defence program.
Another power under the act I would like to mention is that dealing with assistance in setting up defence production facilities. The need to establish new crown-owned facilities to increase our industrial defence potential has, for the most part, been met. The provision of such plant and equipment has decreased to the point where only $14 million was spent last year out of a total of $172 million since the department was established, and this was largely for projects approved in previous years. Encouragement has been given to private investment, through accelerated depreciation, to set up facilities having little or no value to normal commercial operations and where the probable production period enables the assets to be substantially written off.
Here, too, the picture is one of decreasing use of this policy as the need for special facilities has declined. Nevertheless, as the defence program continues and as new developments lead to new fields of production, there will be cases in which the crown should carry the burden of investment as well as those in which industry should receive assistance through additional capital cost allowances.
Under section 17 (e) (i) of the act, the Minister of Defence Production has the authority to place contracts without prior approval of treasury board. I would like to point out that this authority has only been used to meet emergency situations, but we would be in an intolerable situation if there were not such a section in the act. Inevitably, in a large defence program, circumstances will arise which demand immediate action, and I am not prepared to admit that there is anything improper in retaining such authority.
At the present time use is being made of this authority in a few special cases to purchase materials required for the two early warning lines-mid-Canada and D.E.W. In the latter case, certain urgent requirements are purchased by the Department of National Defence through the Department of Defence Production, with reimbursement by the United States government.
In conclusion I would like to ask, where is this apprehension on the part of Canadian industry over the Defence Production Act? I am not aware of any such fears. In fact there is no indication of any reluctance on the part of industry to enter into contracts with

the department. Of course some people complain that they cannot make enough profit on defence contracts. Others complain because they are not getting enough defence business. But no complaints have been made to me that the powers of the act are too wide or that they hamper business operations.
In my opinion it is essential, in view of the kind of world in which we are now living, that we have a Department of Defence Production staffed with experienced and efficient personnel and with the powers to perform its operations on a continuing basis.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, it is one of the least popular and exciting occupations in the world to try to champion the rule of law. Law is such a dull thing that it is hard for us to believe that it is by the rule of law we live, and it is necessary that it should have vigilant guardians or one day we may wake up too late, to find we have lost it.
It was a great disappointment to me tonight to find during the course of this debate that this act is to be continued in its full powers by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is a great jurist, and I would have hoped that he would have been zealous in carrying out the request, which seemed to me a reasonable one, made yesterday by the hon. member for Eglinton. However, I gether from the demeanour of the Prime Minister and from what the Minister of Defence Production has said that that is not going to be done. The hon. member for Eglinton said, as reported on page 1909 of Hansard of March 10:
The course the government ought to follow now in my submission, Mr. Chairman, is to revise the bill they propose to introduce following this resolution, and to substitute a bill which will reconfer only those powers that are really necessary to the continuation of the defence program under existing circumstances.
The Minister of Defence Production made a great point tonight of the fact that things are working very smoothly. I believe that; I am glad to think that, and that is one reason, as I shall argue later, why we do not need these extraordinary powers. The minister says there is no difference between 1951 and 1955, but I submit that there is a great difference. There has been an interval of four years; there have been four years of practice with the business interests of this country. The minister has said that he receives no complaints from the business interests. I can believe that; I am not going to argue that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have you received any complaints?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My argument is that it is the duty of people like ourselves, indeed that
Defence Production Act we are sent here for that purpose, to try to reflect on the basic conditions under which we live. We ought to be the champions of law. I know it is so much nicer to have power, and I expect that if I were in the minister's position I would want power too. Perhaps it is only because I am a humble member of the opposition and not distracted by the many duties the minister has that I consider myself so much wiser on this particular point than he.
We like to think in the opposition that we are practical men. We know the minister is doing a job, and I do not hesitate for a moment to say that he is doing it well. But we also say that anyone who will take time off to think about it can see how much easier it is for the minister to have these powers. The minister has told us quite frankly that it is nice to have power at his back, because then the people you are negotiating with will be much more reasonable, much more pliable and much more bendable to your will. If you cannot persuade them you can just stand back and crack them.
The minister has been frank about that, but I suggest that to leave arbitrary power on the statute books for that reason is a dangerous thing. We are bringing up a whole generation of young people to whom the abnormal quickly becomes the normal, and to whom these powers which stagger those of us who have been brought up under democratic laws are going to become commonplace. I was greatly disappointed to hear the Prime Minister say, as reported on page 1905 of Hansard:
In the present unsettled state of international affairs I do not feel that the time has come to take out of the act those powers which are there and which enable the department to deal expeditiously with any situation that would interfere with the regular maintenance of Canada's defensive strength and the regular carrying out of Canada's undertaking.
That is another way of saying that if this bill is passed and the Defence Production Act made permanent, or at any rate without a time limit, the abnormal will quickly become the normal. I quoted what the hon. member for Eglinton had to say. Of course the danger that faces us all is that in defending freedom we may be driven to take steps which are utterly inconsistent with what we are defending. I am going to take the liberty of quoting a humble authority who spoke on this four years ago by the name of Macdonnell, and I quote from page 865 of Hansard of March 2, 1951, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was drawing its attention to some of the defects, as I thought, in the bill now before us. I had suggested that the powers given in the bill were virtually going to turn the business of the country into an economy living by the grace of one man.

Defence Production Act the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I was wrong in one particular. I should not have said one man. I should have said one man and a host of delegates of that one man, which on the whole makes the thing much worse because can we believe that we are going to have a large number of men who have the qualities of experience, knowledge, wisdom, moderation and singlemindedness that are going to be necessary to exercise these far-reaching and virtually unlimited powers described to us this afternoon by. my leader?
Four years have passed, During those four years this department has been working, as the minister has pointed out to us, and we are glad to admit what he has said about the way it has worked. People have become accustomed to working with the department. While I am a cautious man I would hazard a small sum that if one asked the minister off the record if he really needed these powers to get on with his job and to have the businessmen of Canada work for him, he would give one of those smiles of his which suggest "What do you take me for?"
I do not believe he needs these full powers. In the first place I do not believe there is 1 per cent of the businessmen of Canada who are so unpatriotic that they would not be reasonable in carrying out what they are asked to do. In fact I understood the minister to say that over the last year they had not needed to invoke these powers. In any event I am bold enough to believe that the Minister of Defence Production is a forceful enough man to know how to deal with these people without all these arbitrary powers which practically clothe the minister with the same power that Stalin had during his lifetime. I am bold enough to believe we can get on without that. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, and it is no exaggeration, "When you read that act, ask yourself if there is any freedom left". You just cannot find it. They were good lawyers who drafted that act, and they did not leave many loopholes. I think the most fantastic thing was, if I can remember the wording and paraphrase it, "where the minister has reason to think that a company may not be able to carry out," these tremendous powers suddenly fall into his hands.
The proper course was that taken with respect to the Emergency Powers Act. We ran whatever risk there was to run. After all, we are not in the horse and buggy days, and it does not take three months to summon parliament; parliament can be summoned in 48 hours if necessary. I think the real reason, and perhaps the only reason, is that it is so much easier to come back with a little bill of two clauses, one of which says the salary of the minister is to be raised from $10,000 to $15,000 and the other cancels the section
[Mr. Macdonnell.1
which made the bill temporary. Of course it is easier to do that than to do what the hon. member for Eglinton asked, namely to fine-tooth comb the bill and come up with a bill containing only the necessary powers. It is an easy thing for the government to say, "Give us the power; we are fine fellows and we won't abuse it". I do not know much about history, but I think you could look at history and find many cases where power was obtained on that basis and afterwards the people bitterly rued what they had done.
Before I take my seat I want to recall what happened four years ago. We disliked that bill very much, and we said a great deal in criticism of it. Perhaps we were weak in not voting against it, but in any event our motive was good. Our feeling at that time was that an emergency had suddenly come upon us. We were caught unprepared to a considerable extent. There were arrears which had to be made up. There was a war actually going on and it was a hot war at that time, although it was a long way off. The minister says that he has not much more confidence in the stability of affairs today, and perhaps he said he has even less.
No sane man denies the dangers which exist today, and I submit that if the minister had come asking to have the act extended for a year it might have been a different thing, but we are asked to make it part of the law of the land. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra says, if it goes through now it will never be changed. Certainly not in the lifetime of any of us.
I therefore submit that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is wrong when he says the situation has not changed since four years ago. I think it has. Anyway, I describe it as I see it. He has people working with him. He says he found no one who does not want to contract, which I submit is further proof of what I say. He does not need this superlative power. The business community, as it is called, works with him. The government does not need this power any more than a cow needs two tails.
Anyone who has any real feeling for his position in this house knows that the one thing we must take care of is the rule of law. We in the opposition have made a most reasonable request of the government. How reasonable was the request made by the hon. member for Eglinton! Can anyone suggest it is not reasonable? It is so moderate it is really rather a record for my friend. I shall read it again:
The course the government ought to follow now in my submission, Mr. Chairman, is to revise the bill they propose to introduce following this resolution, and to substitute a bill which will

reconfirm only those powers that are really necessary to the continuation of the defence program under existing circumstances.
On the basis of what the minister has said tonight I think it is fair to say that it is perfectly clear these powers could be cut down to some extent. When you read them some of the powers appear almost fantastic. I am somewhat surprised that we allowed them to pass four years ago without fighting against them, despite the circumstances of those years. All we ask now is to have these powers revised in the light of conditions today. In my opinion no one in this house believes they cannot be cut down to some extent. The government has taken the easy course in this regard. Four years ago-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You voted for it four years ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I admitted that we might have been wrong, but I mentioned that we spoke strongly against it before we voted for it.


Howard Charles Green: No vote was called.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My hon. friend tells me no vote was called. In any event the minister is right in saying we did not vote against it, so the difference is not great. In any case the situation is not identical now, for the reason I tried to indicate. I still express the hope that the government will accede to the reasonable request made by my colleague from Eglinton.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in hearing the minister say there had not been any complaints from industry. It is obvious there would not be any complaints from industry, because industry would not dare complain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Frightened
industry.


George Harris Hees: Those in industry know perfectly well that contracts would go elsewhere if there were complaints.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Too bad to have
such a timid outlook.


George Harris Hees: That is the whip this government is trying to provide to hold over the head of industry. There is no justification whatsoever, nor is there any need, to make these powers permanent in the hands of the government; no need whatsoever, except perhaps the political need of the Liberal party. If this legislation goes through, it will make permanent the power of the Minister of Defence Production, who is the boss of the Liberal party, to extract campaign funds from industry. This is obviously-
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have just been accused of conducting the work of the department in order to extract campaign funds from industry. I call for a withdrawal.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member for Broadview will agree with the point raised by the Minister of Defence Production that it is not parliamentary, according to the tradition of this house, to suggest that anybody is supporting a bill for the purpose of extracting campaign funds from anyone else. I feel quite sure the hon. member for Broadview, on reconsideration, will agree.


George Harris Hees: I did not mean to imply it was being brought in for that purpose. I said that this is what it would make possible-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Withdraw.


George Harris Hees: -not that it was the prime purpose for which the bill-


Clarence Decatur Howe: A very cheap comment.


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to withdraw any implication of that kind.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps I may point out to hon. members of this house that when an hon. member rises to explain what he did mean in order to lead to a withdrawal, as was evident in the hon. member's case, it would be courteous to hear him to the end.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Greenwood and other members who have spoken against this legislation leads me to say that there is absolutely no need for the legislation to be made permanent. As was pointed out, the minister himself said in 1951 that these powers should not be made permanent. I should like to know what justification he finds now for making them permanent. There is none whatsoever. As the hon. member for Greenwood has said, the desire for power is simply unbounded among the members of the Liberal government on the front benches. I think this is an unnecessary piece of legislation, and there is no need for it. This kind of thing tends to make our country more and more a one-party state. It gives far too much power to one party. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation and, in my opinion, should be withdrawn.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on the resolution tonight, but after listening to the speech of my friend

Defence Production Act the hon. member for Greenwood, I felt I would not be acting as a responsible member of the house if I did not say something in support of the argument he advanced. I did not hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra because I had to leave the chamber for a few minutes, but I am sure I would subscribe also to everything he said.
I am not saying anything now by way of reflection on the minister who is piloting the resolution through the committee. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Greenwood said. We have great respect for the minister. He has carried out the most onerous duties in a way which reflects credit on himself and has tended toward the efficient operation of his department and the government generally.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that, but I do say, also without hesitation, that the measure he is introducing tonight is unnecessary and not, in my opinion, in any way in the interests of the country or in the interests of the parliamentary system and democracy generally. What is the situation which confronts us? Probably peace as we have known it in the past is not going to be our lot within the lifetime of any hon. member sitting in this chamber. I hope I am wrong, but I think that is a fair assumption. We are faced either with the prospect of a real war, a so-called hot war, if you want to use the headline expression, or we are going to have a long period of armed preparation so we can be in a position to defend ourselves at any moment.
Certainly no one in any party on this side of the house wants for one moment to weaken the preparation which may be necessary to defend ourselves. But what are we defending ourselves against, and why? We are told, the headlines tell us, we say it here in the house, the Prime Minister has said it, the Minister of Defence Production has said it, we have all said it, that we are defending ourselves in order to maintain our way of life. That is why tonight there are men at the alert on the high seas, in the air and on the land in the armed forces of this country. They are there to maintain our way of life. With all respect to the hon. gentlemen opposite, I say they and we may be paying taxes to defend our way of life but we will vote it away in the House of Commons if we pass legislation such as this. This legislation is contrary to our way of life because it defies and violates the rule of law which we have known, which we have treasured, which we have inherited and which we have defended throughout the centuries. It is unnecessary and it is wrong.


Why maintain armed defences for 35 or 50 years, as the hon. member for Greenwood said, and at the same time bring up a generation, two generations, three generations who will not know at all what the values were which we inherited and which we are intended to preserve? I am not going to speak at length. I feel very strongly about the matter. I believe that we in this country have inherited, as has been the case throughout the commonwealth and the western world generally-certainly in the British commonwealth-a respect and feeling for the rule of law which is not recognized by the bill, which of course is not yet before us but is envisaged by the resolution because we now know what it means. It is going to perpetuate the act on and on and on, one year, five years, 25 years from now. That, sir, is not, as I said, the way of life that I think hon. members of the House of Commons were sent here to preserve and protect.
The hon. member for Greenwood said this is not the horse and buggy age. I can remember when every railroad train in the country was tied up, when transportation was brought to a standstill, and yet we were able to summon parliament within a few days. We came here by car, by plane and perhaps by horse and buggy, but we got here and we dealt with the matter. Is there anyone in the chamber tonight who is going to tell us that we could not deal with a matter of emergency that had to be dealt with quickly and readily if we did not have this legislation?
I trust the minister. I do not think the minister is going to wave a big club or do anything of the kind, but we do not know who is going to succeed him. We do not know what governments may succeed the present government. Obviously and admittedly we must be legislating now for perpetuity, relatively speaking, because, as I said, I do not think there is one of us who does not realize that what we are facing tonight we will continue to face for probably 25 years. That is a figure plucked out of the air. It may be 15 or 50 years. We have to orient our life and conduct accordingly. I have no desire to see us protect ourselves against the communist state and at the same time by legislation at least make it possible to have a fascist state in this country. I do not approve of that, and I oppose it.
I think such legislation is contrary to the rule of law which, as I said, we have inherited and which we cherish. It is certainly ironical to find that it should be introduced by a party which professes to be liberal. It is the very antithesis of liberalism, although that may not be recognized by those who

have been in power for so long that they have forgotten what the word means. I say again that this legislation is unnecessary and wrong. It will have an effect on our children and our children's children.
I do not want to indulge in hyperbole, but this is the opening step of a course, as I see it-I can be wrong, and I hope I am wrong -which we may have to follow for a quarter of a century or half a century; and unless we have the courage, imagination and ability, as I am sure we have and as I am sure the minister has, to legislate slowly, carefully and properly for that period instead of hysterically, erroneously and hastily, then we should not be here at all.
We know that suggestions and urgings perhaps do not have too much effect on a government which feels its responsibility, and a minister who undoubtedly feels that he is proceeding rightly in the course he is following, but I urge the minister again to reconsider this matter and change the legislation in some way so that we can say we are preserving the principles in which we believe, and maintaining the rule of law instead of crucifying it and destroying it. We can face the future, whether it is 5, 10 or 50 years, with confidence under those circumstances, and we cannot do so if we are going to have such legislation as that which confronts us tonight.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not delay the committee long, but I am interested in the legislation from a slightly different point of view than that which has been expressed thus far. May 1 say that I am always interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood. I admire his style greatly, and I believe he speaks with more humility than is necessary with respect to his ability.
I sometimes wonder whether he does not give too much credit for omnipotence to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was so interested in what he had to say tonight that I looked up some Shakespeare and found it very apt in connection with his words. For example, there is the place where Cassius said:
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he Is grown so great?
Perhaps even more apt is the beginning of the passage where he said:
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus; and we petty men Walk under his huge legs, and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
I am sure that while the minister was speaking there was another thought running 50433-125
Defence Production Act through his mind, probably expressed in these words which Caesar said:
Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Whatever the situation may be, whether the powers the government is requesting are too great with respect to what has to be done, I shall not enter into that argument at this late hour. But there is one feature about this act in which I am interested from the taxpayers' point of view, and upon which I would ask the minister to throw a little light. I refer to the power that is contained in, I believe, section 16 of the act, which sets up a revolving fund of some $100 million for the minister to use as he sees fit for the purpose of making advances, loans and investments in plant, equipment and supplies.
I realize that a rather substantial portion of that money has been used for crown companies of various kinds. There has been a substantial amount also used to provide what is called capital assistance to private industry. I believe that since the powers granted under the act make it possible for the minister to use these funds without the authority of the governor in council and certainly without any further authority from parliament, the taxpayer should know upon what basis and under what circumstances this capital assistance, loans and advances are granted.
I find, for example, that some fairly well established industries have received rather substantial amounts. The minister has emphasized that he has had no difficulty in placing defence contracts with the various industries. I am not surprised, because it would appear to me to be a very lucrative type of business. Presumably the manufacturers obtain the contract at a profit, so I do not know why the minister would expect anything different. In addition the industries are provided with capital assistance and accelerated depreciation which, in effect, means that the government is financing the production of the goods under a contract at a profit to the industrialist.
I should like to know under what circumstances such assistance is provided; whether it is on the basis of the need of the industry; whether it is on the basis of the importance of the particular contract to be granted, or whether it is on the basis of a lack of the proper kind of plant and equipment necessary to complete the contract. I should like to know also on what basis this money is repayable, and whether there is any interest on these advances or investments in private
1974	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act industry. It is necessary to know all these things, because the amounts that have been used under the authority of this act are rather substantial. As I said, some of that money has gone to crown companies, and of course that is a different matter.
I find on looking through the Public Accounts that such firms, for example, as Canadian General Electric have been advanced an amount of $2,868,187 over the whole period, $218,533 of which has been within the last fiscal year. Canadian Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Company has been provided with $6,635,354, of which $564,028 was within the last fiscal year. The John Inglis Company of Toronto, a rather well known company in relation to defence contracts, has been given $6,852,396, of which $1,302,622 was within the last year. We go on down the line and come to A. V. Roe Limited of Malton, and they have been provided with $54,764,225, of which $7,174,679 was within the last fiscal year.
These are large amounts, and although I would not at this time cast any doubts or suspicions about the way in which this money is handled, when the taxpayers, whose money it is after all, see the way that money can be used without reference to parliament, without even reference to the governor in council, then the taxpayers want to know on what basis such advances are made.
What is the basis of repayment? Is there any interest payable on such advances? What are the circumstances under which the decision is made? I hope the minister will throw some light on that particular part of the act before this resolution passes.


Mr. Churchill:: We were taken a bit by surprise, Mr. Chairman, at the change in the program. We had expected there would be a report from the Minister of National Defence and then a discussion concerning fisheries, but suddenly we were plunged into this matter which many members of the house feel is of grave importance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is because of the special powers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was impressed by the presentation made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra tonight in setting out so clearly the wide powers that are contained in the bill, and drawing the attention of the house to the seriousness of the situation. He was, of course, followed by other members on this side. Yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton drew attention to the seriousness of this measure. It so happens that tonight we find ourselves discussing it a bit on the spur of the moment, but that does not take anything away from its importance.
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

I notice that when the Prime Minister was dealing with this subject yesterday he anticipated that there might be some objection to continuing the powers contained in this bill. On page 1905 of Hansard for March 10, 1955, he said:
I would point out that many of these powers are required to complete the present program-the aircraft portion of that program now extends at least into 1960-and to carry out the continuing functions of the department.
There are other powers which are not being used at this time but which were placed there because they were considered to be essential in dealing with any emergency which might arise-
That was not a full explanation of the need for continuing these powers. In the course of the Prime Minister's remarks, and in the course of the remarks of the Minister of Defence Production tonight, the cloak of respectability has been placed over this department. As I see it, there is no objection advanced here with regard to the necessity for the Department of Defence Production. It has proven to be necessary in these times. We are not raising any objection at this moment with regard to the administration of that department. We have respect for the minister in charge at the moment, and consequently have nothing critical to say now concerning him or his department.
We consider that department is essential. As has been pointed out, it was given these powers at a time of critical emergency, when the Korean war was at its height, and when no one was sure as to whether or not that war might develop into something larger. Although objections were made to the powers contained in the act, it was passed.
But that was a period of intense, critical emergency. The suggestion is now made to us that there is a continuing crisis. We recognize the fact; there is a continuing crisis. We do not know where at any moment some war may break out. We cannot guess as to its magnitude. But since the conclusion of the Korean war we have not been quite as hard-pressed along that line.
However, I find in the Prime Minister's statement something which would indicate a sense of urgency at the moment, and perhaps we should have more information as to what that urgency is. Perhaps we should be prepared in our minds for some additional trouble in the world. If there is a tremendous sense of urgency at the moment, why should we be left in doubt? If there is such a sense of urgency with regard to the Department of Defence Production, then I submit that sense of urgency should be shown by other departments of government.
Where is the sense of urgency in respect to civil defence? I have not seen anything that

has inclined me to the belief that the minister in charge of that department is at all alarmed. What city is prepared for evacuation? What plans have been made to preserve important documents here in Ottawa? There does not seem to be any sense of urgency there. And what is the sense of urgency in the Department of National Defence? I have been wondering about that for several years. There are many things I think should be done by that department, if we are facing an immediate crisis. Has our airborne brigade ever been exercised as an airborne brigade? Where do we stand on the question of armour, which I have discussed in the house on other occasions? Where are our forces? I do not think there is any sense of urgency displayed on the part of the Department of National Defence.
Tonight the minister put clearly the case for the Department of Defence Production, and I agreed with his presentation. There is a sense of urgency with regard to critical materials. We are prepared to admit that, and to say that certain powers may be necessary in regard to preparations concerning aircraft, electronics, munitions and the like, as has been mentioned already by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and others. If the minister needs to make preparations along those lines we are not going to say him nay. But we do not see the need for what we consider to be excessive powers.
Here we have an act which was going to run out this year, and certainly its life was to be for five years. At the time of the Korean crisis people were prepared to accept something of that nature, but we are hardly prepared to accept it indefinitely. Surely we will not live under the tension of a crisis all our lives. Or, if it is going to come to a head very shortly, then parliament must be taken into the confidence of the government and told what powers are required. Because the strength of our parliamentary system of democracy is simply this, that in a time of emergency we surrender our powers, powers inherent in the House of Commons, and place them in the hands of the prime minister or the cabinet and tell them to get on with the job. When the crisis has subsided those powers are relinquished.
Business of the House
That has been the history of parliamentary democracy as practised by British peoples. That has been the history of parliamentary democracy as practised here in Canada, and I think we should continue along that line. Give powers in times of crisis, and let those powers be relinquished when the crisis has subsided. At the moment the crisis of the Korean war has subsided, and so far as we know we are not now under the same urgency as we were then. Consequently, as has been said several times tonight, we are agreeing to the setting up of this department on a permanent basis, but not with the absolute and all-inclusive powers now contained in the act.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. MacLean:: No. I have some remarks to make, so I suggest that you call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall continue this debate, and then take Bill 187, the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Defence, the resolution with respect to grade crossings, the resolution with respect to the fisheries convention, the resolution with respect to the Radio Act, and Bills 183 and 184.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister say when it is intended to resume the debate on unemployment?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. I asked the opposition if they would give me an indication of how many speakers they might have, and when I am told, I shall be able to fix a date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest we should have a more satisfactory answer than that. Surely the time for a debate is not determined by the number of speakers.


Walter Edward Harris: No, not the number, but in order to arrange the time.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
50433-125i
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 14, 1955