1955-03-18

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1955, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern) presented the second report of the special committee on estimates.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I point out that this report is unanimous only to the extent that it records the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: You know the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has no question of privilege in what he is saying.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that it will be found on page 4807 of Hansard of the 1952-53 session that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was permitted to make a similar statement on a question of privilege at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Eglinton was out of order on that occasion it must not create a precedent so that the hon. member may be allowed to be out of order today. (See ruling by Mr. Speaker Rhodes, Debates, volume V, 1920, pages 4257-58.)



ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASE IN PAYMENT

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On Monday last I advised the house that I would be able in a few days to make an announcement with respect to a payment by the Canadian wheat board on oats.
Effective at all country elevators in the prairie provinces on March 21, the initial
payment on all grades of oats will be increased by seven cents per bushel. The present initial payment for No. 2 C.W. oats is 65 cents per bushel and for No. 1 feed oats 60 cents per bushel. On and after March 21 the initial prices for these grades will be 72 cents and 67 cents per bushel, both prices basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur.
Producers who delivered oats to the Canadian wheat board between August 1, 1954, and the close of business on March 19, 1955, will receive an adjustment payment of 7 cents per bushel. This payment will follow immediately the completion of the adjustment payment on barley announced on Monday. This adjustment payment is of course subject to the 1 per cent P.F.A.A. levy.
During the period from August 1, 1954, to March 19, 1955, it is estimated that producers will have delivered about 47 million bushels of oats to the wheat board and therefore the adjustment payment on oats will involve the distribution to producers of about $3,290,000. In addition, the higher initial payment will be available to producers at country elevators from March 21 to the end of the crop year.
In the barley adjustment payment announced on Monday last and in the oats payment announced today, producers will receive over $11 million. These payments will be completed well before seeding and, as previously announced, will be followed by a final payment on the 1953-54 wheat pool.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPORT PRICE FOR 1955-56

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before motions are proceeded with I should like to make an announcement with regard to the support price of butter. On March 26,	1953, the
agricultural prices support board was authorized to purchase first grade creamery butter during the period May 1, 1953, to April 30, 1955. I now wish to announce that the same policy will be proceeded with throughout the year beginning May 1, 1955, and continuing until April 30, 1956. The support price set-up is based on authority given to the prices board to be prepared to purchase

Citizenship and Immigration butter at 58 cents per pound, basis delivery Halifax, Saint John, Montreal and Toronto; and 57 cents per pound, basis delivery Vancouver. This is exactly the same arrangement as was provided previously and has applied for the past two years.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items numbered 59 to 83 inclusive of the main estimates for 1955-56, relating to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, approved and reported upon this day by the special committee on estimates, be referred back to the committee of supply.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of debating the motion, but to ask the minister if he will agree that, since the printing of the minutes of the proceedings and evidence of the committee on estimates is running an appreciable period behind, these items will not be called in the committee of supply until the printing is completed and the full record is available to all members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that these matters could be more properly dealt with when the business is announced by the acting leader of the house every evening. When we come to the estimates, if the acting leader were to announce that the next day we were to take in supply these particular items and if the evidence has not been printed then, the hon. member might perhaps suggest that these could wait before they are dealt with. But at this moment I think we can carry on with this motion and the other business that has been provided for.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with deference, I point out that we have a motion before the house and that in giving or withholding its consent to the motion the house might be influenced by whether or not the minister is prepared to agree to what I think is, under the circumstances, a reasonable request.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the hon. member's view that the motion to refer back these estimates is debatable?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I express no opinion on that matter, Mr. Speaker, but I think the motion is most certainly open to be voted on. But as I say, I think that the decision of the house
[Mr. Gardiner.1

with respect to that matter would be influenced by the minister's indication of whether or not he would be prepared to accept that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: When a motion is not debatable, the only recourse an hon. member has is to ask that the yeas and nays be taken and not to say anything. When a motion is not debatable it is not debatable. (See ruling by Mr. Speaker Macdonald, Debates, volume II, April 4, 1950, page 1513.) Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier):
That the name of Mr. Holowach be substituted for that of Mr. Low on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and
That the name of Mr. Hardie be substituted for that of Mr. Decore, and that the name of Mr. Power (St. John's West) be substituted for that of Mr. Pickersgill, and that the name of Mr. Lesage be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine, and that the name of Mr. Harkness be substituted for that of Mr. Fulton, and that the name of Mr. Churchill be substituted for that of Mr. Starr, and that the name of Mr. McBain be substituted for that of Mr. Michener on the special committee on estimates.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think this motion is debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: No. This motion is not debatable, but it is being made by unanimous consent. If the hon. member does not wish this motion to be carried at this time he may insist on 48 hours' notice being given. However, it has not been the practice to require such notice. As the hon. member knows, when these substitutions are asked for it is usually done after consultation between the whips of the various parties, and it is not expected that there will be any discussion with respect to the motion. Nevertheless, as I say, the hon. member may insist upon notice being given.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, if the house is not willing to give unanimous consent to a brief discussion now I would have no alternative, for reasons I will indicate later, but to withhold unanimous consent to the putting of this motion at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, understands that when notice has been given and the time comes for the calling of the motion or the moving of it, it will not be

any more debatable then than it is now, unless it is an order of the day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not going to question your decision at the present time, but I must confess I had thought these motions were debatable if they appear in their proper place on the order paper. However, I should like the opportunity to consider the matter, and since I understand the committee which I have in mind, namely the committee on estimates, would not be meeting until Tuesday in any event, I do not think there would be any disadvantage in asking that the proper notice be given. That would result in the motion coming up on the order paper on Monday so that I and all other members might have an opportunity to consider the matter in the meantime.


Mr. Speaker:: It is unusual for these motions to be objected to. Perhaps the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa may consider withdrawing his motion at this time and consulting with the members of the other parties.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to say just this much. The changes in the committee being made today come from at least three groups in this house by agreement, with the names submitted to me. If my recollection serves me aright, four of the changes come from the Progressive Conservative members in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is perfectly correct.


William Gilbert Weir: We regularly adopt this practice. I am afraid it would lead to a good deal of confusion and would upset the plans of committees if a precedent is established by having one of these motions delayed. It is true that any motion may require 48 hours' notice, but these motions are never made without the consent and approval of the people affected and concerned, even between the parties.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to conclude this general argument I might read standing order 65, which is as follows:
No special committee may, without leave of the house, consist of more than 15 members; such leave shall not be moved for without notice; and in the case of members proposed to be added or substituted, after the first appointment of the committee, a new notice shall be given including the names of the members proposed to be added or substituted.
It is true that because there is consultation between the various party whips, these motions have been moved by the hon. member on behalf of all without notice, and that is
Committees of the House done by leave. If the hon. member for Kamloops objects, notice will have to be given. Then when the motion is called there should be no objection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the matter might be disposed of by my moving, without debate, an amendment which will make clear the sole purpose of this objection. I would therefore move, seconded by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is not debatable is not amendable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the matter raised here, I hesitate to differ from Your Honour's opinion but I have reservations as to whether this motion is in fact not debatable. I therefore withhold unanimous consent for the purpose of being able to consider that matter and perhaps have some discussion about it with Your Honour and others over the week end.


William Gilbert Weir: Without prejudice, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give notice that this motion be put forward on Monday. I would hope that hon. members will examine standing order 65. It should appear to hon. members, from a reading of it, that this motion that is now being proposed is proposed by unanimous consent. If unanimous consent is not given then, in order to put it through, we must proceed in the way described in standing order 65, namely by giving notice of the names proposed to be added or substituted.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to revert to motions. I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang):
That the following petitions for private bills presented on March 9 and 16, 1955, together with the clerk of petitions reports thereon of March 10 and 17, 1955, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable, namely:
1.	Of Nicole Emile Dardano for a bill of divorce;
2.	Of Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada;
3.	Petition to incorporate Gillespie Mortgage
Corporation;	.
4.	Petition to incorporate Trans-Border Pipeline Company, Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked

Inquiries of the Ministry if in connection with the interprovincial conference there have been received in the recent past from any of the provinces representations to the effect that the economic committee set up at the 1945-1946 conference should meet in advance of the dominion-provincial conference, and if so what attitude the dominion government took to that suggestion. I said that I had no recollection of there being any such representations but that I should like to see the correspondence before making a formal assertion to that effect. I have looked at it and I find no reference to it. The hon. member was referring no doubt to the economic committee that was set up and operated, while the conference adjourned, for the purpose of preparing for the resumption of the discussions. I would expect that it would be normal that at our preliminary meeting such a committee would be set up to make preparations for the resumption of the discussions at the main federal-provincial conference. That would be usual and I would expect that would be agreeable to those taking part in the preliminary meeting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder whether I might ask the Prime Minister a further question. The right hon. gentleman will no doubt recall that last year Premier Frost made the suggestion that it might be advisable for the economic committee to be called together, and in the course of question and answer here arising out of that suggestion the minister of finance at the time said that he had not been able to have the matter considered by the government. It was with reference to that suggestion that I directed my question yesterday to the Prime Minister to inquire whether similar subsequent representations had been considered and what was the attitude of the government.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. There were informal discussions between officials of the provincial government of Ontario and officials of the federal government some four or five months ago but nothing developed formally out of those informal discussions.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: The Prime Minister will have noticed in the morning press an announcement by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited concerning the proposal to pipe natural gas from Alberta to central Canada. Would he inform the house of the situation with regard to this project?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I can give no more complete information than that contained in the announcement made that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will be unable to make a start this year on the construction of their allCanadian natural gas pipe-line system. I must confess I have read the statement rather hurriedly, because there are many things taking place concurrently these days, and the amplification of the statement contained in reports of an interview by the press with members of the board of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I should like to consider them much more attentively and carefully before venturing to make any other comment than that I am disappointed that circumstances do not permit the start of the construction of this all-Canadian line this year.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the Prime Minister could make a comment to the house some time next week.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As soon as I can feel that I have full and accurate information about the negotiations that took place between the officials of the company and the officials of the industrial development bank I will be glad to communicate the information to the house.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any change in the policy of the government that Canadian needs for natural gas must be met first before export is permitted, as set out in the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 13, 1953, to be found at page 2927 of Hansard for that session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there has been no change in government policy in that regard.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Could the Prime Minister tell us what producers objected to a measure of government control over this project, which seems to be the excuse given by the producers for not being prepared to enter into an agreement? Were they Canadian or American companies?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not in a position to make a positive assertion in that regard. I understand that there are both Canadian and American controlled companies in the field from which gas is, to use a word that has been used, dedicated to this west-east pipe line. I am not in a position to assert positively which of these companies objected to supplying gas to a company that might become controlled by the Canadian government.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the Prime Minister to supply the house with that information because, Mr. Speaker, it would be intolerable

if American corporations prevented Canadians from using their own natural resources.
lLater:i


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I
should like to ask a further question of the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to say the degree to which the pipe-line company wished to secure support, the extent to which it wished to secure support from the industrial development bank, and how much money the industrial development bank was prepared to advance or to guarantee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The industrial development bank could not guarantee any money to the company without an amendment to the legislation which would have to be made by the house. The negotiations were for the purpose of determining, if agreement could be reached between them, what recommendation the industrial development bank would be prepared to make to the Minister of Finance. The government would then have had to take or refuse to take the responsibility of recommending to parliament that appropriate amendments to the legislation be made in that regard. The original request was-I understand it is mentioned in the statement that was put out-in the form of a letter of January 7 asking the government to guarantee the interest on a bond issue of I think $275 million until such time as the earnings of the company had reached certain proportions, I believe 1J times the charges.


John George Diefenbaker: Was not the industrial development bank also asked to make a loan to this pipe-line company?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are questions on the order paper which I hope will be answered on Monday or early next week-


Mr. Knowles:: They have been there since January 27.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -in which precise figures will be given. I would not like to speak from memory on such an important matter without being absolutely sure that the information, which I would not have first-hand but would have to obtain from others, is accurate, and that I am conveying that information accurately.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty bad when you have to rely on newspapers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that my questions on the order paper respecting this matter will be answered on Monday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope so.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is able to say now what day next week he will be in a position to make the text of the general agreement on tariffs and trade known and make a statement? Is it to be Tuesday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope to be able to table
the agreed release from Geneva on Monday. However, the text of the agreement has not come to hand as yet. I could not say when it will be tabled but I will table on Monday such information as has now been received. It is being made public by agreement on that day in all capitals.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister inform the house as to the regulations in relation to separated family allowances applied to the army, and place the regulations on record?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Speaking generally, officers and
men of the army who are in receipt of the marriage allowance are also entitled to the separated family's allowance when they are posted (a) abroad or (b) to another part of Canada under two circumstances: first, where the health of some member of the family is such as to preclude the family accompanying them or, second, where there is a lack of available accommodation in the area to which they are proceeding. As for putting the regulations on the record, they cover many pages in the Queen's regulations and orders, and I do not think it would be feasible to put them on Hansard. As to the rates of pay, the hon. member will find those at page 35 of last year's white paper. I would be glad to give him copies of each of these documents or to look into any cases which he may have in mind.


Clarence Gillis: May I tell the minister that
the reason I should like to have them on the records is that there are a lot of people who do not know the regulations and who get badly tangled up. If they were on the

Criminal Code
record so these people could study them before they were shifted it would prevent a good deal of trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think every orderly room has them. I know the queen's printer has them and I have them here.


Clarence Gillis: I know them, but the men get tangled up.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 242, to amend the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Coming into force.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe, Mr. Chairman, there is only one question that really needs to be examined here. I wonder if the minister could give us assurance that there will be an adequate number of copies of the new code available to be placed in the hands of magistrates and judges by April 1. If he can give us an assurance of that we shall be grateful.
Perhaps the minister might also say whether any consideration was given to making the effective date either March 31 or April 2, in order to avoid what others might say was an unfortunate coincidence with April 1.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the first point that was raised by my hon. friend, I might say that some days ago the free copies of the separate volume of the new Criminal Code and related statutes which we are distributing to the judges and magistrates were sent out by the queen's printer. Since last year's annual statutes were published, the text of the Criminal Code in those statutes has been available in both English and French. The French language version of the aforesaid separate volume will go out on or before the date on which the act comes into force. I feel, therefore, there is no question as to the availability of copies.
With regard to the second point which my hon. friend raised, I do not believe he raised it too seriously so we will not change the date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand that the purpose of the one and only section in this bill is to provide for the coming into force of the Criminal Code by statute as well as by
[Mr. Gillis.)
proclamation, as was the government's original intention. That being the case, there does not seem to be much that can be said or done about it. I am ready .to confess that I scratched my head quite a bit and that I studied the books of procedure to see if there was any way in which one could amend this clause to delay the coming into force of some parts of the code, because there are some sections that we do not like. I have to add this further confession, that there does not seem to be any such way.
I gather that even if this bill were defeated, the Criminal Code would come into force by virtue of the proclamation already made, as provided in section 752 of the act that was passed during the last session of parliament. This bill simply confirms that proclamation. Since it is known we still dislike some of the provisions of the code which this bill brings into effect on April 1, namely sections 365, 372 and a few others, perhaps all we can do is register our protest in a formal way. In view of how we feel about it, I ask the minister not to ask for third reading of this bill today.


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


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve and confirm an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company respecting certain railway tracks in the harbour area of the city of Toronto.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: This resolution seeks to introduce a bill to approve an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company. As some hon. members know, the Toronto harbour commissioners constructed railway tracks on lands owned by the commissioners in the city of Toronto for the purpose of serving industries located in the harbour area. Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company have been operating their trains over these tracks for the purpose of

handling traffic to and from these industries. As the harbour commissioners did not have sufficient funds to maintain the tracks, they approached the railways with the object of having them take over the rehabilitation and maintenance thereof.
An agreement was entered into on October 5, 1954, whereby the Toronto Terminals Railway Company agreed to perform the work of rehabilitation of the existing tracks and maintain the same. The money required for this work was to be collected from Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the sum of $1.50 for each loaded car moved in or out of the harbour area.
The Toronto Terminals Railway is owned by Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Company jointly. This company however has no power to enter into an agreement to maintain the railway of another company. And therefore it is necessary to have this legislation to authorize it to carry out the obligations under the agreement dated October 5, 1954. If I am permitted to say so at this time, I wish to inform hon. members that it is our intention to move that the proposed bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when it has received second reading.


Mr. Small:: Does this mean that the properties are being sold to the Toronto Terminals Railway Company? Does it mean that the sale is being transferred to the terminals railway?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: There is no question of selling property there. As I said in my statement, an agreement was entered into whereby the Toronto Terminals Railway Company agreed to perform the work of rehabilitation of existing tracks, and maintaining them.


Robert Hardy Small: In other words they are just taking over the maintenance at a set price of so much per car going in and out; is that correct? I understood the minister to say that the terminals railway is a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways; is that correct?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The shares in the Toronto Terminals Railway Company are owned jointly by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways on a 50-50 basis.


Robert Hardy Small: Then they are just making an agreement among themselves?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is right.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Canada Grain Act
Mr. Marler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 262, to approve an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 245, to amend the Canada Grain Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house to any extent with reference to this matter, except to say that this bill in its present form is in keeping with a habit that is being formed by the government, and evidenced by some of the legislation introduced in the house, whereby a bill containing certain features that are desirable has incorporated within it other amendments that are not desirable, in the view of some hon. members.
I refrain from going into the detail that was gone into at the resolution stage. All I wish to say on this occasion is that, having regard to those portions of the bill that have to do with the alteration or change in the grading of durum wheat, no objection can be taken. With regard to the question of overages, so far as public terminal elevators are concerned, there can be no objection. Indeed that section does not go as far as many of us feel it should go in order that provision might be made for the very large amount of overages piled up from year to year in the operations of the elevators taking in the wheat in the various marketing towns and villages of the western provinces.
However, we do take very strong objection with regard to the increase in the salaries of the commissioners, when regard is had to the recent appointment of Mr. Loptson to the board. This matter was fully discussed at the resolution stage. I am not going to rehearse what was said on a previous occasion; but I must say that, after having listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) respecting the appoint-of Mr. Loptson, it was indeed a remarkable example of psychic phenomena that Mr. Loptson's name should have been chosen by the Minister of Trade and Commerce before the minister had any idea whatsoever that this gentleman, if not actively engaged in

Canada Grain Act
politics in Saskatchewan, nevertheless was sufficiently actively engaged that he was a member of the Liberal party and the son of the former acting leader in the legislature, a fact which must have come as a great surprise, if not one to cause considerable astonishment, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Those coincidences, sir, do not happen very often. But, after all, that is why the word "coincidence" is in the dictionary-because sometimes coincidences do happen. And in this instance, when Mr. Loptson's name was finally decided upon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce it was found, on closer examination, that he possessed further qualifications than were known to exist at the time the decision was made.
We believe this appointment does not represent a desirable trend. And, believing that, although in favour of portions of the bill before the house, we find ourselves in a position where, in order to register our opposition to this kind of thing, we intend to oppose the bill in its present stage.
The board of grain commissioners performs a tremendously important role in the preservation of the rules of the game in the marketing of grains. Above everything else we believe, and it has been my contention for several years, going back to 1942, that a majority of the members appointed to the board of grain commissioners should be farmers actively engaged in agriculture. We believe that in the appointments made to that body more serious consideration should be given to the recommendations of the organizations that are particularly agricultural in their scope and purpose. We believe that in appointments to a board such as this every consideration should be given to the recommendations of such bodies as the wheat pool, which in this case placed before the government three names, which I believe was a proper course.
The choice was left to the government by providing an alternative. The farmers' union, representative as it is of many farmers in western Canada, gave its recommendation. The United Grain Growers gave its recommendation, and that is the one that was accepted by the government. We believe that the board of grain commissioners should be representative not only of the working farmer but also of organized agriculture. In these circumstances, and having placed the general view of the opposition before the house, it is our intention, in order to register our objection to this type of appointment, to oppose this bill in its present form. No other way is open to an opposition to register its opposition to what we object to, and the particulars of which we gave at the resolution stage. There is no other way in which

we can bifurcate our feelings by our vote. This, as we see it, represents an endeavour by the government to achieve a desirable end by adding to the bill, in the achievement of that end, features to which we strongly object. Having made the position clear, I again say that we object and will continue to object to the government following the course of introducing, holus-bolus, measures containing desirable features and at the same time, under the guise of doing that, bringing in features to which we object and to which we have no other means of objecting than by opposition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I intended to make a statement on the introduction of the bill. Before making my statement now I should like to say a word about the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I often find that the so-called representatives of the farm organizations in this house are not very well posted on the thinking of the people whom they represent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I have no objection to this speech being made now but I just want it to be clear that the minister is not closing the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I am opening the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the minister is speaking now by unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that by unanimous consent the minister is now making a statement which he ordinarily would have made on second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the objection is made that we took the advice of the United Grain Growers in making this appointment and other organizations disapproved. I have a letter from the interprovincial farm union council dated March 11, signed by the secretary of the council.


Mr. Argue:: Which secretary is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Bernice Norman. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Howe:
Yours dated February 11 has just arrived at our office today. I wish to thank you for pointing out the sections regarding the salaries and duties of the board of grain commissioners.
We were pleased to hear that you had selected a young Saskatchewan farmer who has had a good deal of experience in the United Grain Growers. We shall certainly feel free to communicate with him from time to time, and have no doubt that he will be highly appreciative of the comments and problems that we put before him.
Bernice Norman,
Secretary,
Interprovincial Farm Union Council.

My hon. friend will agonize less after knowing that.
This bill proposes to amend the Canada Grain Act in a number of respects. Section 1 of the bill provides that the salary of the chief commissioner of the board of grain commissioners shall be increased from $14,000 to $15,000 and the salaries of each of the two commissioners shall be increased from $12,000 to $13,500. The present salaries were established by an amendment to the Canada Grain Act in 1952. This amendment will bring the salaries into line with those which are being paid to persons carrying out comparable responsibilities in government and in private service.
Section 2 of the bill provides that an additional assistant commissioner shall be appointed so that there will be two for the province of Saskatchewan instead of the present one. Alberta and Manitoba will continue to have one each. The duties of the assistant commissioners generally fall into two main categories: they investigate specific complaints about infringements of the Canada Grain Act and they inspect country elevators to ensure that the equipment and records are in good order. The necessity for the appointment of an additional assistant commissioner in Saskatchewan is clear. Over one-half of all licensed country elevators in western Canada are located in Saskatchewan, namely 2,962 out of 5,356. Saskatchewan wheat production represents over half the total western wheat production. In the past ten years the average Saskatchewan wheat production has been 247 million bushels out of a prairie average of 418 million bushels.
Sections 3 and 4 of the bill give substantial implementation to a recommendation which was contained in the second report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization during the last session of parliament. The report was dated June 2, 1954. In that report the committee recommended that terminal excess or overage which, under sections 139 and 140 of the Canada Grain Act, now becomes the property of Her Majesty should instead become the property of the Canadian wheat board. The proposed amendment will have that effect.
The committee further recommended that the value of such excess or overage should then be placed by the wheat board in the separate account provided in section 29A of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This portion of the recommendation was given careful consideration but the opinion of the government is that the procedure outlined in the present amendment would be more flexible and more desirable. The objection to earmarking the money for section 29A is that
Canada Grain Act
it can then never be used in any other way by the wheat board and, of course, would not get back to the producers. Under the proposed amendment the funds could, if desirable, be placed under section 29A but at other times if more advantageous could be used to help defray the general expenses of the board and thus leave more money available for interim or final payments to producers.
Sections 5 and 6 of the bill amend the schedules to the act in so far as they refer to No. 3 Canada western and No. 3 Canada eastern amber durum wheat and all grades of soybeans. These amendments were recommended by the committees on western and eastern grain standards. These committees have representatives of the farmers, of the government and of the trade.
In the case of amber durum wheat, the amendment will make No. 3 amber durum a much more attractive proposition to overseas buyers. As hon. members know, durum wheat is used principally for the manufacture of macaroni. Certain varieties are better than others for this purpose. The amendment will ensure that the less desirable varieties may be graded no higher than No. 4. This is of great importance. In the past few years, because of growing conditions, a very high percentage of western durum wheat has been graded No. 3. In 1953-54, 3,686 cars graded No. 3 out of total durum inspections of 4,420 cars. Mainly this was because of growing conditions, but importers were reluctant to buy the grade because of the fact that it could contain the inferior varieties such as Pellisier and Golden Ball.
If the amendment is enacted, and if much of the crop again grades No. 3 because of growing conditions, there will not be the same reluctance on the part of overseas macaroni manufacturers. Pellisier and Golden Ball will of course continue to be grown by some producers because of their suitability to growing conditions in certain districts. These varieties will, however, be graded no higher than No. 4. They will still be used for other purposes such as puffed wheat, but they will no longer complicate the special requirements which exist for macaroni-making.
In the case of soybeans, it is gratifying to report that Canadian soybeans are being exported for the first time in history. Prior to the 1953 crop, there is no record of any export of Canadian soybeans. From October, 1953, to May, 1954, 568,000 bushels were shipped mainly to the United Kingdom. From the 1954 crop to the end of December, 595,282 bushels had been exported, again mainly to the United Kingdom. Prospects appear to be excellent since there seems to be

Canada Grain Act
a preference for the Canadian bean on a quality basis. The new-found export market, however, necessitates a clearer definition of the grading factors. The amended tables show maximum limits of damage and admixtures broken down into additional specific categories. The grades are thereby described more accurately than in the present schedule.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group again strongly protest the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr. Loptson as a commissioner of the board of grain commissioners. We have heard an excerpt from a letter written by Mrs. Norman of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and although I have not seen the whole text of the letter and have heard only the excerpt the minister read-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I read the whole letter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Excuse me, we have heard the whole letter. I am prepared to accept that if the minister says that is what he read. Apparently this represents the position of the Saskatchewan farmers' union. I would have been glad if he could have informed the house whether or not it was a decision of the executive of the Saskatchewan farmers' union.
I say to the minister he would be in a much better position as far as ascertaining for himself what the desires are of the farmers' union if he had obtained from them a recommendation supporting the appointment before it was made, instead of bringing to this house a statement concerning an appointment that was already an accomplished fact. It is not too easy for farm organizations to go on record concerning the wisdom or otherwise of an appointment after the appointment has been made, particularly when there are several appointments to the same board that are likely to come up and particularly when that organization, in the normal course of events, will have to deal with the board of grain commissioners many times in the future.
As far as I am concerned, I certainly strenuously object to the circumstances surrounding that appointment and more particularly to the information the minister gave to the house when we were considering it at the resolution stage.
I am wondering if the Saskatchewan wheat pool has made any comment, pro or con, since the appointment was made. We were told last year in excellent evidence given by a very competent witness, Mr. J. H. Wesson, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, when he appeared before the agriculture committee, that the Saskatchewan wheat
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) .1
pool has over 100,000 farmer members in that province. This is more than twice the number of members the U.G.G. has in all three of the western provinces combined.
If the minister had to choose one of three directors recommended by the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is the large and representative grain handling farm organization in Saskatchewan and includes in its membership the vast majority of farm producers, there is no question but that he should have accepted the recommendations of the wheat pool in preference to the recommendations of the U.G.G.
If one wishes to compare the elevator systems in the province of Saskatchewan which are being managed by each of these companies, and if one compares the history of the companies and their sizes, there could be no doubt in the mind of a person who understands Saskatchewan that it is the Saskatchewan wheat pool which represents the voice of the wheat producers in relation to the marketing of grain. In view of this, I am amazed that the minister should turn down a recommendation presented by the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I was further astounded to hear the minister claim that he selected the most competent person. I believe that the directors of the Saskatchewan wheat pool are the people who are best acquainted with the farmers' position and the farmers' rights in the matter of grain handling. This is true because of the long experience the directors of the Saskatchewan wheat pool have had in the handling and marketing of grain and because of the fact that they manage the largest farmer-owned elevator system in the world.
The Saskatchewan wheat pool operates an elevator or elevators in almost every siding, village, city and town in the province of Saskatchewan. It consists of some 1,100 elevators which it has owned and operated for a great many years. As recently as 1948 the U.G.G. operated in the province of Saskatchewan just 100 elevators, and I am not at all certain that this figure did not represent the total number of elevators in their entire system. Later they bought another 125 line elevator houses. Why? The minister knows why. The reason is that the farmers decided to patronize their own system. And an additional 29 elevators were built. On the basis of the number of country elevators operated by these two companies the Saskatchewan wheat pool is four times as large an elevator system as the U.G.G. Despite this, the minister says that the director of the U.G.G. is in his opinion the most competent man of the group he had to choose from.

The minister went on to say that he caused a thorough investigation to be made of these people. He said this:
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 should like to know something about those inquiries and those reports. I should like to know who was doing the inquiring.
I venture to say that the people doing the inquiring probably did not know as much about the grain business as did the people they were inquiring about. I should like to know the names. The information is going to be brought out in a return but we should have it now instead of having to wait.
I should like to know the names of the directors of the Saskatchewan wheat pool elevator system that were recommended to the minister. I am wondering if it was the first vice-president at the time, Wes Ball, an extremely able and competent person. So able and competent is he that he was Canadian representative to the international federation of agricultural producers last year; so competent is he that recently he transferred his duties in the wheat pool organization as first vice-president to general manager of the country elevator system. I do not suppose there is any more directly responsible position in the grain business in Canada, as far as controlling actual operations is concerned, than is the position that Mr. Wes Ball now occupies. I am wondering whether he was one that was recommended as a candidate for the position. I am wondering whether Tom Beaubier, the second vicepresident, might have been a man that was recommended. He is another extremely competent person, who is now first vice-president of the wheat pool elevator system. He just recently stepped up from second vice-president to first vice-president. I am wondering whether they might have had the name of a young, able Saskatchewan farmer by the name of Charlie Gibbings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am not suggesting that the hon. member is entirely out of order but in one part this bill deals with the appointment of certain grain commissioners. I am just wondering whether a discussion of certain particular persons who might have been considered as appointees is strictly relevant when we are discussing principle. I did not stop the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he brought into the debate the name of a person who had been appointed; nor did I stop the minister when he replied in the same vein. I think perhaps that discussion could not properly be held to be out of order. But
Canada Grain Act
to discuss other particular persons would, I think, lead to an extended debate. Perhaps we should confine ourselves more strictly to the principle of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I had just about concluded my list, since there are only three persons who had been suggested to the minister. The minister had referred to the specific appointment and the circumstances surrounding that appointment. I feel that that matter has been relevant to this measure because of the fact that in the measure an increase is provided. However, I do not wish to pursue that particular aspect much further. Perhaps I could be allowed to conclude the sentence so we will not leave this young man halfway through university. We will have him graduating with great distinction, with high honours as he did, and accepting a responsible position in the farmers' own elevator system.
The minister had a recommendation from the Saskatchewan farmers' union. Who the man was I do not know, and I would not be able to guess. He said that he was taken from such a great number that I would not like to guess what the name might have been. We should have all this information in order to see whether, in fact, a correct appointment was made. The minister said a week ago- and as has already been referred to, it is a strange coincidence-that after the minister had made his mental decision as to the selection, between the time the mental decision was made and the decision itself-putting his name on the order or whatever a cabinet minister does when he appoints a man-there was brought to his attention the connection of this man with certain other people in the province of Saskatchewan. I did not put it forward as a fact at the time, but a week ago I said that I would not be surprised if the gentleman in question was on the Liberal executive in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture made no comment.
I do not like the way in which this appointment has been made. I hope the policy will be changed in the future. I hope that the farmers' main organizations will be given consideration in the appointments that are made. We want a board of grain commissioners that is manned by competent personnel. We want the personnel of the board of grain commissioners to be men who have the confidence of the producer and of organized agriculture. I can conceive of no suggestions as to personnel who might be more competent and have the confidence of the producer to any greater extent than would be the case if the government would put on the board of grain commissioners farmers belonging to

Canada Grain Act
farm organizations and farmers who have the confidence of the great body of organized agriculture in western Canada.
The hon. member for Prince Albert announced that he was voting against the bill. We know that this is another one of these package deals. In it there are some provisions that are a step in the right direction, and ones that we have recommended at various times in the past. We are glad to see that the government is now following them through. For example, one is that overages at the head of the lakes shall be turned in to the Canadian wheat board's funds instead of into the national treasury. I should like to have the clause worded somewhat differently. I should like to see these funds, when they become the property of the wheat board, disposed of by the wheat board not just on a recommendation from the governor general in council but on a recommendation from the farm organizations. These moneys belong to the producers. They cannot belong to anybody else. The producer has a just claim on them. The producers organizations themselves should be making the recommendations.
I should like to see this whole bill referred to the agriculture committee for study. I believe the agriculture committee should be called together and should have this bill presented before it. I believe that we should have the farm organizations appear before that committee and that we should find out not only what their comment is on the provisions of the bill itself but whether or not other amendments to the Canada Grain Act should not, in fact, now be made. I am thinking of amendments to the Canada Grain Act not only for western producers but of amendments to the Canada Grain Act that should be made in the interests of agriculture outside the prairie provinces, and in the interests of the feeders in the other seven provinces in Canada.


Mr. MacDougall:: Six.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I shall not bother to comment on the hon. gentleman's mathematics. The other day I had occasion to see a sample of grain-they called it grain-that was being sold to feeders in the province of Ontario. I was told by an hon. member that the price of that grain worked out to $1.65 a bushel. It was almost all buckwheat, with a tiny percentage of cracked grain and an insignificant percentage of mustard seed. There is no protection whatsoever for the feeders of eastern Canada when they go to a feed house and ask for a certain grade of grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.
[Mr. Argue.)


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, there is not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are very heavy penalties for selling grain on a specified grade that is not of that grade. If the farmer asks for a sample package he has no protection but if he buys it by grade he is just as well protected in the east as the farmer in the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: They certainly cannot sell wild mustard.


Hazen Robert Argue: I saw the board of grain commissioners certificate myself. I believe the percentage was 1 or 2 per cent. I said it was a small percentage, but there was a percentage of mustard seed in this sample.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was the grade?


John Lorne MacDougall: You wouldn't know, would you?


Hazen Robert Argue: The certificate had the correct grade placed on it by the board of grain commissioners.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, well.


Hazen Robert Argue: I come back to my original statement that there is nothing in the Canada Grain Act to protect the farmer feeder of eastern Canada when he is buying feed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If he buys it on grade there is. If he buys No. 4 northern he gets No. 4 northern.


Hazen Robert Argue: To buy No. 4 northern he has to buy a carload and he has to go through all the difficulties we hear about to get a carload of grain. But there is nothing to prevent the eastern feed supplier from selling any kind of grain and calling it what he likes if he does not label it with a specific grade used by the board of grain commissioners. A farmer can go to a feed dealer in western Canada, order No. 1 feed and get it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He will in the east.


Hazen Robert Argue: He can get a bag or 10,000 bushels, but I can tell the minister that the farmers of Ontario think he is very wrong and so do the farm unions of Ontario. When the farmer of Ontario buys grain he has no protection and he pays a high price for a lot of stuff not much more than refuse that the western farmer would not allow in his yard. The eastern farmer pays an outlandish price for a commodity of questionable value.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provincial legislation governing it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't we always hear that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is the minister back at that again.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have good provincial governments in some provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister is referring to governments of his own party they are becoming fewer all the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are good when they have them.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is why the people get rid of them so readily.


Mr. Sinclair:: How many have you got?


Hazen Robert Argue: There is an interruption from somebody who, representing the province he does, should not be interrupting at all. The record of his party in British Columbia-


James Sinclair: How many have you got?


Hazen Robert Argue: -is completely abysmal. Perhaps the reason for that was that the management of the campaign there by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was a little too close. Perhaps he had a little too much to do with it. That may account for certain drastic results in that province.


James Sinclair: How many governments have you got in the provinces?


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this question. If the province of Ontario is prepared to put enabling legislation on its statute books, is the government of Canada prepared to have the Canada Grain Act applied to the province of Ontario in the same way as it applies in the western provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what we call a hypothetical question.


Hazen Robert Argue: And I am surely getting a hypothetical answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: It did apply during the war and they asked that it be taken off.


Hazen Robert Argue: This government blames the provinces, but if a province is willing to do a certain thing the government still continues to do nothing. As I have said, it is a shame that feeders outside of the prairies are having this terrible stuff palmed off on them under the general name of grain and have to pay a tremendous price for it. That is the reason the bill and the whole Canada Grain Act should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. Competent witnesses representing the farmers and feeders of eastern Canada and agriculture generally
Canada Grain Act
should be called before the committee. If they wish to appear, representatives of the provincial governments should be called before the committee to see if some arrangement cannot be made whereby the farmer feeder will get the benefit of the grades set out under the Canada Grain Act even though when he goes to a feed company he only purchases a small quantity of grain.
As I have said, we object to the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the new commissioner. We object to the increase in salaries. As I said a week ago, there may be some reason why a position of this kind should carry a higher salary. It is not an argument that registers with me particularly because I think you can find any number of competent men in western Canada who would be prepared to serve conscientiously and ably at the former salary. Certainly we object to any salary increases when there is no good evidence that the government has decided that the personnel of the board of grain commissioners shall have the full confidence of the farmers through being appointed on the recommendation of organized agriculture in the west. Because we object to this particular feature of the bill and because we would like some further inquiry into the Canada Grain Act and other matters set forth in the bill, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That Bill No. 245 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to add very much to what I said at the resolution stage. I pointed out then that there had been a great deal of criticism in western Canada of the operation of the Canada Grain Act, and that there was a good deal of discontent about the way the board of grain commissioners was operated. I also pointed out that practically all farm organizations were very high in their praise of the operation of the wheat board and that therefore I did not think it could be sajd the farm organizations would criticize simply for the sake of criticizing. When they find that a board is operating well they praise it, and when they find a board is not operating in the way they think it should operate they do not hesitate to criticize.
We were very glad to hear the minister state that the government had sought the advice of the various farm organizations in the appointment of another assistant commissioner, but I am sorry that the minister has not found it possible to accept their advice in that appointment. I do not know the gentleman mentioned, but I have listened to

Canada Grain Act
a lot of criticism of him. I hope that time will prove the minister was wise in making the appointment and that the gentleman will prove to be a good commissioner. I think time alone will show that. On the other hand, the minister would have saved himself a tremendous amount of criticism if he could have accepted the advice of the farm organizations when they offered it to him, but apparently he did not do that. So far as the provisions of the bill are concerned, we are in favour of them because the most contentious ones are measures that have been recommended by the various farm organizations. It seems to me that the criticism that has been made by former speakers is not so much of the bill but rather of the appointment made under the bill, that is the appointment of a commissioner. The bill merely makes provision for the appointment of an additional assistant commissioner. The bill itself does not make the appointment. It seems, therefore, the criticism is really being launched at the wrong point.
On the other hand, I am quite in accord with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that the bill should be referred to the committee, because there are one or two things that I feel could be straightened out. I refer especially to the question of feed grain shipped east to Ontario. Every time I have been on an agriculture committee we have heard a lot of criticism from eastern members, not western members, of the type of grain they get under a certain grade. The minister says the grain is all bought under grade from the wheat board, and that is true. But the eastern buyers who buy that grain at grade are not compelled to sell it at the same grade; that is the criticism. The criticism is that these dealers buy grain under a certain grade, mix a lot of the other grain with it, and sell it at the same price although the grade has gone down. I am not making that charge, but I say that is the charge that has been levelled time and again by a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee.
I believe the farmers in the east are entitled to the protection that can be afforded to them by making feed agents sell the grain to the farmers at the grade laid down by the Canada Grain Act. They should not be allowed to dilute it. I feel that is a matter that could well be discussed by the agriculture committee.
Then, on the question of overages, we are glad to see the provision that the proceeds from the sale of overages will be turned over to the wheat board instead of the general revenue fund. We would like to see the government go a step farther and say that the

proceeds from the sale of all overages held by country elevators shall be also turned over to the wheat board. I cannot see how the proceeds from these overages belong to the country elevators. These country elevators today are merely acting as agents for the wheat board. Therefore, if there are any overages, which only accrue as a result of perhaps underweighing, the proceeds from them should be turned over to the wheat board.
In so far as salaries are concerned, I think it is in the interests of the farmers that we get the very best when we can for these jobs. It is necessary that whatever the salaries are, they be in line with the salaries for similar jobs in other concerns, otherwise we will not be able to get the type of men we should get. This makes it all the more necessary that the commissioners who are appointed should be men who have the confidence of the farmers in the country.
I think that is about all I need to say at this time. We feel it is probably a good thing to refer the subject matter of this bill to the agriculture committee in order that the committee may deal with the two points especially, the question of overages and the question of feed grains shipped to eastern Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speaking on the amendment, I hope hon. members realize that if this motion is carried the bill is killed for this session. It goes off the order paper and cannot be introduced again this session. Do hon. members want to vote to kill the bill? I think this probably is a want of confidence motion. Anyhow, we will accept it as such.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I think probably it would be up to the government itself. This bill could easily go to the standing committee on agriculture, be dealt with there and the recommendations of that committee brought back to the house and dealt with at this session. I, too, want to support the idea that the subject matter should be sent to the committee for further study, and particularly the committee should study the matter of feed and screenings which are sent out under the authority of the board of grain commissioners. These screenings are bought by dealers in Ontario.
I happen to have here a certificate which came along with the bill of lading on a car shipped from Port Arthur on February 9, 1955, to a dealer in Ontario. The certificate of the board of grain commissioners states

that this is No. 1 feed screenings, the composition if which is given as 97 per cent broken grain and wild buckwheat, 2 per cent ball mustard and 1 per cent small seeds and chaff. I happened to see a sample of this material which was brought here by the hon. member for Wellington-Huron. In looking over the sample we found a considerable amount of that 97 per cent to be wild buckwheat and mustard. He said that quite frequently they got as high as 30 per cent or 40 per cent broken grain, and that made pretty fair feed, but the samples are getting worse. This sample was 95 per cent buckwheat and 1 per cent broken grain. By using the board of grain commissioners' definition of the composition of this, it is possible to ship out buckwheat, which is nothing but screenings. No definition covers it, and there should be a proper coverage of it. There should be a definition of the kind of feed screenings and the percentages. If you put the whole thing under the 97 per cent, including the buckwheat and the broken grain, that grain company can work in whatever it likes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did my hon.
friend ever hear screenings referred to as grain?


George Hugh Castleden: No, but within the screenings there is broken grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This man bought screenings; he did not buy grain at all.


George Hugh Castleden: He bought it, as certified by your own board of grain commissioners, as No. 1 feed screenings. That is their definition, and it allows all the latitude up to 97 per cent of broken grain. If there is a sufficient quantity of broken grain in it, then you have pretty fair feed. If you get 3 per cent or 4 per cent broken grain and the rest wild buckwheat, and have to pay $1.65 per bushel for it, then it is no wonder the farmers in Ontario have complaints against the board.
The screenings are nothing more than dockage that has been removed from a man's grain. The farmer who ships in the grain gets paid nothing whatever for this dockage which is shipped out in the form of screenings and there is no control over it. This would be one method of straightening out that kind of thing, which is one of the causes behind the complaints that comes from farmers in Ontario who buy feed to feed their stock. This is the kind of thing that has been happening over and over again, and is one of the reasons why I would support the subject matter being referred to the committee. Let us have the representatives of
Canada Grain Act
the wheat pools before the committee because the board of grain commissioners could have a great deal of influence in cleaning up the whole matter and restoring the confidence of the growers and their organizations in the west as well as the farmers in the east.
The struggle between the private line elevator companies, the Winnipeg grain exchange and the pools is still continuing. They are fighting for the control of the grain in this country. You destroy confidence in the pools in the west when you take the president of the Winnipeg grain exchange and put him in control where he can practically wipe out the business of the pools. If we are going to maintain confidence in the operation of this important government institution, then some changes should be made. The confidence of the growers in the pools in the west should be maintained.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: In rising to support the motion which has been moved by my colleague the hon. member for Assini-boia, I believe it is quite clear that if this question is referred to a parliamentary committee there is no reason why it could not be approved and brought back to the house. The statement made a week ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that Mr. Loptson was appointed with the highest of recommendations and that he had no knowledge of his political affiliations was not questioned by members in this house. We have known the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for many years; but the majority of Saskatchewan and western farmers will find it difficult to believe that a man who starts out on a salary of $13,500 is appointed without something being known about his political background. I submit to the minister that he should consult his colleague the Minister of Agriculture regarding an appointment of this kind. The Minister of Agriculture has the right to be concerned about the welfare of agriculture and, before an appointment of this kind is made, his opinion should be considered. I am sure if it had been, he would not have pretended that he did not know anything about the political background of Mr. Loptson.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) either.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When I spoke a week ago I spent some time referring to the political activities of Mr. Allan McLean, who is in the pay of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is significant that neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor the Minister of Agriculture made any reference to my remarks, but I want to stress again that

Canada Grain Act
western farmers, who find it so difficult these days to make ends meet, do not appreciate having men in positions of this kind with the background Mr. McLean has.
A week ago I referred to sessional paper 160. At that time I did not make it quite clear that Mr. McLean was not acting as national organizer of the Liberal party at the same time as he was being paid as one of the assistant grain commissioners. I wish to make it clear now that Mr. McLean was not doing both jobs. But when a person is as well known as that gentleman and goes to Melfort or Humboldt or Kelvington or Assiniboia or Swift Current, or any of the other places Mr. McLean visited between the time he gave up this job as national organizer of the party and the time immediately preceding the election of 1949, the farmers in that area have some trouble knowing whether he is visiting the area in the capacity of organizer of the party or as an employee of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I submit the government should be careful when making these obviously political appointments at salaries of this kind. And another point which I think must be considered carefully is the increasing of salaries of these men at this particular time. We see that the salary of the chief commissioner is being increased from $14,000 to $15,000, and those of the other commissioners from $12,000 to $13,500. These men are being paid out of the production of the farmers. Last year most of the farmers in my area received less than $1 a bushel for their wheat. And so the chief commissioner wants 15,000 bushels of wheat, clear, for his contribution to solving the problems of the farmers, while the other commissioners want 13,500 bushels of wheat delivered to the elevators on their account.
With the farmers finding it so difficult to have even enough to pay their taxes and other operating expenses, it becomes very difficult to explain to them why these very high salaries must be paid. I noticed in the last report of the board of grain commissioners the complaints do not indicate that the members of the board had an impossible task, or a task which could not have been done without an increase in their numbers. It appears that in the year ending December 31, 1953, there were 148 country complaints investigated and 141 in the preceding year. It seems to me that 148 complaints in the three prairie provinces does not represent a great deal of work.
To do this job there is a chairman, two commissioners and three assistant commissioners. It seems to me that these highly

paid men should be able to handle these complaints and other matters referred to the board without its becoming necessary to appoint another assistant commissioner. I feel sure that if these problems were referred to the committee on agriculture the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and officials from both departments along with hon. members could present facts and figures which thus far have not been brought to the attention of the house. I feel sure hon. members would be well advised to accept the recommendation of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) to have this question referred to the committee on agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have taken the liberty of making a minor technical change in the hon. member's amendment so that it would read in this way:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the Bill No. 245 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization."
The question is on the amendment to the main motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: None of them were recommended?
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Salaries.


Hazen Robert Argue: On this clause I wonder if the minister would care to inform the house who the directors were that the Saskatchewan wheat pool recommended for this position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that question has nothing to do with this bill. I do not remember the names, but if I did I would be very pleased to tell my hon. friend.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister recall whether any of the members I mentioned were recommended?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not one of
them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-R.S., c. 308.
George Hugh Castleden: Clause 2 deals with an amendment to the act to enable the governor to appoint four assistant commissioners instead of three as at present. One of the assistant grain commissioners shall have headquarters in the province of Alberta, two in the province of Saskatchewan, and one in the province of Manitoba.
I think probably that is all to the good. The work they will have to do will doubtless keep them extremely busy. In fact, the vacancy among the assistant commissioners has led to a concentration of work on the part of those who are left to carry it on, and they have been somewhat unable to cope with all the problems facing them. A large number of inspections have to be made each year. The terminal elevators have to be weighed-over and complaints at storage elevators and line elevators have to be investigated. The work of the assistant grain commissioners is extremely onerous and will require full time if it is to be effective.
Since it has now been decided by this house that this bill is not to be referred to the committee on agriculture for further study, I feel we must urge the government to take action which will restore confidence among the grain growers in western Canada in this board. The way in which the board handles grain affects growers to an extent that is not readily understood by one who does not live in the west. Wheat pools have found their ability to handle grain completely stifled and curtailed, in my province to the extent of about 70 per cent, by members of this board either in their capacity as members of the board of grain commissioners or as transport controllers. The pools have found their handling of grain has been severely curtailed and cramped, and more and more grain is going back into the hands of the line companies. It is therefore my intention to move with regard to clause 2, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin:
That section 2 of this bill be amended by adding at the end thereof, the following:
Section 5 of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following additional subsection;
(4) Hereafter, all assistant grain commissioners shall be appointed on the recommendation of the three western wheat pools, and the interprovincial farm union council.
The purpose of that motion is to ensure that hereafter all assistant grain commissioners shall be appointed on the recommendation

Canada Grain Act
of the western wheat pools and the interprovincial farm union council, which is an organization with offices and representatives in both the west and the east. This will ensure that the interests of these organizations are being looked after to an extent which is not possible today. Certainly there is no evidence at the present time that their interests are being looked after in the best possible way. I therefore move the amendment to this clause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the suggestion that the members of this board should be appointed on the recommendation of the farm organizations? I think it is an extremely fair request. We are unable to move in committee that such a recommendation be followed in relation to the commissioners themselves because that section of the act is not before the committee, but we do suggest that this amendment to the clause be added in order to provide that the appointments will be made on the recommendation of the farm organizations. All the reasons we have cited before apply to this, namely, that persons appointed to this board should have the confidence of the western producers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What my hon. friends really want is the right to make the appointment by the C.C.F, party in this house, and failing that they would accept the provision that men be appointed through certified C.C.F. voters. However, we cannot do that. There is a form of responsible government in this house that provides that those who are paid from the consolidated revenue fund are appointed by the governor in council of the day. We obtain our information as carefully as we can do so. In this case it would be my duty to make the recommendation, and I would expect to recommend a man I believed to be fully qualified for the job.
I am much interested to note that in framing this amendment providing for consultation with representative farmers' organizations in the country, no mention was made of the United Grain Growers. That is an old organization dating back, I think, to 1902. We have drawn three members from the wheat pool for the Canadian wheat board. I do not think we are overlooking the wheat pool but I do not know that there is any law of the land that requires every western appointment to be made on the recommendation of the Canadian wheat pools.
However, that is by the way. As I say, the method of governing this country requires that the governor in council take responsibility for all appointments to positions paid from
[Mr. Castleden.l
the consolidated revenue fund. We carry out the provisions of the constitution and obtain our recommendations from sources in which we have confidence.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a minute. I
shall sit down in a minute and then you can ask your questions.


George Hugh Castleden: I should just like to say this-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at this debate on an amendment to this section of this bill. To me it means only one thing. In substance, from the beginning it is a denial of governmental responsibility for making any appointments.
However, I want to say two other things. I was one of the people who took some small part in the organization of the wheat pools in western Canada. They handle today in the neighbourhood of from 50 to 60 per cent of the grain of western Canada, and it is likely that their handling will increase. This suggestion is that a man be selected of their choice to administer this part of the Canada Grain Act. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, what the other 40 or 45 per cent of the trade would feel with that sort of appointment.
I come to our own province of Manitoba, and I look at the men who have been appointed as assistant commissioners in our province. This resolution, if passed, would deny the selection of the type of men who I think have been acceptable in the past in Manitoba. I refer first of all to Dr. T. J. Harrison who was for a long time head of our agronomy department at the University of Manitoba. He in turn was followed by the appointment of Mr. Rayner, the secretary of the board, who acted in that capacity for some time. The latest appointment is another agriculture graduate who was associated with the department of agriculture in our province for a number of years.
I do not know where you could find a more impartial, acceptable type of men with a good scientific agricultural background for carrying out their duties under this act. For my part I just cannot accept the idea that you are going to designate the type of men to be selected by a certain organization to fill these appointments, even if they are associated with the pools, which no doubt have a good deal of influence in western Canada. I just cannot see that that is a reasonable proposition, when they have to deal particularly with pool people and non-pool people as well.

I leave it to the consideration of the committee whether it is logical to select for a field job under this act a man well grounded in scientific agriculture, who can not only administer the act but can give a good deal of inspiration and leadership with respect to the production of good seeds and things of that kind which are essential all over western Canada, and especially in the province of Manitoba. That type of appointment has met with the approval of both the private trade and the pools, and I think it will continue to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa a question. Does Mr. Loptson have a degree in agriculture?


William Gilbert Weir: I was not saying anything about Mr. Loptson. I was referring to our own province and the type of men who have been selected there, their background, their experience and their acceptability to the people of our province.


Hazen Robert Argue: What the hon. member states as to the kind of people they should have has been completely ignored by the minister.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask one thing with respect to constitutionality, or the matter of responsible government. Is it not true that on some government bodies, such as the New Westminster harbour board, members are appointed by the government on the recommendation of local organizations and local municipalities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so.
Where that is the case the local organization is responsible for the financing of the board. For instance, the Toronto harbour board is an agency of the city of Toronto. The federal government, I think, appoints two members of the board and the city appoints one. The responsibility for financing the board is not definitely on the treasury of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister's excuse about responsibility, I suggest, is not a good one. If this amendment were adopted, it would not take away from the government the responsibility of administration; because when you have the board of grain commissioners, the minister will tell them what to do. He would continue to tell them what to do in the future, even though the person appointed to that board had the recommendation of the farm organizations.
If such a principle had been in effect it would merely have meant that the recent appointment to the board of grain commissioners should have had the recommendation of the wheat pools and the interprovincial 50433-137J
Canada Grain Act
farm union, and I believe such a recommendation could have been obtained. When the minister refers to this amendment as a move to load the board of grain commissioners with people from the C.C.F. organization, I just wonder what he means. Is he suggesting to the committee and to the country that the Saskatchewan wheat pool is a C.C.F. organization?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right; the C.C.F. in the house. My hon. friend objects to Liberals being appointed. I presume that if they are not Liberals, they must be C.C.F., Conservative or Social Credit. If they were to be from the Conservatives or the Social Credit, there would still be complaints from the C.C.F. So when the matter is analysed, my friend will be satisfied with nothing except an appointment from the C.C.F. pools. That is by a process of elimination.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am afraid the minister is beginning to let the cat out of the bag. He says the C.C.F. are objecting to a Liberal appointment. Is that what we have now? A week ago he told us that he did not know anything about the man's politics. Now he says we are objecting to a Liberal appointment. On that point, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am not interested in any way whatsoever in the political affiliations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -of anyone who is a member of the board of grain commissioners or an assistant commissioner, provided that person is appointed to the board on the recommendation of the farm organizations. How a member of that board votes is that member's business. If the farm organizations should decide to appoint persons who voted for the minister's political party, I would have no objection whatsoever.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not in accordance with the views that have been expressed over there on the opposite side of the chamber.


Hazen Robert Argue: However, I do object to the method by which the appointment was made, namely from a farm organization that does not represent the majority of farm opinion in western Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To get back to the point, Mr. Chairman, let me say this. My hon. friend is moving that a man who is to inspect all the grain elevators in western Canada must be appointed on the recommendation of the owners of less than half the grain elevators in the country. My hon. friend may say that is equity and that is a fair way to appoint him, but I call it loading the dice.

Canada Grain Act


Hazen Robert Argue: I say the minister is the best
authority on loading the dice. He has loaded the dice against the farm-owned elevator organizations of western Canada, and he knows exactly how he has loaded the dice. J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, said in Moose Jaw a few days ago that loading the dice had cost that organization $750,000.


An hon. Member:: What a man.


George Hugh Castleden: The amendment refers
only to the four assistant commissioners. It does not refer to the three main commissioners, one of whom was recently appointed from the United Grain Growers. I believe another commissioner was at one time a cabinet minister in Manitoba, and the third is an ex-president of the Winnipeg grain exchange. I fail to see how the minister can say that the four assistant commissioners are going to run the board. I am sure that is not right.


John George Diefenbaker: However desirable the
end may be that the hon. member for York-ton has in mind, I must say that the wording of the amendment is most unusual.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tough stuff.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact I
do not think it conveys the meaning at all that my hon. friend has in mind. Let me read it.
Hereafter, all assistant grain commissioners shall be appointed on the recommendation of the three western wheat pools, and the interprovincial farm union council.
Does that mean that appointments shall be made of such persons as shall be agreed to upon recommendation of the three pools and the interprovincial farm union council? As a matter of fact it is most ambiguously worded.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has to be
recommended by both. The amendment says recommended by both.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; "shall be appointed on the recommendation of"-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The chances of
both recommending the same man would be pretty slim.


John George Diefenbaker: I think in its present
form the amendment actually does not carry out the expressed intention of those who have moved it. It actually requires that the three pools and the interprovincial farm union council shall designate the persons to be appointed. I am sure my hon. friends never intended that that should be the meaning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what
they moved.


John George Diefenbaker: Much as I believe it
is desirable that there should be representation of actual producers, nevertheless the words used in the amendment in its present form would take away from the government a responsibility which must finally rest upon the governor in council. If my hon. friends intended that this amendment should be considered, it should have been made perfectly clear that the governor in council would appoint assistant grain commissioners from the list of recommendations furnished by the bodies in question. That, I think, is what the hon. member had in mind. Otherwise, as the amendment stands I must say that it constitutes a derogation from constitutional responsibility that I for one cannot accept, desirable as I believe a change may be in the method of appointment. I must say that I think my hon. friends should give consideration to redrafting the amendment, for on its face it actually takes from the governor in council the right to determine appointments.


Victor Quelch: I have always been a pool man, but even so I do not think it would be right to let the wheat pools make the recommendations for the appointment of grain commissioners, because many farmers prefer to haul their grain to other elevators. I do not know what the percentage is, but I do know that a few years ago farmers had the right to deliver their grain to an elevator of their own choice. True, they have not that right today.


George Hugh Castleden: Why not?


Victor Quelch: Owing to the fact that the elevators are plugged, and therefore they have to haul their grain to any elevator where there is room. The result is that many pool men haul their grain to other elevators because it is the only place where they can haul it. But when they could haul to elevators of their own choice many of them hauled to elevators that were not pool elevators. Therefore I think it would be hardly fair to say that the pool should make the recommendations, when many farmers would prefer to haul their grain to other elevator companies and would feel that these other companies should also have the right of recommendation. 1 think recommendations should be made by the western division of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, together with the interprovincial farm union council.
Amendment (Mr. Castleden) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays,70.
Clause 2 agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: Clause 3.


Hazen Robert Argue: Five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper, Nos. 246 to 255 inclusive. Shall these bills be considered in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Ida Rose Amyot White.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Anne Gorin Seward.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of George Daniel van der Beek.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Rhoda Beatrice Cree Denis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Roma Gisser Baron.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Marie-Angeline Delledonne Salotti.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Mary Black Guthrie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Albert Menard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Patricia Galley Berger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Elizabeth Glencross Marcoux.-Mr. Hunter.


John George Diefenbaker: the second reading of Bill No. 186, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
He said: In rising to move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would point out simply the purpose and aim I have in mind in asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code. You will notice from a reading of the bill, sir, that it has to do with interprovincial rivers. Perhaps I should read part of the bill in order to discuss it. The section reads:
Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of ten thousand dollars for a first offence and of twenty thousand dollars for a second offence, or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Criminal Code
Under those circumstances, if summary conviction proceedings were taken the penalty would be fixed by the statute which comes into effect on April 1, provided the bill before us today becomes law and receives royal assent. I should like to point out, too, that there is a section in the Criminal Code at the present time covering the commission of a nuisance. The material section, as I see it, states:
A common nuisance is an unlawful act or omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all His Majesty's subjects.
The variation of that would be "Her Majesty's subjects". However, that section in its present form would not, as I see it, permit the prosecution of anyone who pollutes the rivers of this country, whether they be interprovincial or otherwise. The purpose of the amendment is to effectively control under the criminal law the dumping of contaminants into interprovincial rivers, a practice which has turned several of Canada's rivers into veritable running sewers and cesspools.
When I say that, I could give various examples of rivers that are not interprovincial. However, I am restricting the application of the section I have in mind to interprovincial rivers the water supply of which is being wantonly polluted by industrial concerns or municipalities, thereby constituting a gross and needless denial of the right of the public to the water supply with which nature has so richly provided our country.
The first time this matter came before the house for discussion was about a year ago, when people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba resident on the North Saskatchewan river found themselves denied the use of the waters of this great river by reason of pollution, mainly by an industrial concern which carries on business some miles east of the city of Edmonton. In Prince Albert, a city of some 20,000 population, in Battleford and also in The Pas in Manitoba, people along this river were denied the use of its waters. No one who was not in one of those cities or towns during the months of December, 1953, January, February and March of 1954 has any idea of the extent to which contamination rendered those waters unusable.
This is not a problem peculiar to our country. It is one which exercises the minds of various people in the United States. In that country the criminal law is under the jurisdiction of the several states, and for that reason a major portion of the responsibility for meeting the problem of pollution rests

Criminal Code
upon those states, which alone possess the police powers necessary to punish any invasion of the rights of individuals in this connection. This problem has been intensified in the last 50 years and there is a pronounced interest, not only in our own country but also in the United States, respecting surveys of water resources and the correction of waste discharges which go with an expanding economy and the continually accelerating industrial development.
I should like to quote from the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry magazine concerning the problem in the United States. It states:
In many areas these wastes have interfered with the comforts and recreational pursuits of the public. All too frequently surface and underground water supplies have been damaged, sometimes irreparably. Nature has provided means for the self-purification of waterways, but these are often inadequate for coping with wastes from great urban areas or heavy industrial concentrations. In these circumstances man must devise supplemental methods for lightening the pollution loads entering the streams to amounts that can be stabilized by natural forces.
Seven years ago in the United States the federal water pollution control act was passed, the objects of which were as follows: to assist in pollution abatement work under the law; comprehensive program development; interstate co-operation; uniform state legislation; enforcement; reporting; financial assistance; research; and also participation in river basin development programs. Another object was the preservation and improvement of the quality of the nation's water resources. The purpose was to ensure an adequate present and future supply of water for all beneficial uses, for while our water supply has remained constant the number of water users has been increasing to an extent that could not have been imagined 50 years go. In 50 years industrialization along the waterways in the United States has increased by 700 per cent.
We find ourselves in the same position in Canada, and I would refer to the North Saskatchewan river merely as an example. With the chemical industrialization that is taking place in the city of Edmonton, unless action is taken by the provincial and federal governments we may well find ourselves in a few years in the position that the vast water resources of that river have been transformed into a cesspool, so the cities depending upon that water will no longer have it available. Besides this, a chemical industry developing at the present tim% in Alberta, and in the years ahead in Saskatchewan as our oil development expands, will require greater and greater quantities of water of especially high quality.

For these reasons I believe action must be taken, and the only body that can take action effectively on an interprovincial river is the parliament of Canada. Just take the example of the North Saskatchewan river. So long as the pollution takes place at a point east of Edmonton, in Alberta, very little harm is done to the people in that province. However, the water taking some 30 days to travel from Edmonton to Prince Albert, people in cities like Prince Albert and Battleford, and again in Manitoba down to The Pas are left in a position where their respective provincial governments can do nothing to protect them from the actions of industrial concerns or municipalities in another province.
In the United States this was viewed first as a national problem and secondly, for pollution purposes, as a state problem. They brought about not only co-operation between federal and state governments, but through the activities of the federal government they were able to secure industrial co-operation.
I want to be fair in this matter. The Canadian Chemical Company Limited was largely responsible for the pollution that took place in the North Saskatchewan river last year, and again recently for a week or ten days. That corporation has devoted itself to removing the danger of pollution in large measure by the dumping of chemical effluents into the river. But there is nothing to prevent any corporation or, indeed, any cities located in Alberta from polluting that stream without regard to the rights of residents in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Facing a similar situation in the United States the federal government co-operated with the states, whereby ten interstate compacts were entered into including pollution abatement in their objectives, to prevent unnecessary pollution by agreement and by the implementation of comprehensive plans. What I have before me is a summary of the legislation in the United States in this connection.
Having said that, I want to refer to what has happened in other parts of Canada within the last few months. The anti-pollution league of the province of Quebec has given the fullest consideration to the pollution of the Ottawa river. I am not giving that as an example of an interprovincial river; I am simply referring to the findings of this league, which are to the effect that unless effective action is taken the Ottawa river, one of the great rivers of Canada, will establish within itself the chemical and bacteriological characteristics of a sewer in action. This river was examined in detail by the league, and their conclusions are as follows:
The results that have been delivered and commented are, we believe, decisive enough for the

conclusions arising from them to be immediately obvious. The Ottawa river in the sectors extending from Ottawa-Hull to Thurso-Plaisance and from Hawkesbury-Grenville as far as Carillon is heavily polluted by industrial waste matters and heavily contaminated by municipal sewage; the water is dangerous and its use for industrial purposes is already impaired.
It finally concludes that under the laws as they now exist there is not that control which is necessary for the preservation of this vast resource. The province of Ontario in 1953 set up a pollution control board, the objective being to raise the water quality so as to satisfy the requirements of the various departments that have participated in forming the board.
However, so far as an interprovincial river is concerned, as the law is at present nothing can be achieved except where the provinces affected operate jointly to the end that the causes of pollution be removed. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) attended a conference held in Regina last fall which was attended by representatives of the three western provinces. Saskatchewan submitted a brief which I believe summarizes the situation in fairly complete and succinct form, when they say:
In the opinion of the government of Saskatchewan any plan to solve the problem of water pollution, in so far as it affects the public health, should take into consideration the following points:
(1)	Any plan should include control of surface and ground waters.
(2)	The plan should be sufficiently flexible to provide for varying circumstances and needs. If water is required for industrial or other use it would be expected that such use would be considered with due regard to the problems of the health of domestic water users.
(3)	Provision should be made for a complete survey of the present status of the water resources with particular emphasis on the source and extent of pollution. A continuing check on existing and new sources of pollution should be provided for.
(4)	Provision should be made for adequate facilities being available to study the human toxicological biological effects of the various polluting elements.
These were the objectives. Then the government of Saskatchewan went on to suggest a means by which they could be achieved. The brief says that the matter of interprovincial streams is more difficult than that of provincial streams. The final conclusion in this brief was that a joint board on river pollution control should be set up, representative of the three provinces concerned as well as of the dominion government. It went on to say:
The joint board should have an executive officer who preferably would be a competent engineer and who would have authority to call upon the technical consultative services of appropriate agencies in the various provinces.
The joint board would not be assumed to have direct control or administrative functions . . .
Representations were made by various municipalities to the effect that in addition
Criminal Code
to the setting up of such a board, parliament had a responsibility which it could exercise only through the medium of an amendment or amendments to the Criminal Code. As far as the setting up of an interprovincial board is concerned, apparently the present position is that the government of Saskatchewan has come to the conclusion that the government of Alberta is not giving that co-operation which would be necessary for the board to achieve success. I quote from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 3 last, summarizing the situation:
The prospect of a permanent and highly satisfactory solution to the problem of pollution in prairie rivers looked bright following the conference of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and federal government officials in Regina last month. But the statement released the other day by this province's minister of public health, Hon. T. J. Bentley, raises a number of doubts regarding Alberta's readiness to co-operate. The disturbing feature of Mr. Bentley's statement is his intimation that the Alberta government refuses to accept the proposal of the Regina conference for a full-time intergovernmental board with technical staff, preferring instead a committee without continuity or secretariat.
The article concludes by suggesting that federal action is necessary in order to meet the situation.
When I refer to what took place on the prairies, I am not asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code in order to cover the ad hoc situation in the three western provinces. The same situation prevails on other interprovincial rivers in Canada. As Dr. Lucien Piche, head of the University of Montreal, said: They are becoming unsuitable for any use whatsoever. His reference, of course, was to the Ottawa river; but it applies with equal force to other interprovincial rivers. The heading in the Montreal Gazette was: "Pollution makes the Ottawa river little better than an open sewer."
That is the potential situation on the North Saskatchewan river. The same could apply to the South Saskatchewan river, and to other rivers across the country. Last fall the Prime Minister was asked what the government intended to do. According to the press report in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix he communicated with the Battle-ford board of trade and advised in part as follows:
Reactions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the Alberta proposals are being awaited before further consideration to this matter is given by the federal government.
The position is that the province of Saskatchewan, within the limitation of its powers, brought a bill before the legislature to the following effect:
A person who deposits or causes or allows to be deposited along the bank of a running stream in

Criminal Code
Saskatchewan, or who casts or throws into its waters stable manure or night soil, carcasses, sawdust, salt water, any matter or form of industrial waste or other filthy or impure matter is guilty of an offence and liable . . .
-to the penalties provided therein. This amendment to the Saskatchewan statutes will not help solve the problem of the dumping of industrial wastes into the North Saskatchewan river in Alberta. That type of amendment will merely cover the situation within the province of Saskatchewan. If similar legislation were passed by Manitoba it would merely cover the situation within the province of Manitoba.
The Saskatchewan association of mayors and heads of municipalities has petitioned for an amendment to the Criminal Code to cover the situation. It is sometimes argued -the Minister of Justice advanced this argument last year-that interprovincial rivers are a matter of provincial legislative responsibility. The Criminal Code is designed, as I see it, in the nuisance section and in particular the section to which I refer, to cover actions similar to those which have resulted in the past in the denial to the people of urban centres of the use of the waters of the river which passes through their territorial limits. There is no power in any province to punish, and thereby prevent, the wrongdoing that takes place in another province. The present section of the Criminal Code merely covers unlawful acts or omissions. Both the act and the omission must be unlawful. There is nothing in the dumping into rivers of waste products of industrial concerns that would give any cause of action under that section.
The federal government accepts tlje responsibility under the Fisheries Act of punishing the wrongdoing of those who dump sawdust into rivers and thereby detrimentally affect or even cause the asphyxiation of fish. The dominion government accepts the responsibility of punishing under law anyone who dumps waste into navigable streams. But in regard to the health and comfort of human beings who depend on these streams for their water supply the attitude is taken that there is no right or responsibility in the federal authority to act within the provisions of the criminal law.
I find it difficult to understand why the dumping or throwing of sawdust, slabs, bark or rubbish into a navigable river is an offence when it is not an offence for municipalities or industrial concerns to use the waters of an interprovincial stream to free themselves of what they do not want, the effluent from their operations, by the simple expedient of throwing it into the river, and thus confer

that pollution and its effects upon others. I do not wish to say more at this time but I point out that there is no action that can be taken other than an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Last November the Prime Minister gave the board of trade to understand that unless the three western provinces could meet this problem in a spirit of co-operation the federal government would consider taking the only action that I think is possible under law to preserve and maintain these God-given sources of water, which are limited and which will be more and more needed as our industrialization expands. These selfish concerns, by the simple act of removing from themselves what they do not want, by dumping it into a moving stream, deny the use of that water to the people; and having disposed of the effluent they have no responsibility to maintain and preserve the right of others to the equal use of the waters of the streams.
The United States did not act in the national field until seven years ago, for the reason that the criminal law is the responsibility of the states. However, the United States found that in addition to the provisions of the criminal law in a number of states- and my recollection is that it is in operation in 13 states at the present time-there was also brought into being through federal cooperation the board to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks.
I make the serious appeal to this house, not only on behalf of the people resident on the Saskatchewan rivers but on behalf of people resident on all interprovincial streams, that action be taken now which will enable the use of the power and authority of law to punish those who place their own convenience above the needs of the multitudes of people who are dependent upon the use of the waters of these streams which are polluted through the actions of those who give no consideration to others.
Last year when Prince Albert and other urban centres were as devoid of water as though they were situated on a desert, an aroused public opinion asked for and demanded action. A few weeks ago, for a period of about a week or ten days, a similar pollution took place which the company in question stated had arisen through the negligence of an employee. The fact that this corporation has acted recently and is doing its part to remove the probability of a repetition of this occurrence does not remove the need for action on that and other interprovincial rivers.

A reading of the summary of the legislation in the United States indicates that that country waited too long before acting, on both the state and federal levels. I ask that the house view this matter not in a partisan way but from the point of view of the people of this country. Our population is increasing, industrialization is being accelerated, and water supplies to all intents and purposes are unchanged. The location of urban centres on interprovincial rivers was no accident. It was the choice of those who first settled in those areas. They were eager to ensure that their water supply would continue not only during the course of their lives but for generations yet unborn.
Unless teeth are put in the criminal law which will punish those selfish persons who would deny the people of this country the use of the pure water that nature has rendered available, within a very few years we shall find that streams from which the people have a right to expect to draw supplies of pure water will be polluted and defiled and will in effect be in the condition of one river, which Professor Piche described as a floating sewer. Provincial governments cannot meet the situation. I submit that the criminal law was intended to cover offences against the people as a whole, and that anyone who wrongfully pollutes the interprovincial streams of our country thereby commits a crime not only against the present generation but against generations yet to come.
I ask the support of the hon. members of this house in bringing about an amendment that will give to the people of this country who live on interprovincial streams the authority to act not against those who on a single occasion might inadvertently pollute a stream in this country, but against those who make it a policy of selfishness, if you will, to pollute the streams in order to save themselves the trouble of bringing into being measures which they could establish to remove the dangers of pollution. They feel it is easier and less costly for them to rid themselves of the effluent they do not want by placing it in the streams, but as a result of their actions those in other provinces who have the right to the use of waters of the interprovincial streams are denied that right.
That, Mr. Speaker, in summary represents what I have in mind in introducing this amendment asked for by the association of municipalities to which I have made reference, and demanded by tens of thousands of people-literally hundreds of thousands-in this country who are asking for some action on the part of the federal government to protect them from the cupidity of those who, because of their power, believe they can with 50433-138
Criminal Code
impunity deny the use of these waters to present and future generations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I think that no one will be in disagreement with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) as to the importance of the issue which he has raised or as to his suggestion that it should not be approached as a partisan matter. Certainly I shall not approach it as such.
This is the second occasion in as many years on which we have discussed this issue and I must say that I have seen no reason to change the views which I expressed on a former occasion, in spite of the fact that notwithstanding what my hon. friend from Prince Albert has said, a great deal of progress has been made toward the solution of this problem. I should like to report to the house with regard to the conference which took place at Regina to which my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert has referred because, as I said in this chamber last year, I think an approach of that sort is much more effective than is the method which he is now recommending. Before doing that, however, I should like to make one or two observations with regard to his actual amendment itself.
If I understood him correctly-and I hope he will correct me if I have not done so- he stated that there is not in the code at the present time any section which could be invoked to deal with the sort of situation which arose in Prince Albert last year. If he looks at section 165 of the new Criminal Code which will come into effect on April 1-


John George Diefenbaker: What was the old
number?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The old number was 222;
sections 221 and 222.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the one I
referred to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My hon. friend is amending the new code but he is making his references to the nuisance sections of the present, or old, code. There is not a great deal of difference; but in order to keep the record uniform, I think I had better refer to the new code to which his present bill is submitted as an amendment. Under the heading of "nuisances", section 165 reads as follows:
165. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Then, as I am sure my hon. friend will agree, if it is a corporation which is convicted of that indictable offence, the fine will

Criminal Code
not be the limited fine which my hon. friend's amendment provides but will be a fine in the discretion of the court which under section 623 will be completely unlimited in amount. Then subsection 2 of section 165 reads as follows:
(2) For the purposes of this section every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or
(b)	obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
Having regard to the fact that in the Alberta provincial law and in the federal Fisheries Act there are provisions that prohibit the discharge of effluents and the placing of waste in the Saskatchewan river in Alberta, everyone who by so doing commits an unlawful act in breach of these Alberta regulations or federal statutes and thereby endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, falls squarely within the present section 165.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask the minister a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the point I make. The mere dumping of these effluents is not an unlawful act. Would the minister say what an unlawful act would be within the meaning of the section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: An unlawful act is one which is done in contravention of the law. If my hon. friend wants to read it, he will find that section 33, subsection 2, of the Fisheries Act provides that no person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances and so on into the waters of a river like the North Saskatchewan. That being the case, I would much prefer to place reliance upon the existing law than upon the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend.
It will be observed that, amongst other defects of his amendment, he discriminates between public corporations like municipalities and private corporations which are the only ones which he names in his bill. That would mean that a municipality in Alberta could contaminate the river as much as it liked and would leave the people in Prince Alberta without recourse under his amendment.
But it would mean more than that. It would mean that if, instead of discharging its effluent directly into the river, an industrial corporation put it into the sewers of the city of Edmonton, it would not come under my hon. friend's bill. The moral blame

would be there, if you like, but there would be no legal consequence under his bill as drafted. If my hon. friend wishes to cover a case of that kind, he must make his bill applicable to municipalities; and if he makes it applicable to municipalities I think he will find that, apart from any protests that might arise from industry in Canada, not only in Saskatchewan and Alberta but in all the other provinces, he would create a situation which would be extremely mischievous indeed, if not oppressive upon many Canadian municipalities. The hon. member for Prince Albert says he is not seeking by his amendment to cover an ad hoc situation and deal merely with the North Saskatchewan river. He says the situation is so bad all over Canada, and he instanced at some length the Ottawa river, that something should be done along the lines of his amendment throughout Canada, but only in interprovincial rivers. It is a rather remarkable thing that, in spite of the bad situation to which he refers and which he says has been prevalent in the more industrialized sections of Canada for these many years, no municipalities or other public interests have asked to have passed any amendment like the one which he is now advocating.
I said last year and I repeat now that in my humble view, which I think is supported by the arguments of my hon. friends as to the way in which this matter was grappled with in the United States and the way in which it is being dealt with by the international joint commission in a very highly industrialized section of Canada opposite Detroit and other large industrial cities of that part of the United States, it is only by the concerted efforts of joint administrative boards that efforts can be put forth by chemists, sanitary engineers and those people whose knowledge equips them to deal with a problem of this sort. That was the method which I suggested in the house last year should be followed in the case of the North Saskatchewan river.
It was rather gratifying that the suggestion made in the debate in the house at that time was taken up by the province of Saskatchewan which called an interprovincial conference at Regina, to which the hon. member has referred. Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan suggested to the Prime Minister that the government of Canada should be represented at the interprovincial conference, and I had the honour to represent this government at that conference.
It was a very successful conference indeed. Representing the province of Saskatchewan were Premier Douglas, Hon. T. J. Bentley, minister of public health and minister in

charge of health services planning commission, Hon. L. F. McIntosh, minister of municipal affairs, Dr. F. B. Roth, deputy minister of health, Dr. M. S. Acker, director of research and statistics branch, department of health, Mr. Prescott of the sanitary engineering division, department of health, Mr. Scammell, member of the prairie provinces water board and of the engineering subcommittee of the international joint commission, and Dean F. C. Cronkite, dean of law, university of Saskatchewan.
Representing Alberta were Dr. A. Somerville, deputy minister of public health, and Mr. Bouthillier, of the University of Alberta. From Manitoba there were Hon. Frank C. Bell, minister of health and public welfare, Hon. C. E. Greenlay, minister of mines and natural resources and Mr. L. A. Kay, director of public health engineering, department of health and public welfare. Representing the government of Canada were D. H. W. Henry of the Department of Justice, Dr. K. C. Charron, Department of National Health and Welfare, and myself.
I have been at a good many conferences between governments in my time and I do not know of any at which, in my view, more satisfactory progress was made in a shorter period of time than at the conference at Regina. We began our work promptly at nine o'clock in the morning and by six o'clock that night we had reached a number of conclusions which it seemed to me, as one who is not particularly skilled in these scientific matters, were singularly intelligent and worth while. When it was over I made a draft statement as to what had taken place at the conference and I submitted it to all the provincial governments concerned so that in stating here what the positions taken at Regina were I would not be prejudicing them in any way. I have clearance from all of the governments that this is a correct statement of what took place at that conference.
The first thing was that at the opening of the proceedings I made it clear that I was attending pursuant to an undertaking which the Prime Minister had given to Premier Douglas that a member of the federal government would attend the conference and give such assistance as he could. At the conference it was unanimously agreed by all present that the three prairie provinces would join together in setting up a proposed joint pollution control board with functions as follows. I continue with the memorandum:
All functions listed below should be related to the pollution control of interprovincial watercourses in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-
50433-138J
Canada Grain Act
Not merely the North Saskatchewan river. - (a) Selection of priorities of use and establishment of objectives for the control of pollution of interprovincial watercourses.
(b)	Collect information on the sources and types of domestic, industrial, and other wastes being discharged or flowing into interprovincial watercourses.
(c)	Assessment of the physical, bacteriological, and chemical effects of such wastes on water to be used for domestic, industrial or other purposes.
(d)	Making recommendations for the correction of those conditions which might be shown to affect adversely the accepted use of interprovincial watercourses.
(e)	Recommending such further action as may be required to meet the objectives for the control of pollution in interprovincial watercourses.
(f)	Recommendations for the control of pollution by permit and/or other means.
(g)	Continuing an educational campaign on the fundamental idea that water is a valuable resource which must be protected and used logically.
Then under the heading, "Implementation of Recommendations of Joint Pollution Control Board", there is the following:
The recommendations of the proposed joint board should be carried out by the provinces concerned through existing or new legislation. Consideration should be given to the development of uniform legislation to allow for uniform interpretation of control measures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but it is now six o'clock. May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock we shall resume the business which was 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 Bill No. 245, to amend the Canada Grain Act-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 3-Excess to belong to the Canadian wheat board.
Mr. Bryson:: Clause 3 specifies, in effect, that all grain commonly known as overages that appears in public terminal elevators shall be confiscated by the board of grain commissioners, and the proceeds thereof shall be the property of the Canadian wheat board and shall be disposed of by that board as the governor in council directs.
I do not suppose anyone who is familiar with the grain business is foolish enough to

Canada Grain Act
believe you can handle several hundred million bushels of grain without having overages. I do feel, however, that these overages could be curtailed in a large measure provided the board of grain commissioners accepted their responsibility as laid down in the act.
While this bill only covers those overages which occur in public terminal elevators, I feel there is some question as to the validity of that statement. While I do not intend to dispute that here and now, I would say that we feel there are a great many more overages in public terminal elevators than would seem to be necessary.
We believe the board of grain commissioners should accept their responsibility to see they are kept to a minimum. The last financial statement issued by the board of grain commissioners covered the confiscation of overages, and showed that all the grain the board could find in terminal elevators amounted to some $289 and some odd cents. This does not indicate the large amount of grain that was taken in overages and not accounted for by the board of grain commissioners.
There are, of course, two or three factors which account for these overages. First of all there is the mixing of grain which, in effect, results in the grain being upgraded. You take dry grain and mix it with tough or damp grain, and you immediately have an upgrading of that grain.
Then, of course, there are the overages which occur because of the weighing itself. I believe one of the things in which the board of grain commissioners has fallen down rather badly, and which accounts for a tremendous number of bushels in overages, is the drying process. If we look at the figures for 1952-53, we find that according to the report of the Canadian wheat board they took in some 59 million bushels of tough or damp grain. They artificially dried a little over 2 million bushels of that, with the result that some 56 million odd bushels of grain were dried otherwise. A percentage of dry grain was used to mix with the tough and damp grain in order to bring the moisture content down to something that was acceptable. I feel that is one place where a large percentage of overages accrue.
In 1952-53 the Canadian wheat board had something over 2 million bushels of grain for which no producer certificates were issued. Our contention is that that 2 million bushels must have been overages; there was no other place for it to come from. In the report for last year we find there were 1,386,300

bushels for which no producer certificates were issued. We contend that this represents overages. As I said in the first instance, I believe a great part of these overages accrue because of the fact the grain is upgraded, as we call it, in the process of drying. Of course my remarks relate only to wheat, and we must take into consideration the tremendous number of bushels of barley, oats, and rye for which there is no account whatever.
It is the hope of the farmers of western Canada that the board of grain commissioners will make a thorough and exhaustive study of this question of grain overages. Certainly something should be done, and I feel the board of grain commissioners can no longer ignore the necessity for making a complete study of the whole question of overages. It is a contentious problem. In the meantime these overages do occur, and it is with the disposition of the money that accrues from the sale of these overages that this clause is concerned. I feel that actually the money belongs to the producers, and I am wondering about the administrative problem of getting that money into the hands of the producers according to the marketings they have made as individuals.
It is because of that I am moving, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley:
That clause 3 be amended by deleting from line 28 all the words after the words "that board" and by substituting therefor the following words: "on the recommendation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and interprovincial farm union council."


William Alfred Robinson: Shall this amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Thomas:: This afternoon the hon. member for Acadia indicated that we would vote against a similar amendment simply because we did not like the organizations that were named in that amendment. However, this amendment is different, giving different farm organizations the power to make these representations, and in view of that fact I feel that I can support the amendment.


William Gilbert Weir: My thought is, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is virtually the same as the amendment moved this afternoon. I ask you to tell us whether or not it is in order, following the disposition of the other one.


William Alfred Robinson: I might point out that the previous amendment related to another clause. I do not think that would have any effect on the validity or otherwise of the amendment now proposed to clause 3. I rather

think the amendment is in order. Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 46.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Hazen Robert Argue: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister make a statement?


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, it was evident during the debate on the resolution that there was some misunderstanding on the part of some hon. members on certain points that I think I should clarify at this time.
The assistance is paid under this act on the gold produced and sold to the Royal Canadian Mint by a mine in a calendar year. The operators may submit their applications for assistance at the end of each quarterly period and applications for the fourth quarter of the year are not generally received until mid-February or early March of the following year. In many cases the mines await the completion of their yearly audits prior to submitting their final application, and this tends to delay the receipt of these applications until April or May of the following year. The placer mines of the Yukon and British Columbia do not submit their applications for the calendar year until May of the following year, as they prefer to verify their costs of production with the government auditors who attend to these mines during that time.
The figures shown in schedule I, page 10, of the report of the administration of this act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, represent, as stated in the footnote thereto, only the mines whose assistance applications on 1953 production were received prior to April 30, 1954. It will be noted that the mines listed in this schedule only represent those gold mines which actually received
18. 1955	2177
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act assistance in each of the respective years. Eighty-six mines are shown as having received assistance in 1952; however, during that year 12 gold mines elected to sell their product on the free market. Consequently there were actually 98 geld mines in operation during 1952. There are 70 mines shown as receiving assistance in 1953 up to April 30, 1954, but we have since received applications increasing the number to 92, and as five mines sold on the free market that year, the total number of gold mine operations in 1953 was 97.
The following figures indicate the general situation as of January 31, 1955; however, these represent only the payments on production to the end of the third quarter of 1954, as applications for the fourth quarter had not been received from the mines at that time:
Assistance	Assistance
paid to the Ounces paid per Designated Number end of pro- ounce
year of mines April, 1954 duced produced
1954	56	$8,883,239.45 2,538,559	$3.50
The assistance per ounce produced was paid on the total production. There were no gold mines selling on the free market during the calendar year 1954 and it is estimated that applications for assistance under the terms of this act will be received from 94 properties for that year.
That is all I wish to say at this time.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, we are now asked to give second reading to Bill No. 190, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The effect of this bill, as the minister acknowledged at page 1590 of Hansard, will be to reduce the amount of subsidy paid to the gold mining industry in Canada from an estimated $16 million in 1954 to an estimated $11 million in 1955 and 1956.
In this time of substantial unemployment, why should any government embark upon a restrictive policy toward an industry which employs directly over 18,800 men, and indirectly gives employment to many thousands more, when there is involved an industry the product of which is gold which is not capable of overproduction and is not in competition with private business?
Again, how can the government justify the loss of any gold to our gold reserves at a time when capital, which can and may be withdrawn, has been pouring into Canada? With $12 billion of foreign capital invested in Canada, $8 billion of which is repayable in United States dollars, can anyone say that our gold reserves of $1,072 million, or even our combined gold and United States dollars
2178	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act reserves, which are still under $2 billion- the latest figure is $1,942 million, at the end of the year-are sufficient, remembering always that these reserves have to meet our trade deficits as well as establish our monetary reserves behind our currency?
I admit that the place of gold in international finance is a controversial subject, particularly when governments in large sections of the world are totalitarian in form and communist in belief, and when much of the world has been beguiled by socialism. Nevertheless, it continues to be money in the freer parts of the world, and it continues to be the standard and anchor of value in all parts of the world for the simple reason that the United States dollar and gold bullion are interchangeable at $35 an ounce. Until I see someone who has the opportunity to refuse gold doing so, I think I am justified in assuming that gold still holds its historic place as currency and the standard of value.
I am reminded of the importance of gold as currency by an episode that concerned me when I was travelling as a student on the border of Austria and Switzerland. One of those combination immigration and customs officers with a clanking sword took me by the arm and began to speak to me in German, which I could not understand, by the way.
I realized that he was saying something about gold: "Haben sie etwas geld?" Gold was the only thing he was concerned about on my person. My exit from Austria depended on whether or not I had any gold in my pocket.
Why then should anyone think of subsidizing the production of the one substance which is the measure of value? It would be difficult to suggest a more nonsensical proposition in economics unless it would be to prescribe that all debts should be paid twice over, at least for the time being.
If gold cannot pay for its own recovery why should public funds be used to pay for it? Nevertheless that is exactly what this government decided to do as recently as eight years ago, and this house approved. It has approved from time to time and will approve again this year the subsidy on the mining of gold. If international financial arrangements have become so debevilled by war and postwar inflation, then this government which has a part, and has had a part, in making international monetary and trade agreements for 20 years now must take its full share of blame for the state of affairs which makes the subsidization of gold seem sensible and necessary.
In fairness I might add that even our government has to live not only with its own mistakes but with the mistakes of other governments, and it is therefore not entirely & free agent. In any event, in 1947 this


government found it necessary either to let the gold mines fade and the gold communities die, and forgo the production of gold or pay more for the gold being produced. Mr. Abbott announced his decision by radio on November 17, 1947. The house will remember that the international monetary fund agreement does not permit a member country to increase the price of gold except within the margins allowed, which were not applicable to this case; therefore that formula required modification, and in due course the Department of Finance devised a new and acceptable formula which the international monetary fund approved, which was based not on a direct subsidy to increase the price of gold per ounce but a subsidy based on the cost of production of gold per ounce. Then we had the first bill, which came into force on January 1, 1948, for a term of three years. The formula was one-half the current cost of producing gold in excess of $18 per ounce, applied to part only of the production of the mine.
We have had from the minister and his department a report on the results of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I shall not take the time of the house to detail the experience under this legislation, which has been renewed from time to time and is still in force, but I would refer the house to schedule I on page 10, which shows the payments. It shows the number of mines operating in each of the years during which this assistance has been in effect from 1948 to 1953 inclusive, the amount of assistance paid, the number of ounces produced and the average price per ounce. With the permission of the house I should like to place the table on Hansard so it will appear in the record. It is not long. I have added to the table the estimated figures for 1954.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member permission to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Roland Michener: The table follows:
Summary of gold assistance received by all gold mines in Canada:
Total	Total	AverageNo. of	ounces	assistance	assistanceYear	mines	produced	paid	per ounce1948	117	3,164,370	$10,546,315	$3.331949	122	3,614,725	12,569,144	3.481950	105	3,521,500	9,015,970	2.561951	94	3,258,407	10,750,720	3.301952	86	2,880,937	10,852,549	3.771953	70	3,048,904	14,621,176	4.801954	Estimated	3,000,000	14,000,000	4.67Total	7 years	22,488,843	$82,355,874	$3.66
The total for the seven years is 22,488,843 ounces of gold. The cost in assistance

amounted to $82,355,874, which was an average of $3.66 per ounce produced. The cost to the country in those seven years was substantial. I think it is proper to suggest that the net cost is something else, because if all those mines paid income tax not only on the assistance but on other profits, estimated at from 60 to 75 per cent of the gold assistance, it would reduce the net cost by from $20 to $33 million for the seven year period, which is not a very large sum of money when one considers the results obtained.
In addition to the actual ounces produced and the amount paid to bring that gold into being, the total value of the gold is of some considerable significance. Some $787 million worth of gold was produced in those seven years of subsidy. That is almost exactly the amount by which the gold reserves of this country have been increased in the same seven years, and is precisely 73 per cent of the present gold reserve. It is an interesting speculation as to what our gold reserve would be today had this assistance not been paid.
If the reasons which impelled parliament in 1947 to institute this subsidy were good, they are far better today than they were then. That is why I find it very difficult to understand the proposal made by the minister not to continue the subsidy in full, or on as good terms, but to reduce and restrict it by changing the formula with the avowed expectation that the subsidy will be cut by $5 million or 31 per cent of the subsidy which is being paid in the year 1954.
What is the view of the gold mines? I do not think they relish the idea of being a subsidized industry. Some of them frankly would prefer to close, because gold in the earth is not a wasting asset and can be mined when that can be done profitably. But there are other important considerations, the communities, the people involved in those mining towns, as well as the shareholders of the companies who number some hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose investments are in this form of security. Therefore they have very little choice in the matter but to mine as long as any profit can be made.
Their case this year, as compared with 1948, if they were advocating assistance, is much better statistically. Not only is the price they receive for gold today less than it was in 1947 because of the premium at which our dollar stands, and which results in a price of less than the $35 an ounce for gold which we would receive if the dollar were at par, but in addition the costs of mining have increased in the past few years.
18, 1955	2179
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
I should like to indicate to the house exactly what the costs of mining are today. Taking 1940 as the base, the cost of gold mining has doubled since that date; and at the same time the value of the product which gold mines have to sell has depreciated by 12 per cent. If you offset these figures one against the other you can see the impossible position of the gold mining industry. Costs have doubled and there has been a reduction of 12 per cent in the selling price of the product gold, within the same period.
Now, excluding taxes, the average costs of Ontario gold mines, which I give as an illustration, have increased since 1940 by $12.12 per ounce of gold production. The price which has been received from the mint for gold has dropped from $38.50-that was the price when the Canadian dollar was at a discount of 10 per cent in 1940-to a price of $33.85 in December, 1954, and a corresponding price today depending on the exchange rate. This is an additional $4.65 per ounce of extra cost, or rather conversely, $4.65 of less return for each ounce of gold produced. So the total net reduction so far as the mine is concerned is $16.77 per ounce of gold produced. They are that much worse off.
The assistance in that period has been about $4.23 per ounce, which is just about 25 per cent of the reduction the mines have suffered in the period during which the assistance has been paid. The possible effect of the proposal which the minister now brings forward is that production will be curtailed. It is inconceivable, with $5 million less assistance being paid, that some mines will not find it necessary to close their doors.
The ministry may not see eye to eye with me on these figures, but the information I have is to the effect that in 1940 the number of mines in operation was 144, and that number had been reduced by 1954 to only 54 mines. I am speaking now of quartz mines; that figure does not include placer mines, as did the figure given by the minister. The . figure of 54 mines in 1954 may not be correct, but in any event the figure of 70 mines in 1954 which appears in the blue book does include placer mines, and, I believe, quite a number of them. It is clear that over the period there has been a substantial reduction in the number of quartz gold mines which have been in operation or which have been able to continue in operation, which would be a more accurate way of putting it.
I anticipate, and I think it is proper to anticipate, that this bill with its restrictive features will further curtail the number of mines in production, the amount of gold produced and the number of miners and
2180	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act their families who make their living in this industry. It is not easy to say how many mines will be closed, but I would like to read the opinion of a mining man which will perhaps throw some light on the subject. He states:
-a cut in gold assistance will doubtless reduce employment in the mines adversely affected, and also kill any urge there might previously have been to hunt for gold or to develop new gold mines. They may claim that this will not close down any mines because the high cost low grade mines may not be adversely affected.


George Prudham: May I ask the source of that quotation and the name of the person whose words are being quoted?


Daniel Roland Michener: Yes. I am quoting a statement made by Mr. Bert W. Lang in a letter addressed to me. I believe he has written to all the members of the government and all the members of the house. He has made a careful analysis of the effect of the assistance on gold mining.
Although the minister hopes this measure will not close the high cost low grade mines which will still receive substantial assistance based on costs of $26.50, nevertheless the formula would substantially reduce the gold assistance in toto and also the gold assistance received by a number of lower cost high grade mines such as Kerr-Addison, McIntyre, Campbell Red Lake, New Dickenson, Leitch, Bonwhit, and others.
He continues:
I am certain that if this basis of gold assistance were adopted, that a mine like McIntyre, where gold assistance represents a large part of its yearly profit, would decide to curtail operations to a minimum to carry a small working force only, rather than continue to eat up their ore reserves with gold at the present price and thereby only recover a relatively small profit from such reserves. Such mines would much prefer to close down or reduce to a very small scale production in order to conserve ore reserves for the day which may not be too far ahead when the United States will be forced to increase the price of gold.
This assistance has been a very material consideration in the maintenance and operation of some of these mines. We have now dealt with the problem of the economics of ' mining, but there are some extremely cogent social reasons why this assistance has been a proper expedient during the past few years. One has only to think of the great gold mining communities so well represented by my hon. friend across the way, who will doubtless speak on this measure, to realize some of the implications of this bill. I am referring of course to the communities of Kirkland Lake, Porcupine and Timmins, which are purely gold camps. From such mines comes 88 per cent of the gold produced in Canada. The other 12 per cent comes 

from areas of mixed mining and presumably would not be affected by the removal of this subsidy.
The gold mining communities which produce 88 per cent of the gold in Canada depend now and have depended for some years upon this assistance.
The number of men directly employed is 18,800, according to figures released last November. The government in its speech from the throne indicated its desire to create more employment, and indicated that public works projects were to be undertaken for that purpose. We were led to believe projects would be undertaken to create work through the expenditure of public funds.
I think I have already mentioned this, but I ask again what more appropriate way there is of creating work through the use of public funds than by encouraging an industry which is non-competitive, in which overproduction is not possible and employment is substantial. The gold mining industry uses vast quantities of chemical and metal supplies of all kinds. Anyone who lived through the depressed period of the thirties realizes what a godsend the gold mining industry of Ontario was to that province, because it maintained itself and a great many subsidiary and collateral industries.
If this bill results in a reduction in the working force, which now totals 18,800 employed in the gold mining industry, certainly this will have to be offset if the government means what it says concerning the expenditure of funds for public works, not only to the extent of these subsidies but I think many times that amount to produce equivalent employment in other places. Not only would it be difficult to do that, but imagine the disruption of people who have their own homes, their own properties and are settled and rooted in those communities in the gold mining areas and have no desire to leave them.
I have mentioned the collateral benefits to agriculture and to industry-in fact to the whole economy-which supply communities of the size and importance of these gold mining areas.
I now come to the other and final reason for the importance of this subsidy. I hope I have not minimized or passed too quickly over the social and economic aspects of it, but I come now to the production of gold for its own sake. I should like to say something about that matter, because there are a great many people who seem to think gold has no "sake" any more. Actually I regard gold as the basic reserve of our money credit system.
The immediate result of this bill, or at least the immediate result of its predecessors,

has been to produce higher gold reserves in Canada. I have said that they have increased 73 per cent in seven years, and that is the amount of gold produced in that time. Our reserves are now over $1 billion in gold. Those are reserves that cannot be dug up and produced at will. At this time, if we allow some fruitless years to go by in gold mining we shall never make up the loss that will be incurred. The increase in reserves in the past four years in Canada-that is the total reserve of gold and United States dollars- has been only $200 million or 11 per cent, because gold has replaced United States dollars to some extent. At the same time the increase in capital investment in this country from abroad has been in the neighbourhood of $3 billion, or 35 per cent of our previous capital investment. It is therefore easy to see that our gold reserves or our gold and United States dollar reserves are not increasing in proportion to our outside investment.
Another practical way of looking at this production of gold, and one which will appeal to all who have any gambling instincts, is that although it is worth $35 today, by virtue of the United States maintaining that price, there is no saying that it will not be worth $70 two or three years hence. One can imagine what a tidy profit the treasury or the Minister of Finance would find in the gold reserve if the price were doubled overnight, as it might well be. I think that is something to be looked forward to not only with equanimity but with anticipation. If the odds on such an event are even-and I suggest they are better than that-the more gold we have in the till when that happens, the better off this country will be.


George Prudham: Would my hon. friend
gamble with the taxpayers' money?


Daniel Roland Michener: In what way could there be a loss?


George Prudham: The hon. member says he would gamble on $70 gold.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am saying that you pay $35 and it is worth that. You have a chance of making it $70 with no risk. That is not gambling; it is a sure thing.


George Prudham: The hon. member mentioned gambling.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps I used the wrong term. I am not prepared to say what will happen. I do not wish to be prophetic. However, I should like to direct the attention of the house for a moment to the position of gold today. I have indicated what are the practical consequences of producing more gold. Some people say that gold has value only because the United States is willing to
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act pay $35 an ounce for it. I should like to cite what the deputy to the secretary of the United States treasury had to say in order to show that is not at all the attitude which Americans have towards gold. Mr. W. Randolph Burgess, deputy to the secretary of the treasury, giving evidence before a committee in March of 1954, said one or two pertinent things which I think are worth repeating. He said:
From the founding of our nation until 1933, with interruptions in time of serious war, the dollar was firmly attached to gold.
The gold value of the dollar, established under Washington and Hamilton, was not changed except fractionally for over 140 years. The confidence in the value of the dollar which this helped instil in our people and the people of other countries was one of the foundations of the nation's spectacular economic success.
Then he went on to say this:
In recent years the link between the dollar and gold has represented a basic stable relationship in an unstable world economy. Economic values the world over have been measured in terms of the United States dollar . . .
Under present laws and regulations-
That is United States laws and regulations. -this country is on what may be termed an international gold bullion standard. We buy and sell gold freely with other countries through their central banks and treasuries at the price of $35 an ounce plus or minus a handling charge of one-fourth of 1 per cent.
We do not coin gold. We do not allow our citizens to hold gold except in industry and the arts and as jewelry, or collectors' items. Individuals and businesses cannot export gold without licence. Our citizens can buy gold dust but have shown little interest in doing so . . .
The object of our policy and regulations is to protect our gold reserves, which support the value of money and can be used to settle international balances. The United States holds $22 billion of gold out of the world's monetary stock of gold of $36 billion. This huge stock of gold is a bulwark for confidence in the value of currency. In a world of great uncertainties it is one of the anchors of value on which business transactions depend.
He went on to refer to Fort Knox and what people think about it; then he said this:
In summary, this is our present gold policy: we are maintaining an assured ability to support a constant relationship between gold and the dollar- a relationship which is as important to foreign countries as it is to us.
He asked the question:
Can we safely now run the risk of letting both our own people and people elsewhere draw down this gold freely and perhaps dissipate it so that the strength of our monetary reserves is impaired?
Does that sound like the value depending on the unwilling purchase of gold by the United States?
It is the position of the treasury that it would not be wise to take the risk of a major step in relaxing restraints. We still live in a very uncertain world. A large part of the world's new gold production has been vanishing into gold hoards and becoming unavailable for monetary reserves.
2182	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act Until the public temper is one of greater security, it would be unwise to expose our gold freely to the hoarder.
That is the declared policy of United States treasury officials. The fact is that the United States over the past five years has sold and exported $3 billion of its gold reserves. Far from being the only purchaser, it has been a seller. The figures are given in the table which is attached to this document which I have just read, and they show a serious decline in the gold reserves held by the United States. As of 1939 the United States had $17,800 million of gold in reserve, of which $6 billion was the legal requirement as a backing for its currency. It held about $3 billion for foreign account. It therefore had a surplus over all requirements of about $8 billion.
Today that surplus has changed into a negative, for the simple reason that the $21 billion which the United States has in its gold reserve in Fort Knox is largely pledged for foreign account. As of November 30 last there was $12 billion, something over half, pledged to foreign account in the sense that it was security for short-term balances and was subject to withdrawal any time. So you can see that not only has there been a reduction in actual gold held from $24 billion to $21 billion in five years, that is a loss of $3 billion of the total holdings of gold in the United States, but there was as well an increase in the amount of these holdings of gold which were held for foreign accounts. Today the United States reserve of gold which it can really count on as a monetary reserve is down to something like $9 billion, not a very substantial amount.
On the contrary we find that European countries are building up their gold reserves again, and I should like to quote a dispatch from the Financial Times of a week ago under the name of Mr. DeSeau.
According to the organization for European economic co-operation, the western European trading nations, on December 31, 1954, held gold and dollar reserves of better than $13-5 billion.
As the position has been improving abroad we find a better international distribution of the gold reserves than existed immediately after the war, when there was such a concentration and unbalance in the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is by way of emphasis on the place of gold in our economy. I could spend some time referring to the international gold standard and discussing how it developed and what happened to it, but that is something we all know about. We know that in the 1930's it became politically impos-
[Mr. Michener.l

sible to maintain the discipline which was involved in the international gold standard, and so all countries departed from the practice of redeeming their paper money by gold and tried the much more pleasant and politically delightfully way of handling their obligations by so-called managed currency.
I should like to refer briefly to the disadvantages and political problems involved in the international gold standard. In that connection I quote the following from a paper on the monetary functions of gold:
During the 1930's especially it became politically impossible for any country to allow the fluctuations in income and employment which were essential to the gold standard. Commitment to a full employment policy and the implied rejection of international control over this "domestic" matter are incompatible with the functioning of an international gold standard. Governments can no longer afford politically to abide by the rules of the classical gold standard game.
Managed currency then was the vogue. It, of course, has its problems too, serious enough internally but far more complicated when one comes to an international financial system. One only has to look around a bit at the graveyard of managed currencies, which is full of rubles, marks and francs, to find that altogether it has not been quite as happy an episode in the financial history of modern times as its authors thought it would be. One can conceive of a managed currency in a stable world under one rule where one party had all the financial powers, but in a world which is at least in a cold war and under the possible threat of a third world war we have scarcely reached the conditions of unity and peace which lend themselves to managed international currency based on agreements and arrangements.
We know that even the international wheat agreement is difficult enough to negotiate and operate, and that the general agreement on tariffs and trade is also not easily retained even among the most civilized of people; and that is only part of the world. When it comes to a financial system to embrace the whole world it seems to me that one has to be a little more realistic than was Mr. Keynes in his doctrine which has been the inspiration of so much of this theorizing about monetary systems. I should like to quote the deputy minister of finance, and perhaps inquire whether the government's view of gold is his or his is the government's view. On May 11 last, In speaking to the Canadian political science association, he compared gold mining to coal mining. There is nothing wrong with that, and I am sure the hon.

member to my left will agree, but he regards them as not being dissimilar. He said:
It does not make sense to subsidize gold mining indefinitely.
I agree with that.
It does make sense as a transitional measure as long as there is some reasonable prospect of either the cost of mining going down or the price of gold going up. Unless there appears to be a fair chance of one or other of these things happening in the not too distant future, it would seem preferable to spend part of the present subsidy money on promoting an orderly and more rapid transfer of resources out of marginal gold mining and marginal gold mining communities.
Is that what the minister has in mind?
I suggest that the situation is nothing like as desperate as that, and I should like to offer as a counterblast the Wall Street Journal, which I am sure is subscribed to by most members of the house to my left to bring them back to sanity periodically.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just presumption. How far to the left are you looking?


Daniel Roland Michener: All the way. The Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, March 24, 1954, which happens to be about the time that six private firms in London began to buy gold again after an interval of 15 years, has this to say in an article headed "The Keynes Mutiny":
This may seem like a dull and inconsequential piece of news. But it can prove one of the most significant economic things that has happened recently to Britain and the western trading world. And apart from its significance it is not without its drama. It marks a climax of what might be called the Keynes mutiny.
For a generation the economic thinking that has dominated the policies of our major governments has been that money can be successfully divorced from any tangible thing. It can be created by printing pieces of paper and these pieces of paper can be manipulated at will by the central authorities to make money do their bidding. This thinking was given impetus by the teachings of the late Lord Keynes, Britain's brilliant and articulate economic theorist, and his disciples.
In the thirties every major government abandoned the gold standard. The arguments were that a gold standard limited the quantity of money and therefore limited a government in doing all the nice things it ought to be doing for people. Money wasn't "flexible". By abandoning gold, government authorities would become the master instead of the slave of money.
The theorists also said that by arbitrarily fixing the price of one country's money relative to another, the planners could manage foreign trade to suit themselves. This was particularly appealing to Britain, whose economy depends so heavily on its position as a centre of world trade.
Well, it soon became apparent that gold did not die so easily. The governments had to prohibit anyone from exchanging money for gold, and vice versa, or else the open market would make a liar out of the governments.
With one further exception that is as far as I propose to go in this excursion into monetary theory, where one can very easily
18, 1355	2183
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act become lost. But I should like to cite a United Nations study made in 1951. This is a study made by five experts appointed by the secretary general of the United Nations, including Professor James W. Angell, of the department of economics, Columbia University; G. D. A. MacDougall, fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford; Javier Marquez, alternate executive director, international monetary fund and formerly professor of economics in Mexico, and two others, one an assistant professor of economics at Oxford University and the other from Australia. It was a study following along the lines of the theory that in modern times governments could not politically tie themselves up in a way that would prevent them from dealing with the unemployment problem within their own borders.
Two studies were made, one on international measures for full employment and the other on measures for economic development of the underdeveloped countries. It was realized that neither of these contained the answer in full, so this group of five was given the problem of dealing with more practical instruments for making these broader concepts work. I should like to read very briefly from their conclusions. They said:
However successful the measures proposed in the two preceding chapters in the fields of commodity trade and international investment, considerable fluctuation is bound to persist in the foreign exchange receipts of many countries. They will be able to maintain a reasonably stable flow of imports, and to avoid periodic tightening of fiscal and monetary policies or of trade and exchange restrictions, only if they have adequate monetary reserves, including reserves indirectly available in institutions such as the international monetary fund.
The point I wish to make particularly is that in attacking the methods of increasing these monetary reserves and the practical means of giving effect to international agreements, they say one method would be to raise the price of gold uniformly in terms of all currencies, as provided for in the articles of agreement of the fund. They go on to say:
Measured in dollars, the official price of gold is no higher than before the war, while prices in international trade have doubled.
If you can imagine the amount of gold that was bought by a dollar before the war and the amount the same dollar would buy today if prices adjusted themselves, you would find that today you would be getting only 47 cents worth of gold. It would be a very small piece, but that is the relationship. The price of gold is no higher than before the
2184	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act war, while prices in. international trade have doubled. Then the report goes on:
The effectiveness of a given gold reserve as a buffer against trade fluctuations has been halved. Increases of 25, 50 or 100 per cent in the gold price would raise the reserves of countries other than the United States by some 3,000, 6,000 or 12,000 million dollars.
That was in 1950; today with greater gold reserves abroad, the figures would be different.
I have not pretended to try to solve the question of what gold's place will be eventually. I think I have said enough to confuse the house and myself to the extent that we will admit the simple proposition that gold does have some practical use and application today. We recognize it as being bought and sold freely in different parts of the world. I may say it is usually bought and sold at a premium. During the Korean episode the price of gold went up to $44 in the open market, as against $35 which was the official and the United States price. This has considerable significance when you think that anyone who took his gold to the United States could only get $35 per ounce for it; anyone who went there to buy gold could have it for $35 per ounce, yet on the other side of the ocean someone was willing to pay $44 per ounce for it. You can appreciate, therefore, that gold has some significance in people's minds.
Even today gold coins command a substantial premium over the $35 per ounce, as you will see from the daily quotations. The louis of France and the American eagle or $20 gold piece normally set at a premium of from $5 to $10, I think, over the $35 price for the gold content of the coin. Gold today, as I say, holds a commanding place. It is the only international money accepted by all nations in settlement of debt, and that includes Russia. Recently Russia was able to make a purchase in Britain by using some gold she had in the till.
In closing I come back to the subsidy question. In the last 30 years gold production in this country had been steadily increasing until the years 1944 to 1948, when there was a setback. At that time this government, through its subsidy, arrested the decline and gold has made headway again since then. The assistance has even improved production somewhat, although it has not been a uniform improvement.
I should like to urge the minister at this point to reconsider his formula. It seems to me that stability and reasonable permanence are needed if the gold mining industry is to go ahead with assurance, and if


there is to be the exploration and development that is necessary to keep it alive. I ask the minister to amend this bill so it will aim at maintaining at least the present level of subsidy, at least the present level of employment and at least the present level of gold production for the monetary reserves of this country. Any lesser course would most surely condemn the government as indifferent to the maintenance of employment, and shortsighted, or more than that, downright improvident in its handling of the country's finances.


Mrs. Ann Shipley (Timiskaming):: Speaking in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like first to thank my good friend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) for his support of the gold mining industry in Canada. I want to comment on one statement he made in opening his remarks, when he referred to the fact that in 1947 the government felt there should be some assistance for the gold mine, so they instituted subsidies. He thought an increase in the price of gold would have been very much better. He did go on, though, to say that this was not a matter that could have been dealt with solely by the Dominion of Canada.
This reminded me very much of what happened during the last election campaign in my riding, which as hon. members know is primarily supported by the gold mining industry. Those who spoke on behalf of the Conservative candidate, and he himself, deplored the use of subsidies to the gold mines and said that if they were elected they would immediately increase the price of gold to not less than $50 an ounce. Subsidies were a very bad thing. Well, being a realist, and therefore a Liberal-	.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marie Ann Shipley: -I asked them how one country could increase the price of gold by $15 an ounce over what it could sell it for, and would not that be a direct subsidy of $15 per ounce? That is exactly what it would be, if you could not sell it for any greater amount. Once the Canadian government put all the gold they needed in their reserves, then if they were going to sell it the gold would be valued at $35 in United States currency or its equivalent. The average subsidy the Liberal administration has paid has been in the neighbourhood of $3.40 an ounce, but of course it will be less than that in this current year and in 1956.
I should like also to comment on something that was said by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue). He made a statement comparing the subsidy paid to the gold mines

since its inception in 1948, with what was paid the coal mines. He cited also one small item of farm assistance. I do not admit for one moment that that is a sound basis of argument. 1 do not believe that a comparison between what is done for one industry or one group of people in Canada and what is done for another is any argument to show why something should be done in this particular instance. To my mind it savours much too much of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"; and this would lead to a very poor administration. .
However, the hon. member made me curious, so I looked up just exactly what had been paid in the other forms of assistance to farmers during the same period, and found that it was more than $441 million, as compared with something over $65 million that had been paid to the gold mines during the same six years. But again I emphasize the fact that in my opinion that has nothing whatever to do with the problem. It depends upon how the industry got into trouble, the number of people involved and the result if assistance is not given, rather than the amount involved.
I would like to deal briefly with a little of the history of gold mining in Canada. The contribution the industry has made to the national economy in earlier and more favourable circumstances, in creating new wealth, in affording steady employment, in stimulating other industries, and in opening up and developing northern Canada by establishing important towns and communities, is a well-known matter of record.
Since 1948 assistance to offset increasing costs has been paid to gold mines by the federal government under the authority of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. This assistance recognizes the fact that the abandonment of the gold standard, the fixing of the price of gold at $35 per ounce by the United States government, the period of managed currencies thereafter, and the unmanaged period of great inflation which has ensued-all, except the latter, done with a view to controlling the currency situation of the world in the absence of the gold standard-are, first of all temporary measures and, in the second place, have created immense burdens for the gold producers and gold producing countries, and the communities concerned.
As I say, I think these facts are generally known, but what is almost always forgotten is that the steps that were taken, that created a depressed industry out of the once great and flourishing gold mining industry, were in the national interest, and
18. 1955	2185
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act that a relatively small group of Canadians are bearing the entire load. There are all too many people who shrug and say, "Oh, well, why worry about gold? You can't eat it". They forget about the depression when we absorbed thousands of unemployed and created work in many factories throughout the whole of Canada by our purchase of supplies and materials. They forget that it was gold men and women, and gold money, that discovered and developed our great base metal mines and found our uranium mines.
There are also those who think that the importance of gold is a thing of the past; but as long as there is a ready market for every ounce that is produced; as long as the governments of the world feel that it is expedient for them to bolster their money with gold holdings, and as long as the general public cannot hold gold in a conveniently negotiable form, then I contend that gold must be as important, as a monetary metal, as it ever was.
Furthermore as an export product, nothing produced in Canada is more readily sold. Canada's entire output of gold could be sold to other countries to help balance our trade, and of course the present output could be multiplied with a more realistic price for gold-that is, provided we are not allowed to die. A gold mine is not like other business; if you close it down it simply becomes a hole in the ground, filled with water and in most cases too costly to open again, even with an increase in the price, except those mines with very high grade ores.
No manufacturer could stay in business if he had to sell his product at considerably less than he did 15 years ago, yet that is exactly the position the gold mines find themselves in today, without a subsidy. In 1940 they received $38.50 per ounce and on January 15 this year $33.79, or a drop of $4.71 per ounce. The recent changes in the exchange rate have made some slight improvement in this.
In this same period the costs of production have soared, as they have in every business. In fact from 1941 to 1952 the increase in cost was $7.78 per ounce. The drop in the price of gold during the same period was $4.23, making a total decrease in revenue per ounce of $12.01. During 1952 the average assistance paid under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was $3.14 per ounce. This represented about one-quarter of the actual loss per ounce to producers.
A large proportion of the increased cost was in increased wages to mine employees. A study of some 18 gold mines in Ontario
2186	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act during the period of the act from 1948 to 1952 inclusive shows that they paid out approximately $16,750,000 in increased wages, whereas the assistance they received during the same period was approximately $12,500,000. In other words increased labour costs alone were in excess of the total assistance received by more than $4 million. The figures I have given were up to 1952, and operating costs are higher today.
In addition to these problems, the gold mines in Ontario are being forced during this year, 1955, to pay over $800,000 in increased power rates. There is much I could say about this added burden but, as it is strictly a provincial matter, I shall not discuss it here. In our heyday the gold mining industry paid the highest wages in any heavy industry in Canada. I would that they were in a position to do the same thing today.
The Labour Gazette gives the following information, in round figures:
Average Weekly Wages	June 1, 1953
Metal mining,	other	than gold	 $75.00
Gold mining		 62.00
Other manufacturing	 56.00
Coal mining	 55.00
The figures shown for 1954 in the Labour Gazette do not give a true picture because of the protracted strike in the Porcupine camp, but the dominion bureau of statistics shows that the average weekly earnings in gold mining as of June 1, 1953, were $62.18 and at June 1, 1954 were $64.40.
Another point that may be of interest is the fact that there are no lay-offs in this industry, seasonal or otherwise. The only time men are thrown out of employment is when the remaining ore cannot be mined at a profit under today's conditions. There is also very little turnover in labour. The Ontario mining association made a survey of 22 of the older gold mines in the province and found that of the 8,000-odd employees involved 37 [DOT] 9 per cent had service of over 10 years, 14 per cent from 10 to 15 years, 11-8 per cent from 15 to 20 years and 12 per cent over 20 years.
The gold mining industry currently affords steady employment to approximately 20,000 Canadians. Many of these are the heads of families and support a number of dependents. In addition it is estimated that for each man employed in a gold mine, four others are given employment in industries supplying the mines with goods and services. During 1952 the gold mines made major expenditures of more than $130 million. Any drastic curtailment in gold mining employment would have very serious effects on the general employment situation in Canada.


I had a survey made in my own camp in the Kirkland-Larder area. The mines purchased, in supplies, more than $5,500,000. These materials came from over 100 different towns, mostly in Ontario and Quebec but some from other provinces as well.
It will readily be seen that the effects, directly and indirectly, of any substantial reduction in gold mining employment are bound to have very serious repercussions on the national economy and would certainly require extensive and expensive measures of rehabilitation and relief. From British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, through Manitoba to northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec there is a chain of towns and communities which depend wholly or chiefly on gold mining activities. One of the principal purposes of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was to afford these communities the means of continued existence. It has been estimated that, exclusive of mining properties, the municipal valuation of these gold mining communities is of the order of $128 million.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the very existence of these communities and the welfare of their inhabitants depend' on gold mining activity. Any curtailment in this activity is immediately felt in terms of unemployment and depressed property values. Any measures which resulted in the closing of a substantial number of gold mines would be disastrous for these municipalities. The problems of rehabilitation and relief would be tremendous and very, very costly.
It should not be forgotten that these are the Canadians who opened up the great mineralized areas of Canada, this huge treasure house comprising almost two-thirds of the area of the whole country, with a future that makes Canada the envy of the whole world. It takes a special breed of man or woman to make a pioneer; it takes imagination, enthusiasm, vision and above all stamina. Everything most of us own is invested in these mining towns; in public utilities, schools, roads and in our homes. If it were not for the assistance as proposed in the amendment before us today many of the mines now operating would have no alternative but to close. I regret that the total assistance had to be reduced. The amount made available will, I hope, prevent any closures provided there is no drastic increase in the cost of operation.
The proposed assistance is being paid to prevent unemployment, and is based solely on the cost of producing an ounce of gold. All clauses that might stimulate production have been removed. I believe that the total amount available is to be distributed, under

the new formula, in the most equitable manner. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and his staff for their painstaking care in the drafting of the new formula.
Canada is not alone in providing assistance for the producers of gold during this trying period. The experience of other countries, faced in different degrees with the same dilemma, is instructive. Producers in South Africa and Australia gained relief and benefit not available to Canadian producers when their currencies were devalued in 1949; the effect at that time was to enable them to obtain a price for gold equivalent to $50 an ounce. The Australian government has instituted a subsidy plan for gold operators. A similar undertaking has been given to the gold producers of the Philippines. Before instituting assistance these countries came to Canada and studied our methods.
In conclusion I would like to read a telegram from the township of Teck, my own community:
On behalf of the citizens of this mining community, I respectfully request the favourable consideration by the government of the continuation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. As you know, this community of 18,000 is dependent on the primary payroll of six producing gold mines within its municipal boundaries. Without the assistance provided by this act it is certain that the majority of these mines would close immediately and the subsequent operations of the others would be on a substantially reduced scale. Over 41 per cent of the total population of municipalities in the entire district of Timiskaming reside in Teck, which provides a ready market for much of the farm and dairy produce of the area. Should this community be permitted to die, due to the mines closing, the resulting economic and social disturbance in the whole district would create many problems for both federal and provincial governments. In addition to the immediate effect on this community and district, the further reduction in gold mining would seriously affect other industries supplying goods and services to the industry and community. The concern of the government for the welfare of this and other gold mining communities was clearly stated when the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was first considered in parliament and on the occasions when the measure was renewed in subsequent years. I wish to express the sincere appreciation of the community for this assistance and to request that the legislation be continued.
H. L. Cooper, Reeve, Township of Teck.
This telegram is typical of those I have received from all the municipalities concerned.
I am confident that this measure will receive the support of the hon. members of this house, as failure to provide at least the amount of assistance set out in the amendment would most certainly create unemployment, not only in gold mining communities but in other manufacturing centres as well.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) and the hon. member who just took her seat. They made a very good case for the gold mining operators and the use of gold as a standard for our currency, but they both completely forgot the man who goes underground and digs the gold. The two hon. members did an excellent job as far as they wished to go. The man who goes underground and digs the gold should have something said in his favour now.
I am not going to argue about the gold standard and so forth. We have heard a lot on that over the last 20 years in study groups and other places, but I will say this. In 1942 what was known as the reconstruction committee was set up in this house. I was a member of that committee. The job that was given to us was to plan post-war employment.
That committee dug very deeply into the realm of economics. Principal Cyril James of McGill University was an adviser to that committee. I remember the discussion on the subject of gold as a standard for our currency in the future. I remember Principal James' answer. He said that gold as the standard of currency was a thing of the past. He said it was his opinion that in the postwar years we would use gold to make wedding rings, to fill our teeth and so on. He said that our currency was measured by the productive capacity of the country, and unless we measured our currency in that way we would have inflation and deflation and burying gold in Fort Knox would not affect it very much.
However, he was not long on that committee. I do not know whether they removed him because of that statement, but he disappeared from the committee. I saw a lot of that man. I thought he was one of the most effective and impressive persons I had ever heard talking; and he knew his subject, any subject on which he wanted to talk. That was his opinion at that time, and it was worth something.
I heard the two hon. members speak, and I appreciate their plea for assistance to the industry. We are now dealing on second reading of the bill with the principle of subsidies, and with that principle I am not quarrelling. It is amazing to see how fast those who support exclusively the system of free enterprise shift their footwork and ask for measures to protect and assist an industry that gets into trouble.
In going to the extent they do with subsidies the government is not living up to some of the things it has said since 1945. For example, in the white paper tabled in the house
2188	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time setting out policy, it was definitely stated that as far as the government was concerned free enterprise had a field that was free in which it could operate efficiently and effectively; but that in any sector of our society where free enterprise did not measure up and do the job it should do, the government would step in and take over.


Marie Ann Shipley: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Marie Ann Shipley: Does he consider free enterprise one that has a controlled price in the national interest?


Clarence Gillis: No, certainly I do not. That is not free enterprise. That is exactly my argument. Those who stick so vehemently to the theory of free enterprise are so willing to adopt socialist measures in order to help it out as long as the profits go to the people they support. That is the thing which amazes me, because if I were a Conservative and I stood for the policies-


Mr. Pearkes:: You should be.


Clarence Gillis: -of the Conservative party I would oppose subsidization as a socialist measure, but they are advocating it. The hon. member for St. Paul's has done an excellent job tonight. If I did not know where he sat in this house and closed my eyes I would say to myself, "This fellow is on the road to socialism."


Daniel Roland Michener: I agree it does not make sense.


Clarence Gillis: So far as I am concerned I approve of the measure because of the value it is to the mining community, the number of people for whom it provides a livelihood, the support it gives the community. Based on the principle of subsidy to an industry in that kind of trouble under the present scheme of things, the government is doing exactly what it should do; it is considering the community and the people who live in it.
The -subsidy is not the only assistance the gold industry receives. The two hon. members who have just spoken would lead you to believe that the $65,441,904.84 received from 1948 to 1953 and the 1954-55 estimate of nearly $16 million was the sum total of the assistance. That is not correct. New mines are given an exemption period of three years during which they do not have to pay corporate income tax. That is assistance. A mining company is granted depletion allowances, which means that 40 per cent of the net profit is exempt from tax. That is assistance. Mining companies, like oil companies, may


now charge capital exploration charges directly to the profit and loss account. Ordinarily the only charges allowed against income are those which have been incurred directly in the earning of that income. That is not so in the case of the mining companies.
The federal government assists these industrial dependents in other ways, such as special freight rates and the provision of services rendered by the department of mines, such as geological surveys, the development of milling processes, etc. That is all assistance. Provincial governments assist them by offering preferred hydroelectric rates and by providing provincial grants to the municipalities in lieu of taxes which the mining companies are not required to pay. That is all assistance.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the hon. member permit me a question?


Clarence Gillis: Surely.


Daniel Roland Michener: I do not think the hon. member is suggesting that this assistance is given only to gold mines. Similar assistance is given to agriculture and other industries. This assistance is shared in, not something special.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know who else gets it. The oil companies receive a lot.


Marie Ann Shipley: Would the hon. member permit another question? In what province do the gold mines receive a preferred hydro rate?


Clarence Gillis: In the province of Ontario.


Marie Ann Shipley: I beg your pardon, sir; they do not.


Clarence Gillis: Well, I have a brief here which supports my statement. You do know that the Ontario legislature appointed a special commission in November, 1954, to inquire into the gold mining industry? You know that?


Marie Ann Shipley: Indeed.


Clarence Gillis: You know that the steel workers' union did extensive research and made a presentation to the commission, which consisted of three professors? I went through that brief presented by the steel workers' union. Their evidence was accepted by the commission. It is from their evidence given to the commission in November, 1954, that I have taken the details of the assistance which I am pointing out now, and I am reasonably sure that the brief was factual.


Marie Ann Shipley: And I am reasonably sure it is not.


Clarence Gillis: You argue that point with Charlie Millard the first time you meet him.


Marie Ann Shipley: That would be a pleasure.


Clarence Gillis: Now to continue with the subsidy business, many companies escape a major share of the municipal taxation which every other industry must bear. Municipalities, in Ontario at least, are permitted by provincial statute to assess only the value of the surface property of the mine. The province reimburses the municipalities in part for the loss of these revenues. Even with these grants mining municipalities receive much less than a fair and just revenue from their chief industry. It is generally conceded in Ontario urban municipalities that industry should bear about 40 per cent of municipal taxes. In 1954 the revenue from all industry, including the provincial mines grant, was only 13-7 per cent of the total revenue of the town of Timmins. In other words not only is the federal government subsidizing the gold mining industry, but provincial and municipal governments are also subsidizing it.
Nor is this all; the miners themselves are contributing a substantial subsidy every year to the gold mining industry. The miners' subsidy is paid in the form of lower wages, longer hours, greater occupational risks, fewer holidays with pay and less fringe benefits than workers in any other comparable industry. To find the extent to which employees are subsidizing the gold mining industry we have only to compare wages, hours, and working conditions of gold mines with those of metal mining other than gold.


Marie Ann Shipley: What about coal?


Clarence Gillis: Coal is worse. That is my battle all the time, and it will be for some time to come. In 1946 wages, hours and conditions in gold mining were approximately equal to those in other metal mining. Since then the conditions of the gold miners have continuously deteriorated. In 1946 wages in gold and other metal mining were about equal. By 1949 wages in metal mining industries were on the average 128 per cent of the average hourly wages in gold mining. By 1953 average hourly wages in other metal mining had increased to 156 per cent of the average hourly wage in gold mining. Between 1949 and 1953 hourly wages in gold mines increased by 20-6 per cent. Hourly wages in other metal mining increased during the same period by 46-2 per cent. Gold miners still work 48 hours or more per week, while 87 per cent of other metal miners have a 40-hour week.
No gold mines allow more than five statutory holidays in a year. Some 77-6 per cent of employees in Canadian manufacturing industries are paid for six or more, while 50 [DOT] 5 per cent are paid for eight or more. In
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act vacation plans gold mining is far behind other metal mining. In the gold mining industry only 3 [DOT] 1 per cent of employees get two weeks' vacation with pay after three years' service or less. In other metal mining 92 * 9 per cent receive two weeks' vacation with pay after three years' service. In other metal mining 86-9 per cent receive three weeks with pay after 20 years' employment. No gold miner is ever granted three weeks' vacation with pay, no matter how long he works.


Marie Ann Shipley: Several of those statements are absolutely inaccurate. What is the source of your information?


Clarence Gillis: You get in touch with that commission before it makes its report.


Marie Ann Shipley: I have read all of them.


Clarence Gillis: This is the evidence they have. As to pension plans, 26-6 per cent of gold mine employees enjoy the benefit of pension plans but 86-9 per cent of employees in other metal mining enjoy such plans. Mr. Justice W. D. Roach of the supreme court of Ontario, in a conciliation board report dated August 18, 1953, in a dispute between the International Nickel Company and the mine, mill and smelter workers' union, stated that the wages paid by the company were adequate merely to support a family of two. The gold mines are paying 30 per cent less on an average than the International Nickel Company was then paying.
The demands of the mining industry upon the federal treasury warrant the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the entire gold mining industry. I think such an investigation would be good for everybody.


Daniel Roland Michener: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Surely.


Daniel Roland Michener: Like my friend the hon. member for Timiskaming I should like to disagree with some of the figures but I do not want to do so now, because I do not want to interrupt. However, I should like to ask this question. Does the hon. member appreciate the fact that the amount of the reduction in subsidy provided for in this bill, namely $5 million, if interpreted in terms of wages would be about $260 per man per year in the gold mining industry, if the government goes ahead with the reduction? I do not say that it will mean a reduction in wages but that, if interpreted in wages, that is what it amounts to.


Clarence Gillis: I am not arguing that point at all. I do not think you can build up wage rates with subsidies. But if it takes an increase in subsidy in order to give the
2190	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act people who dig that ore out of the ground a decent standard of living, then I am in favour of increasing that subsidy. As long as that industry is considered to be necessary to the economy of Canada, I believe in holding it up. If it requires more money in order to put the gold miners on the same footing as people who do equal work-for example, the people in Sudbury who dig nickel out of the ground-then I think it should be provided. I think those employed in gold mining should be on a par with them because the work is equal.
I am not quarrelling with the subsidy at all. As long as we admit that it is necessary to use public funds in order to maintain that industry in the interests of the community and the people in it, I am not quarrelling about the amount of the subsidy. What I am saying, however, is this. Paying that subsidy to the industry alone, just to be used for their own purposes, and ignoring the conditions and circumstances under which the people live who dig that gold is not the proper thing to do. I think a share of the money that is paid by way of subsidy definitely should be earmarked in order to give those who dig the ore a decent standard of living. That is my argument.


Marie Ann Shipley: Would the hon. member permit a question? I just showed that more than the subsidy has been paid out in increased wages. How can the hon. member imply that the subsidy is used for the benefit of the operators?


Clarence Gillis: May I say to the hon. member that I do not know how she could verify the figures she put on the record.


Marie Ann Shipley: I can submit annual statements and audited accounts.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to tell the hon. member that my experience has been this. For a good many years before I came into the house it was my unfortunate duty to be obliged to go in and argue wage rates across the table with a bigger company than any of those in the gold mining industry, but one that was much of the same type. From their balance sheets and from their public statements nobody could get any figures that would give any kind of a picture of what that company was doing.


Marie Ann Shipley: Oh, nonsense.


Clarence Gillis: Just a minute. We have had the experience of signing a contract that had a profit-sharing clause in it. We were


going to share the profits with a big organization. After two years of working under that profit-sharing plan we brought in an auditor. We brought him from Mexico so he would be free and independent. He was internationally known. He was one of the best in the country. He worked on their books for six months. He then came back and reported that no auditor or no one in the world could get any kind of statement as to profit or loss, wages or what the charges were from the books kept by the company. They kept two sets of books, one for their own private information and one for public consumption. He could not do anything with them. He threw up his hands and left. The hon. member may think the balance sheets and statements issued by these people can be accepted at face value, but I know they cannot be so accepted.


George Prudham: Would the hon. member believe our treasury department? They audit all the accounts.


Clarence Gillis: They see the accounts that are given them, but they do not know whether they have half of them or not.


George Prudham: Oh, yes, they do.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, no. Ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who had to handle the subsidies to these big organizations during the war. Sit down and have a private talk with him some day and see what his experience was.
Let us get back, Mr. Speaker, to the subject matter under discussion. In the interests of the people who dig the gold there are certain things that should be done. Two good arguments have been made for the operators, and I am just trying to balance and round the thing out.
I believe this subsidy should be granted on the following conditions. First, I think the difference between wages and working conditions in the gold mines and those in other metal mines should be eliminated. In the second place, since labour conditions and collective bargaining procedures are matters of provincial jurisdiction, this government should seek an agreement with the provincial governments whereby necessary and effective provincial legislation may be secured regarding both minimum wages and collective bargaining procedures.
A welfare fund for miners should be established, financed by the employers and administered by a tripartite board of trustees representing employer, union and government, in order to provide a form of severance

compensation to workers who must retire from mine employment because of old age, exhaustion of the ore bodies or ill health.
I might say that in the coal mines we have had that type of thing for many years and it works well.
Adequate and effective action must be taken by the mine employers and by the responsible agencies of government in order to improve the living and working conditions of miners and to eliminate the hazards of sickness and accident.
A joint federal-provincial training and educational program should be expedited in the gold mining regions in order to help the unemployed workers develop the skills which are required for expanding industries, especially for those new industries which are to be established in the region. I might say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has that type of organization in his own riding today, for retraining the textile workers who were laid off en masse there. I think a similar type of organization should be established not only in the gold mining industry but also in the coal mining industry. I know the minister's department is working on a general scheme of that kind. I hope the gold mining regions will not be forgotten if and when it becomes national policy.
Special attention must be given by the provincial and federal governments to the location and development of more diversified industries in the regions now heavily dependent upon gold mining, particularly the Porcupine and Kirkland Lake districts. I think the hon. member will agree with me that both gold mining and coal mining reach a peak; they peter out, and the communities wind up as ghost towns. Before that situation comes about, steps should be taken to establish some type of industry that is suitable to that locality, and to retrain men who may be weeded out of industry for the reasons that I have mentioned.
That is something that should be done so these communities may not go down. When the gold mines run out, as the coal mines have done and will continue to do, we should have some type of diversified industries based on what that particular part of the country is able to support, so that the churches and schools and homes may not be lost and these towns may not become ghost towns. I think it is well to look ahead to that sort of thing.
I think improved and more effective techniques must be developed and applied by the
18, 1955	2191
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act national employment service in order to facilitate the placement of unemployed and underemployed workers in expanding industries. Financial aid supplementary to and different in purpose from unemployment insurance compensation would help to mitigate, to some extent, the hardships and difficulties of adaptation to industrial and occupational changes in employment.
Geographical labour force transfers present human, social and financial problems and therefore should be avoided where more attractive alternatives can be made available. However, those workers who want to move to industrial areas where employment opportunities are more attractive and more abundant should be given greater financial help. The need for such help is much greater in the northern regions where the costs, risks and uncertainties of moving and re-establishing a family and household are greater. This is so because of the dependence upon a few concentrated employment centres sparsely scattered over very wide distances, and because of the dependence upon a very limited number of resource-exhausting staple industries.
In the few minutes left I should like to say that one of the greatest problems in the north country is that of the worker 40 years of age and over. I may tell the hon. member for Timiskaming that I have spent some time in that territory, and I know what the people are up against. They have always had my sympathy and help in any way I could help them. One of the greatest problems I saw there was that of workers 40 years of age and over. There were so many of them who became unemployed and, because the work was heavy and hazardous, employers were reluctant to take them back. The same is true of the coal mine operators and the nickel people. The country seemed to be full of these men, and they are pathetic figures.
The second point I think should be taken under consideration is the incidence of silicosis. You do not get silicosis in the coal mines; you get anthracosis, which is a different thing and not as bad. But in the metal mines the miners breathe the rock dust which is full of silica, and the disease comes on them insidiously. They begin to feel lazy and drowsy, and realize there is something the matter. They go to the hospital and are X-rayed, but the disease is pretty hard to detect because there are so many different types of chest conditions. But when the disease gets a good solid hold on them
2192	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act they see a doctor and he suspects that they may have it. Of course if it is diagnosed as silicosis it is compensable and the men receive compensation.


George Prudham: It is pretty well under control now.


Clarence Gillis: No.


Marie Ann Shipley: Oh, yes, it is.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, no, it is not. The difficulty I found in the north country, and we run into it in our own part of the country, is that a diagnosis is not made. The doctors will quibble about it, and then the second stage is tuberculosis.


Marie Ann Shipley: Stage?


Clarence Gillis: Exactly. If you let silicosis go on long enough, if it is not detected soon enough, it will turn to tuberculosis and then it is not compensable.


Marie Ann Shipley: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


Marie Ann Shipley: Is the hon. member not aware that silicosis is a disease that is only developed through breathing silica, and that tuberculosis cannot be developed unless you come in contact with the germ? Furthermore, is the hon. member not aware that at least in the province of Ontario if a miner who has silicosis should subsequently contact and develop tuberculosis that is also compensable?


Clarence Gillis: That last statement is news to me. I want to inform the hon. member that I went through that part of her province.


Marie Ann Shipley: A long time ago.


Clarence Gillis: I was in Kirkland Lake in 1941, and I met a man there who had had silicosis for a considerable time. The doctors finally diagnosed his condition as tuberculosis. The man was dying, and in order to protect his family so far as compensation was concerned we advised the man to will his body to his friend, who would see that the body was dissected after the man died in order to prove that he had died from silicosis so his family might receive the compensation pension that he should have been receiving during the years he was struggling along, going from silicosis to tuberculosis.
I have had a lot of experience with this business, both in the coal mines and in the metal mines. I am not so sure but what I have it myself. I want to tell you that after we had that man's body dissected and got the autopsy report we found it stated definitely that while the man had died finally from tuberculosis, he had suffered for some


years from silicosis. As a result the widow and children received the compensation pension.


Mr. Hees:: That was under a Liberal government in Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: That was in 1941. Of course there have been legislative changes in the years since. It was not even in the compensation act then as a compensable disease, but it is today. It has been said that miners do not get silicosis in coal mines. There is a lot of rock blasting and drilling in coal mines also, and some people do pick up the disease. It is one of the most difficult things to detect, because it is well advanced before there is an opportunity to discover what it is.
I have checked with a good many doctors. In fact we convened dozens of them and got their opinion en bloc on the question. I want to say now that the methods used in the province of Ontario, in my own province and in British Columbia so far as the diagnosis of silicosis is concerned are almost as inadequate today as they were in 1941. I can take you to my province. I have not been up your way since 19-


Marie Ann Shipley: -02.


Clarence Gillis: -48. I can take you to my province and show you many men who in my judgment and in the judgment of the local doctor have silicosis. They have been idle for three years, and they are still fighting to prove they have the disability. The compensation doctor says they have not got it. The papers are sent to Dr. Riddell in Toronto, who is looked upon as the final authority. X-rays and reports are sent to him. The local doctor will say the man has the disease, the compensation doctor will say he has not, and in most cases I have seen Dr. Riddell will agree with the compensation doctor in the province of Nova Scotia. I have cases I have been fighting for the last three years.


Marie Ann Shipley: Do you not have a board of referees?


Clarence Gillis: No, there is no board of referees.


Marie Ann Shipley: We have.


Clarence Gillis: There is one doctor.


Marie Ann Shipley: Not in Ontario.


George Harris Hees: Under a good Conservative government.


Marie Ann Shipley: Oh, hush, hush.


Clarence Gillis: When the minister is concluding the subsidy arrangements I hope he will also take a look at the men who dig the gold, and see if something cannot be done for them.

In the present circumstances of the industry I have no objection to helping it by way of subsidy, but I do insist that the man who goes underground, breathes silica dust and takes the risk is also entitled to compensation. I hope the day will come in this and every other country when every last man can be taken from underground and the shafts can be sealed. It is no place to earn a living. I hope these men can some day be placed in factories and plants where they can enjoy the sunshine and fresh air, and work at production that is useful to mankind.
On motion of Mr. Barnett the debate was adjourned.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this debate and then take in the order I indicate these items: second reading of Bill No. 188; second reading of Bill No. 189; the resolution with respect to the great lakes fisheries; second reading of Bill No. 257; second reading of Bill No. 259; the resolution with respect to the setting up of the sessional committee on railways and shipping; second reading of Bill No. 258, with respect to the Municipal Grants Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 21, 1955