1955-03-10

Mr. Speaker:: In our galleries this afternoon I spy not a stranger but a very good friend, the Right Hon. Gordon Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia.
The applause and enthusiasm greeting Mr. Menzies will convey to him, more than any words of mine, the happiness with which we extend to him a most hearty welcome.
(Translation) ;
We extend to him a most hearty welcome. (Text):
Mr. Menzies has now been prime minister of his vast country for seven and a half years. During his remarkable career, in time of war and peace, he has made many trips around the world, in the course of which we were privileged to have him visit us. In addressing us here in 1941 Mr. Menzies spoke of his eventful journey. At one point he said:
I hope the fact, of which I have been aware, that in three or four places which I visited trouble has since broken out, is no responsibility of mine.
Whenever Mr. Menzies leaves "down under" to come "up over", and vice versa, he spreads on his path nothing but understanding, co-operation, good will and love for peace.
He knows, I am sure, that he will find here between our people and his people complete and unlimited brotherhood. We stood together in time of war; we stand together in time of peace. Having found brotherhood to be so vital to win the war, we want not only to preserve that brotherhood but to use it, strengthened by the leadership of statesmen like Mr. Menzies, in order to ensure peace and safeguard civilization.
He will carry with him the affectionate greetings of the members of this house and the people of Canada to the members of his parliament and to the people of Australia.
50433-119J
May God bless Australia and its distinguished Prime Minister.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF COPIES OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table copies of a letter I addressed on March 8 to the premiers of the ten provinces with respect to working out arrangements for a federal-provincial fiscal conference this year. In it I proposed to them that we hold a preliminary meeting here in Ottawa shortly after Easter, say April 21 and 22 if those dates are found to be convenient to them, and that this preliminary meeting should be for the purpose of reaching some conclusion on the broad outline of the agenda of the main conference, and to decide upon an opening date.
There are two versions of the letter. The French version was addressed to the premier of Quebec and the English version was sent to the premier of each of the other nine provinces. As was done with the previous correspondence, perhaps hon. members would wish, for the sake of convenience, to have these letters printed as an appendix to the Hansard report of today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that procedure agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of letter see appendix, paqe 1926.)


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that this preliminary conference is taking place in April, he will consider the suggestion I made earlier, namely that this opportunity be taken to discuss the unemployment situation and the manner in which the federal government and the provincial governments can best cooperate to meet those problems which are in their own fields.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should be greatly surprised if that question was not discussed while they are here.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Prime Minister would be more definite than that. I believe there are many people in

Private Bills
Canada today who would welcome the positive assurance that this subject will be dealt with. We know that already there is uncertainty as to which government can deal with certain problems. We know this problem cannot be solved overnight, but we know that one of the things that requires some understanding is the field of responsibility within which many of these problems lie.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I take it from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that he does realize this is not something that can be dealt with and decided separately from the gfeneral problem of the fiscal relations between the federal government and the governments of the provinces. It is an important factor in those fiscal relations and will certainly have to be considered as such.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we will have to find another opportunity to debate this particular point. With the unanimous consent of the house the discussion can be carried on now, but as it stands there is nothing before the house. The Prime Minister laid before the house certain correspondence having to do with the calling of a conference respecting fiscal policies. I allowed the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question. He did so, and then he commented upon the answer. I think this discussion will now have to come to an end.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not in any way disagreeing with Your Honour's statement as to the position. I would point out, however, that the Prime Minister said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -that he assumed I agreed that this matter could not be dealt with separately. I do not agree that it cannot be dealt with separately, and I think it could be dealt with at this preliminary meeting.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 232, respecting the Bonaventure and Gaspe Telephone Company, Limited.- Mr. Arsenault.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Dorothy Katherine Beattie Gunston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Ellis Hamilton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Joan Shirley Davies Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Joseph Leon Gilles D'Avignon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Mary Ritchie Fleming Benjamin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Doris Wagner Arkin.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 239, for the relief of Lena Robitaille Barre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Antonio Michetti.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Joseph Andre Roland Roy.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Pommer:: 1.	How many families in Manitoba were in receipt of family allowance in each of the months, January to December 31, 1954?
2.	For how many children, in Manitoba, were the allowances paid, during the same period?


Mr. Robertson:: 1 and 2.	1-	2.
Number of Number of Families	Children
January	
115,639	251,949February	
115,950	252,848March	
116,238	253,803April	
116,437	254,358May	
116,706	255,507June	
117,103	256,489July	
117,390	257,676August	
117,633	258,576September	
117,932	259,483October	
117,998	259,135November	
118,340	260,047December	
118,736	260,923


ANNUAL DISBURSEMENTS ON LIQUOR, COSMETICS, ETC.
Mr. Nicholson:: What were the last annual per capita disbursements for: (a) liquor; (b) tobacco; (c) cosmetics; (d) education; (e) comic books; (f) school books; (g) library books?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Per capita expenditures in Canada in 1953, as estimated by the dominion bureau of
statistics were:
(a)	Tobacco	
$30.65(b)	Alcoholic beverages	
58.81(c)	Cosmetics and toiletpreparations	
5.34(d)	Education	
44.61
Estimates for the per capita expenditures on comic books, school books and library books are not available.


NATIONAL DEFENCE RECRUITING CENTRE, SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Bell:: 1 Has the Department of National Defence leased a building in Saint John, New Brunswick, for use as a new recruiting centre?
2.	If so, how long has this building been leased?
3.	Is this building being used at the present time for the purposes originally intended?
4.	If not, for what reason?

5.	Are recruits being received at the Saint John armouries at the present time?
6.	If so, is this to be a permanent arrangement?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since 8th April, 1954.
3.	No.
4.	The building cannot be used as a recruiting centre until it has been renovated.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.


DIVORCE CASES-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Girard:: 1.	Have any cases of collusion or connivance, in connection with divorce cases coming before parliament, been submitted to the Department of Justice since 1945?
2.	If so. how many?
3.	During the same period, have any proceedings been instituted for perjury or any other criminal offence in connection with such divorce cases?
4.	If so, how many?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	No record has been disclosed of the submission of any cases of collusion or connivance.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No information.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


BOOKLET &quot;OUR GOVERNMENT&quot;
Mr. Knight:: 1.	What department of government issues the booklet "Our Government"?
2.	For what purpose was it issued?
3.	Has it been distributed (a) to immigrants to Canada: (b) to others?
4.	How many copies have been distributed?
5.	How many copies were printed?
6.	Who is the author of the booklet?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	The Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
2.	For the use of newcomers attending citizenship classes.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes.
4.	106,075 English and 19,262 French.
5.	120,000 English and 20,000 French.
6.	The Canadian citizenship branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Is one Reuben Ship a citizen of Canada?
2.	Was this person born here? If not, when did he enter Canada?
3.	Was he ever deported from the United States to Canada: if so, when?
4.	Did he ever work for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, in what capacity?
Questions
5.	What were the total earnings of this man for work done with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
6.	Did this person write any plays for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or did the corporation, at any time, buy any of this person's plays? If so, what were the titles of these plays and how much was paid for each?
7.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produce any recordings of this man's plays? If so, how many and what are their titles?
8.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast any of his plays? If so, (a) how many;
(b)	at what time; (c) on what stations?
9.	Were any of this man's recordings distributed or sold to anyone? If so, to whom, and how much was paid for them?


TRAVEL BY MINISTERS OUT OF CANADA
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	Between January 1, 1954 and January 31, 1955, how many trips, paid for in whole or in part by the public treasury and/or using transport supplied by the public service or national defence department, were made by ministers of the crown to points other than in Canada?
2.	For each trip (a) who made it; (b) to where;
(c)	for what purpose; (d) what expenses were collected from the public treasury in respect thereof; (e) if national defence or other publicly owned transport was involved, between what points was it used?


FOREIGN DECORATIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Why and when were regulations made, forbidding acceptance by Canadians of decorations from foreign governments or states?
2.	In how many cases in each year since 1945, have foreign governments or states asked leave to grant decorations to Canadians, within the classifications prohibited by the government, and in how many cases was consent refused thereto, and for what reasons?



ROYAL COMMISSIONS


Mr. Low:: What were the names and the total remuneration paid to each of the legal advisers employed by (a) the Rowell-Sirois royal commission, and (b) the Massey royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences?



TELEVISION


Mr. Thomas:: 1.	What is the cost per week to (a) the Department of National Defence; (b) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for the production of the television program, "Canadians in Khaki"?
2.	What would be the revenue to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation if this time were leased to a commercial company?



RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What reports have been made on trade or commercial practices by the restrictive trade practices commission in each year since it was established, to date, indicating briefly the nature of the complaint or practice investigated in each case?
2.	With respect to the situations covered by these reports (a) in which ones was a legal opinion asked for as to prosecution, and to whom
1882	HOUSE OF
Business of the House was that question referred in each case; (b) what was the conclusion as to prosecution arrived at in each case; (c) in which ones have prosecutions been initiated; (d) which ones have been com-! pleted, and with what results; (e) which ones are still before the courts; (f) were there any cases in which the effect of the legal opinion was that prosecutions were justified but no prosecution was launched, and if so, for what reason; (g) which ones are still under consideration by counsel as to whether prosecution is warranted?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on Wednesday, March 16th, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would consider letting this motion stand for a little further discussion of the matter.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that the effect of the motion is to bring an end to private members' days at the time the government originally intended, but in view of certain developments which are known to all hon. members the result is we will have had only seven days this session on which private members' resolutions have been discussed. That is fewer than is usually the case and I would hope, if we cannot reach agreement across the floor of the house, that by discussion outside it might be agreed that we could have at least one more day. Would the Prime Minister consider letting the motion stand?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is quite aware of the fact that all opposition groups asked that the half day last Wednesday be abandoned, after having been advised by a representative of the government of what the consequences would be in making that request. I restated the situation the night before last, warning that we would move this motion at this time.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the house what attempts were made, if any, to assemble an immediate conference with the provinces to deal with the present critical unemployment situation?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister):	There were none made, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of his answer to my first question. Does the Prime Minister believe that a preliminary conference held late in April and a dominion-provincial conference held later in the year will suffice to deal adequately with today's critical unemployment situation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister's attitude is that that will be the opportunity to deal with this important problem.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, arising particularly out of the distinctively conflicting statements made in the last few days almost concurrently by Sir Anthony Eden and Secretary of State Dulles.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the minister in a position to report with regard to the Far Eastern situation today? Is he in a position to advise which stand Canada takes with reference to the islands of Quemoy and Matsu?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no developments that I know of regarding Formosa and the islands which have altered the position since I answered a question asked on this subject by the hon. member on February 24. The United Nations security council has not been dealing with the matter recently, but efforts have been continued through diplomatic channels to bring about a cease-fire in the Formosa

straits. These efforts it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, would have more chance-indeed it is essential, if they are to have any chance of success, that force should not be used against the islands which my hon. friend has mentioned and that force should not be employed from those islands against the mainland.
We shall have an opportunity shortly, I hope, to discuss external affairs, and I emphasize "shortly". On that occasion I shall be devoting most of my remarks to the Far Eastern situation, when I will try to explain in somewhat greater detail than has been done so far the government's position in this matter.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Will the Prime Minister consider postponing, at least until after the discussion in the dominion-provincial conference, any changes in the income tax law as proposed in this house on January 17?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government is always disposed, Mr. Speaker, to consider any matter of public concern; but the correspondence tabled in this house some weeks ago did indicate recommendations which were going to be made in respect of income tax in the forthcoming budget.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with reference to a building being constructed in Lindsay by the Canadian National Railways. Why is the construction of this building being undertaken through a contractor when there are so many section crews being laid off and so many building and maintenance men out of work?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That question will have to be brought to the attention of the authorities of the Canadian National Railways. They are the ones who are administering the railway, and all these questions have to be referred to them for answers.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Arising out of the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., does the Prime Minister consider
Inquiries of the Ministry that the government has no responsibility with regard to the actions of the Canadian National?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, the Prime Minister has made no such statement. The current administration of the Canadian National is carried on by the officers of that company. Whenever there are questions asked here in the house that require to be answered, the questions are referred to the officials of the Canadian National for the information, which is not kept in the records of the government in Ottawa.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask again whether the Prime Minister will make definite recommendations to the administrative officers of the Canadian National in this regard?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will make no such definite recommendations to the officials of the Canadian National. The policy has been to select competent officials and leave them with the responsibility of properly administering this great railway.
(Translation) :


ST. GEDEON  REPORTED CLOSING OF STATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: I
would have liked to put a question to the Minister of Transport or to his parliamentary assistant but, in their absence, I trust I may be allowed to put it to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister be so kind as to tell me whether it is a fact that the Canadian National Railways intend to close the St. Gedeon station, in lake St. John district, and to cease operating the day train between Chambord and Dolbeau?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I will call the attention of the Minister of Transport to the hon. member's question. Personally I am not in a position to answer.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED CLOSING OF SEVERAL STATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, it might be appropriate for me to thank the hon. members for this fine reception.
I wished to put a question to the Minister of Transport or to his parliamentary assistant but, in their absence, I shall do like the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) and direct the question to the Prime Minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Is the Prime Minister aware that the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, has reportedly decided to close several railway stations, such as those of St. Stanislas and St. Adelphe, in Champlain county, of St. Elizabeth, in Joliette county, of St. Perpetue, in Kamouraska county, of St. Joseph-du-Lac, in Nicolet county, and of Villemontel, in Abitibi county?
Is he also aware of the fact that, beginning March 26 next-


Mr. Speaker:: In his request for information, the hon. member is giving out too much of it himself. Questions allowed on the orders of the day must be of an urgent nature. Obviously, there are questions of relative urgency, and there are others which must be answered at once if, otherwise, the public interest, in a general way, would suffer. However, questions of a local nature must be avoided, in favour of questions of national interest.
If the hon. member had placed his question on the order paper, he could have had an answer within a few days. This would have satisfied his curiosity and the requirements of the people on whose behalf he put the question. I therefore must ask him to revise his question and to have it placed on the order paper.
(Text):


DEVELOPMENT OF SERUM BY DR. MURRAY OF TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of press reports from Toronto this week. Is the minister in a position to make any statement to the house concerning the work of Dr. Gordon Murray in the development of an anti-cancer serum? Is the government giving Dr. Murray all possible help in connection with this very important work?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to give all possible help within the terms of the cancer control grants, which are shared with provincial governments.


OIL-ALLEGED MEETING BETWEEN CANADIAN AMBASSADOR AND UNITED STATES UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of certain press reports appearing yesterday could the minister make a statement to this house outlining the reasons for, and the results of, some meeting between the Canadian ambassador, Mr. Arnold Heeney, and the United States under-secretary of state, Herbert Hoover, Jr., said to have been held early this week?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not had time to read the newspapers today. I have not seen any reference to the meeting in question, so perhaps my hon. friend could elucidate the matter at another time.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Has he seen a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette concerning statements by officials of the welfare association that malnutrition is threatening the aged people who have to live on a $40 monthly pension, and what is the government going to do about this?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not seen the story. I generally read the Gazette at night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you read this tonight you should have a nightmare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, with regard to the second part of my hon. friend's question, there is no one in the house who knows better than the hon. gentleman how much this government seeks to do for that particular group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How much or how little?



INCOME TAX


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 124, to implement an agreement between

Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


James Joseph McCann: In the debates on Bills Nos. 124 and 125 on February 28, the hon. member for Greenwood questioned the omission from the two agreements, and therefore from the bills, of any reference to provincial income tax and succession duties. There are in force at present five income tax and three succession duties agreements for the avoidance of double taxation between Canada and various foreign and commonwealth countries. None of these agreements deals with provincial taxes.
If any province should ask the Canadian government to include provincial taxes in an agreement between Canada and another country, whether it be in relation to an agreement already in force, or one which may be negotiated in future, the Canadian government will be glad to consider the request in a helpful manner.
There may be problems of constitutional law and treaty procedure involved, but at this time 1 shall not try to solve those particular problems.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to an undertaking which was given to me by the Minister of National Revenue, as it appears at page 1576 of Hansard. So far as I understand the statement made just now by the minister, he has done nothing to carry out this undertaking. The minister's undertaking was in these words:
If the Minister of Justice does not come into the house between now and the time we finish with this bill, before third reading I will have an opinion from him with reference to the legislation.
My understanding is that the Minister of National Revenue has read to us a statement of his own.


James Joseph McCann: I did not say that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then do I now understand that this was an opinion he read? Was it an opinion of the Department of Justice that the minister was reading?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, that is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then all I have to say is that that is not an opinion at all. Even a reformed lawyer like myself knows that it was merely a statement of intention, in case of certain eventualities arising. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's undertaking is totally uncarried out. I request that this matter be not dealt with until we have an opinion on the question I raised. This is 50433-120
Income Tax
not an opinion as to whether the matter should have been dealt with or was overlooked. This is a statement that if on a future occasion a province asked to have it dealt with, the request would be considered. And that, I maintain, is no answer at all to the point I raised.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might endeavour to provide my hon. friend with an oral opinion.
Canada has not included the provinces the hon. member for Greenwood has named, nor, as my colleague the hon. Minister of National Revenue has said, any other provinces for that matter, in these agreements with Ireland or with any other country. In my opinion, to do so would be a quite unwarranted intrusion on the part of Canada into the treasury policies of the provincial governments upon whose behalf Canada, on its own initiative, might presume to make such contract.
It must be remembered that under our constitution the governments and legislatures of the provinces, while acting within their own proper jurisdictions, are just as sovereign as is the government of Canada, and that when a provincial legislature imposes succession duties and income tax it is acting within its jurisdiction.
I suggest the point that my hon. friend from Greenwood, who has just spoken, has overlooked is that every agreement between governments, such as the government of Canada and the government of Ireland, to avoid double taxation of any kind, such as in the case under discussion, to avoid double income tax or double succession duty, is one the express purpose of which is to benefit the taxpayers of the two jurisdictions concerned.
I would point out to my hon. friend that this benefit to the taxpayer is wholly at the expense of the governments which are parties to the agreement to avoid double taxation. And if as the hon. member for Greenwood has suggested Canada were to presume to conclude an agreement, we will say with Ireland, on behalf of Ontario, in order to avoid double taxation, we would be undertaking to reduce the revenues of Ontario without consultation with the government of that province, in a manner which I suggest the hon. member for Greenwood himself, upon reflection, would regard as wholly indefensible.
Now, quite apart from the fact that we have no constitutional authority for presuming to reduce the revenues of a provincial government in this way, we think such an act on our part would be an unwarranted interference with the treasury policy of the province

Income Tax
concerned. To demonstrate in a practical way why this is so, perhaps it might be more clear to my hon. friend from Greenwood if I were to take a hypothetical case and, in order to simplify that case, leave Canada out of the picture altogether and consider a hypothetical agreement between the province of Ontario and Ireland.
In order to put this in practical form, let us suppose there is a Mr. Ireland domiciled in Ireland who has property in Ontario on which the succession duty to Ontario, because the property is located there, would be $200, and on which Ontario property Mr. Ireland, living in Ireland, would also have to pay $200 by way of succession duty to Ireland, because of being domiciled there. At the same time let us suppose there is a Mr. Ontario domiciled in Ontario who has property in Ireland upon which the Irish succession duty is $200 and upon which because he is domiciled in Ontario the Ontario succession duty is $200.
I am suggesting that, in the absence of an agreement, on these facts Ireland would collect $400, of which $200 would arise from the fact that Mr. Ireland is domiciled in Ireland and $200 from the fact that Mr. Ontario has property in Ireland. Ontario likewise would collect $400, of which $200 will be from Mr. Ontario because he is domiciled in Ontario and the other $200 will be upon property Mr. Ireland has in Ontario. In other words there will be double taxation as a result of which the government of Ontario and the government of Ireland will each get the sum of $400.
If an arrangement to avoid double taxation were entered into between the two governments concerned the result would be that each government would get only the tax upon the property located within its boundaries. That is, they would each get $200, and the taxpayers in Ireland and in Ontario would likewise pay only $200. The $200 which would be saved to each of the taxpayers would be at the expense of the two governments concerned.
My hon. friend has been criticizing the government of Canada because in dealing with Ireland it has not undertaken on behalf of Ontario to reduce the revenues of Ontario by concluding a treaty for that purpose with Ireland, and notwithstanding that the government of Ontario has not requested such a treaty. I believe that if the hon. member, as the former general manager of a trust company, would reflect upon the situation he would agree that it would be an unwarranted act upon our part to presume to do what he has suggested in relation to the
[Mr. Garson.l
sovereign powers of the province of Ontario over its own treasury policy. If Ontario wants to enter into a contract to avoid double taxation, as a result of which, while the taxpayers may benefit, the government of Ontario itself will lose substantial sums of money from its treasury, surely that is a matter which should be left to the sovereign authority of the province of Ontario.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member has already spoken on third reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am rising to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. The question is this. So far as I know there are means of communication between Toronto and Ottawa. Would it not have been reasonable, if this point had been in mind and had not been overlooked, to communicate with the province of Ontario? Would it not have been reasonable to communicate with the province of Ontario, as the minister has stated, so that if the province should ask to have its citizens considered, it would be done?
In other words, I ask the minister again: Is it not perfectly clear from what has happened that this has been overlooked; that the matter should not be dealt with now, but that communication should be had with the province of Ontario because this will affect not only the Irish situation but others which may be much more important? In a word, may I ask the minister whether this long, carefully prepared statement which he has just read is not entirely beside the point when we remember that it was perfectly clear-and I am asking whether it is perfectly clear-that no communication has been had with Ontario?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that the hon. member must ask his question without such rather long elaboration.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has asked me a question on a taxation matter upon which I do not pose as an expert; but I shall try to give him a completely candid answer. He asks why we should not approach the Ontario government and suggest to it that at the time that we conclude a treaty to avoid double taxation with another country, we should include Ontario in that treaty. My answer to that question is that for two reasons we should not do so. The first of those reasons is that, having regard to the fact that the government and legislature of a province now exercising their provincial powers under our constitution are just as sovereign as are the government and parliament of Canada, it would in my opinion be quite improper for us to make

to that government a suggestion volunteered by us that it had not sought that it change its provincial treasury policy in relation to a matter which is wholly within its own provincial jurisdiction. The second and more practical reason why there should not be consultation in the case of Ontario is one that was brought up by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and which the hon. member for Greenwood will find at page 1578 of Hansard of February 28, 1955, where the minister stated that at the present time the Ontario succession duty act provides there should not be double taxation of Ontario citizens in relation to Ireland. The relevant provision which was read into the record by my colleague reads as follows:
Where estate, legacy or succession duty is paid by an Ontario resident to any jurisdiction which has been designated by the lieutenant governor in council, the duty levied in Ontario shall be reduced by the amount of duty so paid in the foreign jurisdiction which does not exceed the amount of duty levied in Ontario. This allowance is granted whether the other jurisdiction grants similar relief to its residents in respect of Ontario duties or not, though formerly it was granted only if the foreign jurisdiction reciprocated. The jurisdictions designated by regulation 33 include Great Britain and Northern Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Eire, Quebec, the District of Columbia, and the states of the United States of America. Regulation 33 was first established by order in council on June 21, 1946. It is now incorporated into the consolidated regulations.
Therefore, far from our having to intrude into the affairs of Ontario in order, as my hon. friend suggested in his remarks the other day, to protect citizens of Canada resident in Ontario, the fact was that at the time he was making his speech they were already protected by Ontario regulations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister not think that his answer is quite irrelevant? As he says, Ontario has an arrangement. Does he think that relieves the dominion, when it is making an agreement of this kind, from inquiring as to the position of the citizens of Ontario from their representatives, namely the provincial government? That is what I am suggesting.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, when we make an arrangement with another country such as Ireland we should not make that an excuse for intruding into affairs that come under the sovereign authority of the province of Ontario. If Ontario wished those privileges in respect of taxes which it imposes upon citizens within its boundaries, then it would be a very simple matter, if it wished to do so, to raise the matter with us. But suppose we did approach Ontario or any other province, and my hon. friend were to put a question on the order paper as to whether we had approached them with this suggestion and 50433-120J
Income Tax
suppose that this got into the newspapers, it would put the government of Ontario in the position where we by our questioning them had indicated they should enter into an agreement to avoid double taxation, and it would imply a criticism upon our part which, for my part as one member of the government, I certainly would not wish to imply.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have just one question. Does the minister not think this delicacy, which has suddenly become so important here, is rather ridiculous? The province of Ontario can be asked a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his only privilege would be to ask a question of the minister. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert financier, but I am intensely interested in these two bills and I should like to see them passed today so that a week from today we shall celebrate the 17th more happily than ever.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to withhold any measure of celebration from the hon. member for Fort William.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know he will observe the proper restraint in that respect.
I think the matter should not be left quite where it is at this moment. There is something more owing to the house than the Minister of Justice has yet vouchsafed to give it. The point is simply this. The federal government undertakes certain negotiations with the Dublin government with a view to exchanging certain reciprocal considerations with respect to succession duty and income tax impositions. The federal government must be aware of the fact that the province of Ontario imposes a succession duty. It must be aware also that the province of Quebec imposes succession duty and income tax. Yet it appears that, without any reference to the two provinces to ascertain whether they are interested at all, it goes ahead and negotiates this agreement confining those exchanges simply to federal income tax and succession duty.
Surely it would have been a reasonable thing to expect, when the federal government was undertaking such negotiations, that they would have some communication with the two provincial governments concerned, somewhat to this effect: We are undertaking negotiations with the Dublin government

Income Tax
with a view to exchanging reciprocal considerations. Are you interested in this so far as your succession duty is concerned or, in the case of Quebec, so far as your income tax is concerned? If you are interested in this and wish us to carry on such negotiations we shall be glad to see if this exchange can be enlarged to include your taxes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member for Eglinton that we are discussing the principle of third reading of Bill No. 124, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax. The hon. member for Greenwood asked a question which I am afraid has brought us a little far afield from what I think hon. members would consider to be relevant debate on third reading. I would ask the hon. member for Eglinton to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill. While I am on my feet may I remind hon. members that this bill deals with income tax, and that there is a subsequent bill dealing with succession duties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, on third reading I submit that we are not confined to the principle of the bill; that was the limitation on second reading. We are having a discussion today because on second reading an undertaking was given by the Minister of National Revenue to obtain an opinion from the Department of Justice. That was the reason the two bills were held over for third reading. The Minister of Justice has made a statement today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member for Eglinton is proceeding under a misapprehension in that respect. He is referring to some undertaking by the Minister of National Revenue. I understand that the hon. member for Greenwood was referring to a statement as reported on page 1576 of Hansard of February 28. He may correct me if I am wrong in this assumption. The Minister of National Revenue is reported as follows:
I shall note the suggestion made by the hon. member. If the Minister of Justice does not come into the house between now and the time we finish with this bill, before third reading I will have an opinion from him with reference to the legislation.
I take it that is the undertaking or alleged undertaking to which both hon. members have referred. May I make the observation that in my opinion there is no undertaking to bring anything into the house. Further than that, I am afraid I was dilatory in not drawing to the attention of hon. members earlier that this reference is with regard to

the subsequent bill which deals with succession duties. Therefore at this time we are prevented from dealing with this matter, because we would be debating another matter which has come up during the same session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, call it undertaking, statement, agreement or whatever you wish, it was given and clearly understood at the time to be with respect to both matters. For the sake of simplicity and in order to save time both matters were being discussed together. The statement made today by the Minister of National Revenue applied to both bills, and similarly the opinion expressed today by the Minister of Justice applied equally to both bills.
However, I have made my comment on what I think was the course that should have been followed without intrusion into the constitutional field of the provinces. I feel further that in making his observations the Minister of Justice has indicated a remarkable sense of delicacy with regard to the constitutional prerogatives of the provinces. This is in striking contrast indeed to the attitude adopted by the government on some other noteworthy occasions.
In the discussion of this matter on second reading I reminded the government of the very different course it followed in 1937, when the government negotiated the general agreement on tariffs and trade into which was written over the signature of the representative of the federal government article No. 5, which bound this country to do something outside the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. It was something purely within the legislative competence of the provinces, as it had to do with permitting the operation of road vehicles in bond across provincial highways between points of origin in the United States and points of destination in the United States.
That was something which was completely beyond the power or jurisdiction of the federal authority, yet on that occasion the federal government was not thereby deterred from entering into that international agreement. When it had been entered into the federal authority was completely powerless to carry it out and had to look to the province of Ontario to carry out an undertaking given by the federal authority. At the time the undertaking was given the province of Ontario was not consulted by the federal government in any way, shape or form. Obviously on that occasion the federal government went far beyond the course that was proper and which should have been followed.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I am still waiting for the hon. member for Eglinton to co-operate with me in discussing the bill now before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made my point as obvious as I could. In defending the course which the government has taken and in rejecting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Greenwood, the Minister of Justice has based his position on an approach to constitutional responsibility which has been marked by extreme delicacy. I am simply reminding him that his point is not well taken, either in this present instance or in relation to precedents which this government has established. Whereas the federal government on that other occasion had no warrant whatever for doing what it did, the federal government here had ample warrant for following what would have been the friendly and sensible course of asking the two provinces that have entered into these fields of taxation whether they were interested in having the agreement extend to them as well as to the taxation imposed under federal authority.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, following up the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood on February 28 with regard to the proper term to be used in referring to the government of Ireland, I would refer hon. members to page 1568 of Hansard where the Minister of National Revenue is reported as follows:
Reference is made to the government of Ireland which is that part of the island known as the Free State. Northern Ireland is part and parcel of the agreement we have between Canada and the United Kingdom. The people who live in Northern Ireland have exactly the same opportunities and conditions under the agreement existing between Great Britain and Canada. The agreement now before us is an agreement involving what one might call the rest of the island, and it is referred to as the government of Ireland.
The proposition is not quite as simple as that. The term there used is not the correct one, and there should be some clarification. The government of southern Ireland was originally known, under the regime of the Cosgrave government, as the Irish Free State. Then under the de Valera regime it was known as Eire, and under the Costello regime it was known as the Republic of Ireland. The government of Northern Ireland under the regimes of Craig, Andrews and Brooke has been continual ever since partition was put into effect, and it has been known as the government of Northern Ireland.
The implications are so many and involved that the government of Australia, unlike Canada, has indicated it is not quite satisfied with the term used and it has refrained from sending envoys or ambassadors to the republic
Income Tax
of southern Ireland. Therefore, in view of the fact that this title is not quite clear and needs rectifying, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stanton):
That Bill No. 124 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole to consider the alteration of the name of the other contracting party to its proper designation, the republic of southern Ireland.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I intervene in this debate it is to point out that if this amendment were carried it would undoubtedly make our relations with Ireland much more difficult. Earlier in this discussion some reference was made to delicacy of constitutional approach. I can think of nothing less delicate, from the point of view of our relations with the government of Ireland, than the adoption of an amendment of this kind which would make extremely difficult, if not impossible, the negotiation and signing of agreements with that country.
To support that position, Mr. Speaker, I must put on the record what I think is the factual situation with regard to the designation of this state with which we are negotiating this agreement. As my hon. friend who has just spoken has pointed out, it is true that between 1921 and 1927 the 26 counties of southern Ireland were known as the Irish Free State. It is also true that the Irish constitution, adopted in 1937, stated- I think it is article 4-that the name of the state is Eire or, in the English language, Ireland. That is how these people have designated their own state in their own constitution. I submit that is the proper designation because it is the constitutional one.
Article 2 of this constitution states that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland: but article 3 in the constitution provides that pending-and I think these are the words of the article-reintegration of the national territory as so described, the laws enacted by the Irish parliament are to be limited in application to the area of the 26 counties.
Then in 1949 Ireland severed her last remaining link with the crown by a statute which is named, it is true, the Republic of Ireland Act. It is also true that that act declared that the description of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland. However, I believe that this does not change the name of the state as established by the constitution, which could only be changed by a constitutional amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date of the constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The date of the constitution is 1937. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the description of Ireland in this treaty

Succession Duty
is the proper one. If it were to be altered, it would be extremely difficult indeed for us to negotiate agreements with a country in a name which that country does not accept for itself. I also submit that the correct form of address for the head of the Irish state is the President of Ireland. But when we use this word "Ireland" or the expression "President of Ireland"-certainly this is our understanding-that use carries no territorial or political implications of any kind. I therefore feel that the wording of the agreement is the proper one and that it would be most unfortunate if it were changed, and I submit that this amendment should not be adopted.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow one question? What is the proper description of the portion of Ireland not comprised within what the minister refers to as the government of Ireland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The description of that part of the island of Ireland which is not part of the state of Ireland is, I understand, Northern Ireland. It is, of course, in the description of Her Majesty's titles, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the amendment was moved I have been giving consideration to it. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the bill has attached to it an agreement which is described as an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Ireland. I have also listened carefully to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). It would appear that that is the appended name of the signatory. It would therefore appear, in one light, that should this amendment be adopted there would be nothing which the committee of the whole could do and it might therefore be considered that the amendment was a nullity. Under these circumstances I am forced to decide that, in my opinion, the amendment is not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rowe:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



SUCCESSION DUTY


James Joseph McCann: the third reading of Bill No. 125, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to succession duty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have no intention of detaining the house any further, but now that I am free to do so I wish to say a word to reiterate that it seems to me that the explanation given is most unsatisfactory. It would seem to me that the course of common sense would have been to communicate with the provinces. Nothing that has been said has changed my mind in the least. At the moment, it seems to me that we have a situation with several agreements outstanding which later on may prove to be faulty. To me it is a great pity that what I can only describe as unregenerate political pride prevents the thing from being cured.


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


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann:
That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records; that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary; that the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting; that the committee shall consist of the following members:	Messrs. Balcer, Beaudry,
Boisvert, Bryson, Carter, Cauchon, Decore, Diefenbaker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Goode, Hansell, Henry, Holowach, Kirk (Shelburne - Yarmouth - Clare), Knight, McCann, Monteith, Reinke, Richard (Ottawa East), Richardson, Robichaud, Studer, Weaver; that standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, someone has said that the Indians used to broadcast messages by holding a wet blanket over a fire. Today there are times when I think with the help of the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its television programming we have the wet blanket with us in person.
I make that observation at the beginning to indicate that I am not in complete sympathy with all aspects of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This corporation was conceived originally by a government devoted to freedom, and this same Conservative government dedicated the corporation to supplementing private radio, encouraging Canadian talent and extending radio service in Canada to those areas which might otherwise be deprived of it.
In the years that have passed the succeeding Liberal administrations have tampered considerably with this worthy concept. They now have, among other things, an organization which monopolizes the field of network radio in Canada, far and away the most lucrative of all fields of radio, an organization which largely monopolizes television in Canada and completely monopolizes the major centres of Canada in which television is now being presented. Other members of the house, notably the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, have explored some aspects of the problem quite thoroughly previously in this debate. In the opportunity now offered me I should like to go a little further afield and present certain information which may be of value to the committee in its examination of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the various facets of its operations.
The first point I should like to make concerns the somewhat slap-happy use of funds by the corporation and, shall we say, the somewhat questionable ways in which some of these funds are being spent. I turn now to one specific instance which I shall develop in some detail because in my opinion it shows quite clearly what the government has developed in this field and what the corporation is doing with the funds placed at its disposal by the government. The argument I wish to develop has to do with the association of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with an organization commonly known as CAPAC, its full name being the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Limited.
This organization has for its purpose the licensing of musical performance rights for use by radio stations and other organizations. The revenue from these sources is then remitted to the publishers, authors and composers with, as far as can be ascertained, the greater portion of the revenues going directly to the publishers. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been uniformly and surprisingly generous in its dealings with this
Special Committee on Broadcasting body. The interesting thing about it is that at the present time, having two broad fields of radio broadcasting in Canada, one the C.B.C. and the other the private stations, we find that the C.B.C. makes payments to CAPAC on a substantially different and more generous basis than do the private radio stations of Canada, despite the fact that the purpose of these payments is exactly the same in each case.
For proof of this I turn to the Canada Gazette of January 29, 1954, in which is published the schedule of payments to CAPAC. We find there tariff No. 2 covering radio broadcasting, section (a) of which is as follows:
By the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for all broadcasts from stations owned or controlled by it a fee of one cent per capita of the population of Canada as latest reported by the dominion bureau of statistics, plus a sum equal to 12 per cent of the gross revenue as hereinafter defined . . .
Then there are a few words indicating the financial statement which is to be used. Section (b) reads as follows:
By each other licensee of the association for all broadcasts from the station owned or operated by such licensee a sum equal to 13 per cent of the gross revenue as hereinafter defined . . .
Reference is then made to the financial cutoff date. We have here a clear case of the C.B.C. paying one cent per capita to this organization, which amount is not paid by the private radio stations. I may say, and I shall develop it further shortly, that the tariff would have been substantially higher if it had not been that the private radio stations had to make a case in their own defence which ultimately benefited the C.B.C. as well as themselves.
Looking at the history of this particular agreement we find that when the existing tariff was established CAPAC requested from the privately-owned broadcasting stations eight-tenths of a cent per capita plus 2\ per cent of the gross revenue, and from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation one cent plus 2j per cent of their gross revenue. This proposition was strongly opposed by the private radio stations but the C.B.C. position- remember, this is an expenditure of public funds made by the C.B.C.-is set out by Mr. Peter Wright, counsel for the corporation, in the proceedings before the copyright appeal board on January 23 and 24, 1952. It will be found at page 660, and is as follows:
The attitude of the C.B.C. has been made perfectly clear in all the hearings and in the briefs, namely, that CAPAC had advanced a tariff, and we have looked at it, and we are advancing no objection.
Again Mr. Wright says at page 665:
That is why I have been particularly solicitous not to take a position before the board, and not
1892	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting to examine Mr. Allard, because my position was that the tariff was in the Gazette, that we had read it, and that we had no objection to it.
With that sort of attitude it is easy to see that if it had not been for the work and effort of the private radio stations the original demands of CAP AC would have been met and agreed to. Actually the position was that after some two weeks of debate carried almost completely by the private radio stations the agreement I set forth originally was arrived at, namely that the C.B.C. and the private radio stations would each pay If per cent of their gross revenue and the C.B.C. would pay an additional one cent per capita of population.
This final agreement, Mr. Speaker, in comparison with the originally proposed agreement, represents an annual saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the radio stations, both private and C.B.C. In the case of the C.B.C. this is a direct saving of many tens of thousands of dollars which benefits the taxpayers, yet this is money which the corporation would willingly, as the statements quoted show, have thrown away.
Having established the fact that the C.B.C. is prepared to deal more generously with CAPAC with public funds than the private broadcasters seemed to deem wise, let us have a look at how this money is used. This is important in examining the attitude of the C.B.C. If CAPAC were essentially a Canadian organization dispensing its funds in Canada it is possible that the attitude of the C.B.C. would be justified, on the grounds of encouraging Canadian talent and offering such talent adequate remuneration. This is simply not the case. CAPAC is primarily an extension into Canada of a United States organization known as ASCAP. The full name shows a remarkable similarity, in that it is the American society of authors, composers and publishers.
I shall not go into all the details, for the relationship between these two organizations was set forth quite adequately, I believe, back in 1947. When the United States of America proceeded in court against ASCAP they named the Canadian CAPAC as one of the co-conspirators in the particular action they were taking. We must realize also that CAPAC could only be an extension of the United States organization because of the fact that the United States organization controls the great bulk of the music performed on radio stations in that country and the great bulk of music performed over Canadian radio stations as well.
Turning then to what happened, having shown the relationship between the Canadian


organization and the United States organization and established the fact that this relationship exists, let us see what happens to these funds which are paid by the C.B.C. to the CAPAC organization in Canada. In that connection I should like to give certain quotations from the Broadcasting-Telecasting magazine of April 13, 1953. We find there that Mr. Louis Bernstein, treasurer of the United States organization, reported to the society's annual meeting that their total revenue included $1,329,400 collected for performances of ASCAP music abroad. Later on in the same article the following statement is made:
Last fall, Mr. Bernstein said, ASCAP members got $390,000 in royalties for broadcasting rights to ASCAP music in England and Canada.
Since the revenue to this Canadian source, CAPAC, was approximately $718,000 in 1953, of which the great majority came from radio stations; since we have seen the relationship between this organization and the United States organization; that funds are paid by the Canadian organization to the United States organization, and that the commodity which the Canadian organization is selling is so largely a United States commodity, I think we are quite justified in assuming that the payments being made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to this organization are being very largely funnelled off into the United States. The point in that connection is that various estimates have been made-CAPAC does not publish detailed financial statements of the money it pays out- by informed people, ranging as high as 90 per cent of the revenue of this body being diverted to the United States.
I want to turn now to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government. I ask them to enter at some point before this committee a defence of such an iniquitous agreement by which, first, the corporation pays on a totally different basis from private radio stations; second, not only does it pay on a totally different basis from private radio stations but it pays it through an organization which essentially is doing very little for the development of Canadian culture, Canadian artists, Canadian composers or Canadian anything else. I feel that the great bulk of the people with whom I have talked who know something about the operation of radio in Canada believe that the C.B.C. has a legitimate function in the development of Canadian talent, as do the private radio stations, who have done an outstanding job in the field. Most informed people view that function as one in which payments

are made directly to Canadian authors, directly to Canadian composers, directly to Canadian artists, and the money kept in Canada. This is not the case under the agreement.
I should like to say just one or two words more about CAPAC before I leave it. The board of directors is not entirely Canadian. Four out of the existing 12 directors give as their addresses various points in the United States. There is some indication that other directors are representative of other groups in other parts of the world. I was interested in finding on that directorial body in 1951 a civil servant of long standing. I think we may just leave it there, Mr. Speaker. It is a peculiar arrangement, because it certainly is not to the benefit of either Canadian talent or the Canadian taxpayer.
I turn now for a moment to the delay in establishing television stations in the major Canadian centres. In that connection I should like to first remind the house of the indefinite attitude of the government at various times when the question has come up. When will a station operated by a private organization be established in Montreal or Toronto? The government has never been very definite about that, but it has been most hopeful. It has held out the promise that in the indefinite but very near future we will have such a station.
Let us view that promise in the light of certain information which has recently become available. I quote from the March 4 issue of Marketing, at page 20, where I find the report of a television forum held in Montreal, one of the participants being Mr. W. E. Powell, commercial manager of the C.B.C. There is this section I would like to quote:
Powell was also asked, "When, if ever, is the C.B.C. going to amend its policy of one TV station to one major market?"
"It is not C.B.C. policy: it is government policy. I do not know."
"Isn't it government policy based on C.B.C. recommendations?"
"It is government policy to extend the television network across Canada first."
Having said that I turn to Hansard, and I find the minister's statement at page 1806 where, halfway down the first column, we find this:
It is expected that the complete coast to coast service will be in operation in about three years, with portions to be completed well before that.
I am not going to delve into this aspect any more, but I do wish to put these quotations on record so people in these cities will know that, according to those quotations, the government has not the slightest intention of installing for at least three years private T.V. in Montreal, Toronto or any of the other major centres asking for it. I think that should
Special Committee on Broadcasting be a matter of record, and I would like the government to stand up to it and, if that is their intention, to say so.
Then, going back to that quotation for a moment but in relation to another subject- it is most interesting, because one gets all sorts of things out of it-let us compare the minister's statement in the house on March 7 when he said:
Because of the nature of broadcasting the C.B.C. has been placed by statute In a position in which it is not responsible to a minister of the crown in carrying out its activities. It is answerable to parliament itself. Quite differently from my own department, for instance, I am not responsible for the general activities of the C.B.C.
Yet let us compare the last three sentences of the quotation to which I referred-and I shall repeat them so they may be compared with what the minister said-with the minister's assumption that the C.B.C. is a little entity unto itself, of which he knows very little and over which he has very little control. Here we have one of the representatives of the C.B.C., Mr. Powell, saying:
It is not C.B.C. policy: it is government policy. I do not know.
And then this question:
Isn't it government policy based on C.B.C. recommendations?
The foregoing statement is substantially what is found in the minister's statement. Mr. Powell's answer is:
It is government policy to extend the television network across Canada first.
In other words, no matter what face may be put upon it by the government either in the house or elsewhere, the operators of the C.B.C. are very much aware of who cracks the whip. And it is the government that cracks the whip. It is the operating personnel of the C.B.C. who, I imagine, very often subordinate their own interests and their own decisions to follow the direction of the government-and in considerable more detail than the government admits.
If we examine this further, there is a most interesting comparison that can be made between the statement of the minister responsible for this corporation in the house, as he placed it before hon. members on March 7, and what was said in an address by Mr. Dunton, chairman of the board of governors, on December 26. Charlie McCarthy usually uses the words Edgar Bergen puts into his mouth, and in exactly the way they are put in. Because of that we cannot quite call the minister in the house Charlie McCarthy, nor can we call the chairman of the board of governors either Charlie McCarthy or Edgar Bergen. But I shall
1894	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting place their words on the record so we can see just how closely they come to each other.
I have given hon. members my two sources for these quotations. This is the chairman speaking:
This year Canada has become in many ways the second television country in the world.
Then a couple of months later, speaking in the House of Commons, the minister:
Hon. members may not realize that in the short space of two years Canada in a number of ways has become the second television country in the world.
Almost word for word. Then the chairman speaking:
All these stations, both public and private, are carrying national program service.
And then the minister:
All these stations, both publicly and privately owned, carry national program services.


James Joseph McCann: The same facts.


William McLean Hamilton: And
the same words.


James Joseph McCann: How do you change them, when they are facts?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Revenue will write and deliver his own speech, I shall write and deliver mine.


James Joseph McCann: I delivered it the other day, and you are copying it, repeating it.


William McLean Hamilton: And
then, again the chairman of the C.B.C. speaking:
The coverage of the system now extends to about three-quarters of the population of the country.
And the minister:
Altogether over 70 per cent of the whole population of Canada is now within coverage of the system.
Again the chairman:
Television is extensive and complicated. In general it costs more than five times as much as sound broadcasting.
And the minister:
I have never tried to hide from the house the fact that television is very expensive. For instance, as I am sure hon. members are aware, almost anything in television costs from five to ten times as much as the parallel thing in sound broadcasting.
And the chairman again:
There are, for instance, still some areas within the country without service, especially in some outlying parts of the country-
And the minister:
There are still a great many areas of the country and a considerable portion of the population not within reach of television coverage.


I do not know who is apeing whom, but it is a remarkable achievement if those two speeches were written independently of each other by the two gentlemen.


James Joseph McCann: Yours is just a reiteration of what you have quoted from the magazines.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William McLean Hamilton: Oh,
let him have his say. It is probably the only original statement he has made in the house in this debate.


Mr. Weir:: Very smart.


William Earl Rowe: Page Charlie McCarthy.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Who sits on whose knee?


William McLean Hamilton: now turn for a moment or two to the C.B.C. accounting system. The hon. member for Eglinton made reference to this subject on March 8, at page 1822 of Hansard, and I shall not labour the point. His reference contains the complete data from the Auditor General's report. I would remind the house, however, that the Auditor General questioned the propriety of certain reserves; and in the report the Auditor General reminds us of the 1952 suggestion that the system should be carefully reviewed. He states in his 1953-54 audit:
The manner In which the accounts were kept during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, was not found to be conducive to satisfactory audit.
The hon. member for Eglinton dealt with that subject adequately. However, there was one point which has since come to my attention, and which to my mind is important. It is contained in paragraph 18 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, where it says:
The corporation shall establish and maintain an accounting system satisfactory to the minister.
Now, here is the minister who got up in the house, in his original statement, and in his sweet innocence disclaimed responsibility for the operation of the C.B.C. He said they were responsible to parliament, and that he really did not have anything to do with it. In fact he could not answer at all many of the questions about the C.B.C., and that of course has been obvious for many years. But here we come to a point where a statute established the responsibility for the accounting system with the minister. And we find the Auditor General saying in respect to this same accounting system that the manner in which the accounts were kept during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, was not found to be conducive to a satisfactory audit. These are accounts for which the minister is responsible.

I can only say in that respect, Mr. Speaker, that it may well be a carefully thought out policy of the government that they should have placed the C.B.C. under the direction of the Minister of National Revenue, who collects the great bulk of the taxation from the people of Canada. It may well be that one of the most fundamental difficulties we have at the present time is that the other accounts and the other financial operations under the direction of the minister are carried on in an equally haphazard way, a way which might very well lead to similar observations.
I should like to turn for a few minutes to some remarks of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth). At page 1832 of Hansard he asked:
Is it not ridiculous to say there is no competition with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation system?
He pointed to the existence of 150 privately-owned radio broadcasting stations and 18 privately-owned television stations. The hon. member for Eglinton, whom the hon. member for York Centre was trying to counter at this point, made a strong point of the fact that there is competition with the C.B.C. in radio broadcasting, but none is permitted in television broadcasting. If, as the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. has admitted, competition from the privately-owned stations has been a good thing for the C.B.C. in radio broadcasting, why should it not be a good thing in television broadcasting? Here we have two policies that are mutually and completely contradictory.
At page 1832 of Hansard we find the hon. member for York Centre saying:
But a careful listening to his speech this afternoon-
He was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton.
-convinced me that he would like to scrap the present set-up and turn over Canadian radio to the soap operas and the advertising jingles of the commercial hucksters.
In the first place, this is an attempt to cover up by the use of words. He tried to find objectionable words in ordinary commercial procedure. But more important, it is a complete misrepresentation of the statement of the hon. member for Eglinton, and is a typical example of the way in which in this debate and many others the Liberals have been running away from the main issue. The soap operas to which he refers are on the C.B.C. programs. The advertising jingles of the commercial hucksters are heard on the C.B.C. programs. Yet, while parliament heavily subsidizes the C.B.C. to reduce or eliminate the commercial element from its programs, that element has actually increased
10, 1955	1895
Special Committee on Broadcasting and the C.B.C. revenues from commercial sources have increased tremendously.
The third point in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre that I should like to touch on is this. He has pretended that the only way to keep American English language programs off the television channels in Quebec is to preserve the monopoly the C.B.C. holds in Montreal. He apparently is unaware of the fact that privately-owned French language television stations have been licensed in the province outside of Montreal. No one surely pretends that these stations are going to carry American programs in the English language.
The C.B.C., in obedience to government policy, has deferred consideration of all applications for French language stations in Montreal. For example, the application of La Presse for a licence for a French language station has been deferred for several years. Listeners who desire an alternative to any program on the C.B.C. French language television station in Montreal must turn to an English language program. If French language privately-owned stations were licensed in Montreal listeners would have an alternative French language program to turn to. Thus we see the government policy of local monopoly has actually limited the French language stations in the Montreal area in exactly the same way that it is limiting English language television not only in Montreal but in innumerable other centres.
I most respectfully suggest to the hon. member for York Centre that in future he confine himself to the facts and refrain from the usual partisan claptrap that we hear so often.
In the few minutes that remain to me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn to some of the statements the minister made in the house on March 7 and make a few comments on them. At page 1804 of Hansard a great deal is said about partnership between the C.B.C. and private radio and co-operation between the two types of organizations. I ask the minister, what type of co-operation is it, what type of partnership is it when one body is the regulatory body and the other body is that which is regulated? It is exactly the same type of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, the same type of partnership, that exists between the judge who sends a man to jail and the prisoner who stands in the dock before him, and 1 have never heard it advanced that there is too much co-operation in that field.
We find the minister saying:
I believe we in parliament have to realize that ultimately we have the over-all responsibility for what television brings into the Canadian home and what its relationship is to our genera] national life.
1896	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting
That is the minister's statement. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the type of state visualized oy George Orwell in his book entitled "1984". That is the type of thinking they had. Why should the government decide what television will bring into the Canadian home? Does the government not trust the Canadian people? Can the Canadian people not decide for themselves what they want to bring into their own homes? The people themselves, in essence, select the program because they can always turn the switch on or off. If they turn it off often enough the private television system goes broke, or it goes broke under the present system unless it is supported by government subsidy; and if the government is subsidizing any organization to bring the people something they do not want and they will not look at, then who is wrong, the people or the government?
Let us assume that every member of the House of Commons is a man or woman of the utmost intelligence and good will. Let us even assume that each one of us here is omniscient. That still does not give us the right in a democracy to decide what millions of Canadians will hear and see. It is the duty of this house to pass from time to time laws which set forth what our citizenry as a whole shall do. These laws apply equally to all citizens, including the operators of radio and television stations. There is no reason why the government should continue to intrude further in this particular field, to continue to interfere with the rights of free Canadians in the one field of radio, a field that is vitally important to Canadians. So far by diligent application we have kept this field free for newspapers, we have kept it free for other media of mass dissemination of information; but it is in a field exactly comparable to these that the government is interfering, and is now continuing to expand its control and its grasp of the facilities, namely the field of radio.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is almost up. There is a mass of information that could be brought before this house and passed on to the committee proving innumerable points. However, I do feel that the arguments which have been made here, both by hon. members who have preceded me and by myself in my poor way, may perhaps give this committee some indication of the sorry state of affairs which now exists in the C.B.C. under the minister.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have heard hon. members refer to the talks over the C.B.C. as being sometimes to


the left, sometimes to the right and sometimes to the centre. Judging by the length of some of the speeches we have heard by members of the Progressive Conservative party I would suggest, if I may use the terminology of an old steam engineer, that a lot of them have got on centre and have not been able to get off.
My remarks will be brief. Primarily I rose to associate myself with members of this group and other hon. members in the house in supporting the motion that the government set up a select committee to look into the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As a member of that committee I look forward with some anticipation to its deliberations.
My knowledge of radio broadcasting relates more to the technical aspects than to anything else, but I hasten to add that that knowledge is extremely limited. However, that limited knowledge permits me to question the proposition put forward by hon. members in relation to broadcasting, as to who shall or who shall not be responsible for broadcasting in this country. They advance that question in an effort to establish what agency would likely bring about the most desirable end result. According to a lot of hon. members the end result is culture, whatever that means. I always panic whenever I hear the word.
There are 150 private broadcasting stations operating in Canada. The critics of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation lament the fact that they are in competition with the C.B.C., but I think that is a debatable point. If they are in competition with the C.B.C. I maintain that they are in that position because the C.B.C. has made it possible for them to be in that position. I am always amazed when I hear organizations lamenting that they are being discriminated against because they cannot get into some lucrative field which someone else has spent a great deal of time, money and energy in developing. I maintain that the private stations operating in Canada at the moment are enjoying a pretty lucrative business from a dollar and cents point of view.
I repeat that had it not been for the C.B.C., in my opinion the only agency that could possibly have established in the first instance the kind of broadcasting system we have in this country, we would not be enjoying the quality and type of program that is presently being presented. A recent survey carried out in the United States-and I have no reason to believe that Canada is different-indicates that regional revenues are falling off but that local advertising is increasing by leaps and bounds.

Something was said to the effect that local broadcasting stations are able to further the interests of local talent, and so forth. I submit that that is not done to an extent commensurate with the increased revenues they are enjoying. The Massey commission reported that the private owners of broadcasting as an industry and their stations hardly rate a pass on cultural programs. They stated that too many stations regulated in principle by the C.B.C. offer programs which must be described as regrettable. In a sampling of five stations there was no attempt to fulfil the proper function of the local station, to reflect the life and interests of the community and to use and develop local talent available. They reported that spot announcements crowd their programs. Only very rarely can limited revenue be advanced as an extenuating circumstance for this inexpensive and unimaginative programming.
There is criticism that the talks are always a form of propaganda. I suppose that is true, and I suppose also many people would put forward the proposition that the sermon on the mount is propaganda. In my opinion that is a very weak argument to put forth. Whether the talks are biased to the right or to the left I do not think should be of any concern.
I have not mentioned television because I feel that at the present time at any rate there are many factors which make it imperative that the control of television remain vested in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One factor to be considered is the limited number of channels available. I think most important of all is the fact that television can create tremendous impressions for good or evil. I am not going to say anything about operating revenue, because I think possibly some revisions will be brought about during the course of the committee hearings. I am sure these questions will be fully investigated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I want to add very little to what has been said, and just on two points. There are two points in connection with which we seem to be following a course of unreason, and I am bold enough to believe that even cabinet ministers are reasonable men as a rule. Therefore I do not despair that if we keep hammering at this matter some day changes will be made.
As I say, there are two things I should like to comment on, one of which I have commented on before. In this connection I should like to quote from page 282 of the Massey report as follows:
Special Committee on Broadcasting The principal complaint is that the C.B.C., ". . . is at one and the same time competitor, regulator, prosecutor, jury and judge".
It is very hard for me to understand how reasonable men can go on maintaining that situation. I think we can understand how it arose originally, and indeed I fully expect that I shall have it cast up at me that a great leader of the party to which I belong at one time was in favour of it. But that is a good many years ago. Radio has developed beyond the dreams of those days. It is the situation of today with which we are dealing. If I remember aright, when I raised this point on previous occasions the minister answered me by reference to the Massey report. I want to read a paragraph of the Massey report because it seems to me that, in purporting to deal with the complaint that I make, they do not deal with it at all. All they say is-and with this I fully agree- that there should be regulation. What I am complaining about is the kind of regulation.
Here let me interject what I intended to say at the outset; I want to make this very clear. I am a great believer in the C.B.C. I admire a great deal of the work they do. I think we ought to be grateful for the work they do. My leader has gone out of his way to praise the work they do. What I am complaining about is government action in creating two situations which I think are wholly unsound.
The first is the dual character of competitor and regulator. I want to read from page 283 of the Massey report because I think the argument which they make and which they seem to think justifies the present control does nothing whatever, I suggest, to justify the present control but merely justifies control, of which we are all in favour. I read from page 283:
Broadcasting in Canada, in our view, is a public service directed and controlled in the public interest by a body responsible to parliament.
I am all in favour of that.
Private citizens are permitted to engage their capital and their energies in this service, subject to the regulations of this body. That these citizens should be assured of just and eaual treatment, that they should enjoy adeauate security or compensation for the actual monetary investments they are permitted to make, is apparent. We shall have recommendations to make on this matter later. But that they enjoy any vested right to engage in broadcasting as an industry, or that they have any status except as part of the national broadcasting system, is to us inadmissible.
It seems to me they get involved in a hopeless confusion there. They seem to me to confuse the national broadcasting system- that is to say the regulatory body as it
1898	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting exists now-with a national broadcasting system with which I agree and which of course should have a regulatory body but not one which is also a competitor. I am not going to pursue that matter at length. I am not saying anything that is new. I just go on repeating it, on the drop of water theory, hoping that one day the obvious unreason of it will become apparent and that action will be taken.
Great stress is laid on the fact that the private broadcasters say that they have not been unfairly treated. That consideration does not impress me. Suppose that, by a happy accident, we have at the present time men who are capable of the most absolute fairness that could be found in the world. They are not immortal. One of the most dangerous things in a bad system is to have good men running it, or in a sense it is one of the most dangerous things; because people will say, "They are doing well; they are being fair" and hence you may be tempted to go on with a thoroughly bad system.
I just want to make one more point. This system is not one whit more reasonable than the one you would have if you created a situation whereby the Canadian National Railways had full power over the Canadian Pacific Railway. The situation is absolutely on all fours. I can see no difference whatever. Yet I venture to say that there is not one member in this house who would stand up and suggest that the Canadian National Railways be given the power of regulator and controller as well as competitor.
The second thing I wish to speak about is the matter of finance. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has dealt with the matter fully and adequately. I propose only to underline one or two things. I say deliberately that I do not see how sensible men ever thought up such a proposition as the one whereby the C.B.C. at the present time gets its income. How the ex-minister of finance, for whom we all have the greatest respect, ever had it put it over him, I do not know. All I can say is that when a good man goes wrong, sometimes he goes terribly wrong. I want to quote from what he said when the bill was passed in 1952-53, as reported at page 4185 of Hansard of April 21, 1953;
It is therefore proposed that the Canadian Broadcasting Act should be amended to provide that the corporation should in future receive from month to month the amount of revenue yielded by the present 15 per cent special excise tax on television sets and the picture tubes for such sets, . . .
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

And later:
In this way those who buy sets, or the replacement tubes for them, will be providing the basic revenue necessary for C.B.C. television services.
And later on he said that they will deal in the same way with regard to the sound service and that that tax will be earmarked for them too.
I should add that the idea behind this proposal-if there really was an idea of any kind behind it-was that those who used the service should pay for it. It was thought apparently that in this way some kind of rough justice was going to be achieved. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you might as well-take any ridiculous illustration you like-for example say that the people inhabiting jails should pay for the upkeep of the jails because they are the people who are receiving the benefit. I deliberately take a ridiculous situation because this thing is so ridiculous.
By some happy accident that nobody could have foreseen, it might have worked out that the amount which the C.B.C. received in this fantastic manner would have been just about the amount which they needed. If that had happened, the absurdity of this arrangement might not have become so apparent. I think it is a good thing that it did not turn out that way. I am still hoping that as time goes on the absurdity of this thing will become apparent and that when it becomes sufficiently apparent and the ministers are in a good mood, it will be changed.
Actually what has happened is, as we all know, that television sets have sold much more freely than was anticipated, and the results have been to give the corporation much more money than was intended. Of course what has happened is what happens to us all when we get more money than we should have: We come to be careless with the money. The hon. member for Eglinton pointed out something which interested me greatly yesterday, namely the two-year delay in referring the matter to a chartered accountant for advice. I am not surprised that there was two years' delay. I would have thought that they might be hesitating even yet to bring this absurd situation to the attention of serious men.
I want to point out one or two of the obvious absurdities which have arisen by reason of the easy money which they have been receiving. First of all, I should point out that their income in the year 1953-54, as has been pointed out, was $27,431,000, of

which 84 per cent was derived from taxation.
If my arithmetic is correct, that means that about $23 million came from taxation and the rest was earned.
We now have this beautiful irony. In the statement we find that they have an operating surplus. I think that is what they call it. They have an operating surplus of $6,500,000. In a financial set-up so extraordinary and so unusual it may be that they experienced difficulty in finding words to describe the situation; but for an organization with an income of $27 million, 84 per cent of which is derived from taxation, to announce that it has an operating surplus of $6,500,000 is something that I should think would make an ordinary accountant jump out of his skin.
I think an accountant who has to deal with this situation is going to have a job on his hands.
To give another fantastic illustration, because the whole thing is fantastic, I suppose we may roughly describe the Canadian people as the shareholders of this corporation. These shareholders contributed 84 per cent of the corporation's income and yet at the end of the year they find that the officers of the corporation tell them that there is a surplus of $6J million when of course, with any proper system of accounting and taking as their income only what they earn, they had a big deficit. All I can say is that these shareholders would wonder whether they were reading "Alice in Wonderland".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No dividends.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I want to bring these two points forward. I repeat what I said. So far as financing is concerned, I cannot understand how any sensible man ever thought up a system whereby the corporation was to receive its income in this way from the entirely unpredictable revenue through the tax on instruments sold. Now that the result has proved to be what anyone might have predicted, that it is contrary to common sense,
I do hope that before too long the government will come to us with some arrangement to cover the financing which reasonable people can understand and approve.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make in connection with this debate, but I would not like to miss this opportunity of putting them forward.
All Canadians, except the government, agree in deploring the government's interference with radio and more particularly with television. There is no doubt whatever that this
10,	1955	1899
Special Committee on Broadcasting absolute control over television constitutes a direct infringement on the rights of private enterprise, a state of affairs which cannot be condoned in a democratic country.
Once more, in this instance, Mr. Speaker, the government has interfered unduly and in a damaging way with the rights of private enterprise, thus demonstrating their zealous centralizing tendencies in every field.
In spite of the majority which the government now enjoys in this house, and the fact that its decisions are impossible to reverse, it does seem appropriate to put forward a few recommendations regarding certain programs.
In exercising such control over television, the government must assume the responsibilities it involves. In so doing, the government must look to the quality of the programs and films being broadcast, in order to protect the morals of televiewers, and particularly that of our young folk.
I know that some programs and films do not rate very high morally, regardless of their source, and I am told, whatever may be said about them, that protests already have been made, on several occasions, to that effect.
This is evidenced by the official strong representations made quite recently by the council of public education of the province of Quebec, which Is composed of Their Excellencies the Bishops, whose competence on matters of ethics and morals can certainly not be questioned.
They have stated-and the press has repro duced their protest-that certain television programs are definitely immoral and, as such, dangerous for our people.
Therefore I would suggest that the government have certain films checked and passed upon before they are shown. It should be realized that television comes into our homes and that our children, whom it is our duty to protect, are exposed to certain programs unsuited to their age or their mental development. The people's mental standards will be on a par with their moral standards, and it is the duty of our governments to help keep both at a level of which we can be proud.
The government claims that it has a state monopoly on television and that it forces that monopoly upon us only because of its desire to protect our culture and avoid commercialism.
Everyone will agree with me that so far the very reverse has been the case and that endless commercials have invariably taken the place of cultural programs.
1900	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting
Mr. Speaker, each year Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing the C.B.C. to the extent of $6 million plus about $16 million, which in 1954 the government raised in the form of sales and excise taxes on radio and television sets.
It seems to me that when Canadian taxpayers are contributing about $22 million a year, they should at least have the benefit of valuable cultural programs, while commercialism, which is frequently overstressed and in bad taste, should be restricted.
Another danger that needs pointing out is that of the choice of Canadian artists for television productions. The C.B.C. is a government institution, and some very highly rated performers who cannot obtain contracts often wonder why. I am afraid that, if it is not yet so, politics may seep into this institution, which would imply serious discrimination against certain artists whose value and talent cannot be questioned.
I hope the minister who controls the C.B.C. will note these few remarks and that he will try to give them all the attention they deserve. I urge him especially to keep in mind the vigorous protest lodged by the episcopal body of Quebec and I hope he will take the necessary steps to ensure that no program, no film shown, shall be in any way contrary to morals.


Mr. Boisvert:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Surely.


Maurice Boisvert: Does the hon. member know that film censorship is left to the provinces and that no film can be shown without being submitted beforehand to a provincial censorship board?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I know very well that we have in the province of Quebec a board of censors which has always shown its worth and done a splendid job with respect to education in the province. However, what is to be feared-what has happened in fact- is that a program, escaping the notice of the censorship board, is shown nevertheless.
I am certain that any film or program which has been passed by the provincial board of censors will not incur any protests on the part of our bishops.
(Text):


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


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this time to take very long in closing the debate. However, I think I should take advantage of the opportunity to attempt a rebuttal of some of the arguments that have been advanced. I am thankful to all who have taken part in the debate, to my friends in the opposite corner who have consistently supported throughout the years the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I also welcome the criticism that has come from the official opposition. That criticism has been made pretty much by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell). I will say this much for the hon. member for Eglinton. He is at least consistent because for the third time now I have heard almost the same identical speech on the subject of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not from me.


James Joseph McCann: I am glad that Santa Claus has a defender in the hon. member for Eglinton. I doubt very much if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has as much faith in Santa Claus because his political stocking has not been very full for the last number of years.
The arguments put forward at some considerable length by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Greenwood support the old idea of a separate, regulatory body in addition to the C.B.C. and the Department of Transport. I do not propose to deal with these arguments at any great length. However, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has quoted from the Massey commission report, I may state that the subject was carefully considered by that commission. I often wonder at our Conservative friends continually pressing for royal commissions to examine into matters having to do with government affairs and yet, when a commission constituted of eminent men in this country brings down a report, in no instance have I ever heard them agreeing with anything but the minority report. The minority report was quoted at great length with reference to the opinions of Mr. Surveyer, who issued a minority report.
After studying our broadcasting system exhaustively from one end of the country to the other, the Massey commission strongly recommended that the present method of control, that is the board of governors of the C.B.C. and responsibility to parliament, be

maintained. I know that the idea of an extra controlling body must have some superficial appeal to some people who have not studied our broadcasting system in Canada and who have been subjected to very persistent propaganda.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the minister a question?


James Joseph McCann: But the facts are still there as found by the royal commission and by many earlier parliamentary committees. The arguments put forward by the hon. member for Eglinton yesterday and by the hon. member for Greenwood again today do not become sound just because they are repeated over and over again. They are just as fallacious each time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister permit a question?


James Joseph McCann: Not at this time. For instance, the hon. member for Greenwood keeps comparing the broadcasting system of the country with the railway system. I am quite familiar with your technique, and I do not propose to allow you to use it on me. You think the oftener you keep interrupting you will throw the speaker off his line.
They keep comparing the broadcasting system with the railway system. They are two entirely different things. In Canada, we have two main railway systems, one privately-owned and one publicly-owned. The two are similar in structure and they do just about the same kind of job right across the country. In broadcasting it is quite different. From the beginning we have had one over-all system. All the private stations have been licensed as component parts of that system in the general co-ordinating powers of the C.B.C. which is responsible to parliament. My hon. friend talks a lot about competition, but he ignores the fact that the majority of the private stations are affiliated with C.B.C. networks and receive service from the corporation at public expense. In addition, they get a distribution of the revenues that the national system gets for nation-wide advertising.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is operation, not control.


James Joseph McCann: Stations have been licensed with the idea that they should provide alternative community service as part of the general pattern. The government does not intend to propose changes in the system of control and clear direct responsibility to parliament, and you can accept that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister propose, then, that that subject be excluded from study by the committee?
Special Committee on Broadcasting


James Joseph McCann: Not at all; I have nothing to do with the agenda of the committee. They may make their own agenda based on the terms of reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have certainly narrowed it now.


James Joseph McCann: The system has worked well, and even those who argue for an extra body dividing the responsibility seem to be able to find little fault with the way the system has worked through the years.
Now, I call your attention to the fact that we have built up a widespread, sensible coordinated system of broadcasting. Incidentally, a great many stations have done very well for themselves.
I do not want to take issue with my hon. friend in his comments about specific programs. I would not say that I necessarily disagree with what he has said, but I have to correct him on one point. He spoke very strongly about the communist party having free political time during the last election campaign. I think it was about 15 minutes. In this connection, he spoke about the government approving C.B.C. regulations for political time. I must point out that under the Canadian Broadcasting Act the government has no power to approve, veto or amend C.B.C. regulations. This is entirely the responsibility of the corporation itself.
In this regard I believe my hon. friend would do well to consult the representatives of his own party who spoke for his party at meetings with the C.B.C. to discuss the rules before the last general election. I believe he will find a sharp difference between what he was saying the other day and what the official spokesmen for his party said at that particular time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at all.


James Joseph McCann: My friends of the Conservative party often surprise me. For instance, they keep insinuating that in its operations and programs and regulations, the C.B.C. is under the thumb of the government. They do this in spite of the fact that it plainly is not, under law made by parliament. They do this also in spite of the fact that what goes on the air includes a great deal of material with which many Liberals and members of the government do not agree at all. Apparently my hon. friends think it is quite wrong for the government of the day to determine or influence the operations of the C.B.C. and what goes on the air. We on this side of the house have always agreed with that, and it was a Liberal government that passed the present broadcasting act giving the system far more independence than it had before. Yet my hon. friends keep suggesting
1902	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting things which would, in appearance, at least, bring the corporation more directly under government influence.
The hon. member for Eglinton once again made quite a fuss because provision has been made for revenues to the corporation over a period of years, and that was reiterated by the hon. member for Greenwood. He appeared to want an annual vote of parliament. In this connection I should like to remind him of the views of the Massey commission. On page 294 of its report it said:
Although other essential government services depend on an annual vote, it is so important to keep the national radio free from the possibility of political influence that its income should not depend annually on direct action by the government of the day.
If my hon. friend's proposal were carried out, then we should have the government each year deciding on the estimates laid before the house. I am sure that then we would have our hon. friends opposite claiming that the government determined just what the C.B.C. did in every way because the government would control these estimates year by year.
Since my hon. friends mentioned the fact that the Auditor General had not reported favourably or had some comment to make about the accounting system of the C.B.C., I should like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, December 8. This is the report of an interview with Mr. Watson Sellar by Reg. Hardy. The article reads:
Speaking to this writer Mr. Sellar said that the "weaknesses" he had referred to in his letter of October 23, 1952, were not major ones.
"They had to do with such routine matters as the method of clearing accounts, taking of inventories, etc.," he explained.
"Indeed, they were so minor that I had forgotten just their exact nature until asked about them by the press.
"They were matters of detail-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister is purporting, as I follow him, to read something that a member of the press gallery reports in one of the Ottawa newspapers as having been said by the Auditor General outside of the house in relation to a report that he, in his capacity as an official of this house, has written. In my submission it is highly improper for the minister to read and to place before the house something that has been said outside the house by a very important official of the house, who has expressed views in an official letter written by him to the minister in his capacity of Auditor General in the discharge of his duties.
Now the minister apparently is purporting to read something reported in a newspaper as coming from the same official, and which is designed in some way to qualify something


this official of the house said in his official capacity in his letter to the minister following his audit of the books and records of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is highly improper and that it is no way in which to introduce comments of the Auditor General in the house. If the minister had any desire to ascertain further the views of the Auditor General in this matter, he had official channels open to him for that purpose; but he certainly has not used them.


James Joseph McCann: I will not attempt to reply to the interjection, and I shall not quote further. But I suggest to the hon. member if he thinks the statement of the Auditor General is important he should call him before the committee when it is set up. My opinion would be that he would verify word for word the interview he gave on December 8.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He cannot verify that and his certificate, too.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, he can.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the minister is not going to read further from the newspaper article. I have tried to have the rule enforced in the past, and I am pleased that the hon. member for Eglinton has invoked it. I am referring to citation 265, Beauchesne, third edition. Let me express the hope that since this point is so well taken, on other occasions when I attempt to have this rule enforced I will have the co-operation of all hon. members.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few further comments to make. These are with reference to extra television stations in some areas of the country. I mentioned some of the general considerations the other night, and I do not intend going into the matter today. However, hon. members interested might be well advised to wait for the work of the committee, who would wish to consider very carefully all that is involved in the development of television in this country.
We have still a long way to go, both in terms of programming and of coverage. The hon. member for Eglinton the other night was criticizing the proportion of Canadian programs at the present time, and I am sure that he has some interest in television coverage of other more outlying areas of Canada, as well as in Toronto. Both the production of programs and their distribution throughout the country cost a great deal of money. The funds to support the over-all system of public and private facilities, and the programming for them, must come from Canadians in just two ways: directly from the public, as through the present excise tax, or from advertising.

I think the committee in its study will find very big figures involved in our future economy. They may wish to consider carefully when this country can support duplication, or whether the economic basis of television in Canada can support duplication in some areas without affecting the national needs for wider coverage and substantial Caandian programming.
In that connection I have a word of comment, in reference to the criticism by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning the financial status of the corporation. I do not agree that this was operating profit. It was actually a surplus of money which represented the amount of intake over outgo. Had we been up to date in our program of development, probably there would not have been that surplus.
This country must still make heavy capital expenditures on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation if it is to become the institution we hope it will be, and that it will continue to be for many years. Last fall I visited most of the country and, as I was interested in the C.B.C., I visited all our stations in western Canada, both radio and television.
I know that in Vancouver we require an enormous development. The same can be said for Winnipeg and for Toronto. Hon. members know that in that city we are using the old Havergal ladies college building and, although we have spent a considerable amount of money in developing a new television station there, our other facilities are not good. So, had we had the time, with the staff available, and been able to get along with our program of development, I suggest that the operating surplus shown would not have stood in that way.
I do not intend to take further time in the discussion. I welcome the setting up of the committee, and I will welcome a full exposure of all details of operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Hon. members will have the opportunity of having the officials before them, and of grilling them to whatever extent they wish. If constructive suggestions are made, then the C.B.C. will benefit from those suggestions, as will the country at large.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Would the minister comment as to whether there has been a change in policy in respect of the international shortwave service, in view of the fact that there is half a million dollars by way of reduction in the estimates for that section? Has there been a change in government policy with respect to the international service of the C.B.C.?


James Joseph McCann: I shall attempt to answer the question briefly, but it would be interesting to go back ten years and discuss ths
Special Committee on Broadcasting developments of the international service. This service was set up during the war, its chief purpose being to keep our boys overseas in contact with their homeland. Then after the war it was carried on for educational and propaganda purposes. We found that it ran into a considerable sum of money-something over $2 million-and for economic reasons or purposes of economy, as well as the fact that we did not think some of this programming was having as beneficial effects as it might have, we decided to cut down the expenditures to the extent of about $600,000.
The international service will be continued; but certain countries to which we broadcast will not receive the number of hours of broadcast they formerly received. Some of the others will be cut off. However, we still have our nucleus of service, and should events so develop that it becomes necessary to widen the service, we shall have a starting point. As we do not want to lose the progress we have made among the listening public in those countries, we are continuing the service at a reduced number of hours.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In my remarks the day before yesterday I asked the minister if the government would be prepared to have referred to the committee now being set up the estimates appearing at page 10 and elsewhere in the blue book affecting the various items which have to be passed in connection with the corporation. That was done in a previous year; perhaps the government would do it again.


James Joseph McCann: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned that suggestion. I would have no personal objection. However, since by order of the house a special committee has been set up to consider estimates, I would like to consult with my cabinet colleagues as to whether or not a motion would be necessary to place C.B.C. estimates before the broadcasting committee.
In past years there has been criticism of accounts; and then, whether or not it was in the terms of reference, on a number of occasions C.B.C. officials have placed their budget for the coming year before the committee. That was not reported upon in the committee's findings, but nevertheless we are just as anxious this year as at any other time to lay everything wide open before the committee on broadcasting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I remind the minister that that was done several years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
1904	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Defence Production Act to increase the salary of the Minister of Defence Production from ten thousand dollars ner annum to fifteen thousand and to repeal section 41 which provided for the expiry of the act on July 31. 1956.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Prime Minister going to say a word about this resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the Prime Minister going to make a statement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will make a very brief statement. As the terms of the resolution indicate, there are two matters provided for in this resolution which precedes the introduction of a bill. The first is to extend the life of the Defence Production Act. Hon. members know, and the resolution indicates, that under a section of the act as it now exists the major portion of the act-that is, except subsection 6 of section 4-would expire on July 31, 1956. It will be proposed in the bill to follow the adoption of this resolution, if and when it is adopted, to delete that clause and not have any limitation upon the duration of the statute itself. At the same time, the bill to follow this resolution will propose an adjustment in the salary of the Minister of Defence Production for the purpose of bringing it into conformity with the Salaries Act as amended at the last session of parliament. Of course that has no immediate effect because hon. members know that the Minister of Defence Production is at the same time the Minister of Trade and Commerce and draws only the salary provided for that department, though he has the responsibility of the two.
It is felt that there should be conformity between the provisions of that statute and the Salaries Act, and the bill will provide for the appropriate amendment. But the main amendment is the repeal of section 41, which provides for the expiry of the act, and therefore for the winding up of the Department of Defence Production on July 31, 1956. This amendment is being introduced to extend the life of the department so that it may operate on a more permanent basis. We feel that there are a number of reasons for recommending this action at this time.
Hon. members will recall that when the Department of Defence Production was established on April 1, 1951, it was to meet an


emergency situation brought to a head by the fighting in Korea. At that time it was impossible to predict how long the need for greatly increased military defence procurements would continue. To meet the immediate situation, the government embarked on a 3-year defence preparedness program which it was later found necessary to extend because of the circumstances which continued to exist. Procurement machinery to carry out this was established on a short-term basis. Almost 4 years have elapsed since the Department of Defence Production was set up and it is now apparent that the temporary character of the department is neither in keeping with the international outlook nor satisfactory from an administrative point of view.
As far as the need for a separate department responsible for the production and supply of Canada's military requirements is concerned, the situation has not changed. The peak of the defence program is past-at least we hope that what is past will prove to be the real peak, that will at no time be exceeded-but it is levelling off at a relatively high level and the magnitude of the program is such that we feel it should not be left to the responsibility of crown agencies or branches of other departments with important functions of their own to perform.
Furthermore, the complexity of modern weapons and defence supplies is such that a sizeable organization is required to handle defence procurement and production. The technological developments in the last few decades have of course stirred the imagination of all of us, but they proved to be very costly, and this is particularly true in the field of aircraft and electronics. To translate these developments from the drawing board to the production line is a major problem and one which affects those responsible for procurement as well as those charged with the manufacture of defence requirements. Additional complications arise from the fact that modern aircraft and ships contain highly complex armament and electronic equipment. Close co-ordination is essential in the different procurement fields of aircraft, shipbuilding, electronics, ammunition and guns as well as in some of the more normal commercial fields.
To carry out production and procurement to meet Canada's present sizeable and complex defence program requires a department staffed by competent and experienced officials. Hon. members will appreciate that it is difficult to attract and retain high-calibre civil service personnel in a department that is looked upon as temporary, that is to say, to have them come there for an indefinite

time, and that is particularly true in peacetime. When the situation is really critical, well, the critical nature of the situation weighs heavily in the minds of those who make their services available for the benefit of their fellow citizens. But when it extends as something which nevertheless becomes a semi-permanent feature of the necessary requirements, it is desirable, we feel, to have some permanent character to the organization.
So far, the Department of Defence Production has been quite fortunate in this respect, but it is felt that the time has come when the life of the department should be extended by placing it on the same basis as other government departments, leaving it to parliament to decide if and when it will be proper to bring it to a termination.
I am sure there is no need to point out the satisfactory manner in which the Department of Defence Production has carried out its defence procurement functions. The record is such that I am sure hon. members will agree that, in line with the principle of procurement by a non-military agency of the requirements of the armed services and in the interests of good administration and efficient operation, the Department of Defence Production should continue at this time to carry out these functions. The proposed amendment covers only those two points that I have mentioned.
To those who are not keenly aware of the problems which must be faced continuously in the field of defence procurement the question might arise as to why an act set up in an emergency should continue to contain broad powers of responsibility when the life of the act is being extended indefinitely. I would point out that many of these powers are required to complete the present program- the aircraft portion of that program now extends at least into 1960-and to carry out the continuing functions of the department.
There are other powers which are not being used at this time but which were placed there because they were considered to be essential in dealing with any emergency which might arise and which might interfere with the regular production and procurement of what was necessary to build up our forces and to discharge our commitments to our associates in this joint undertaking.
In the present unsettled state of international affairs I do not feel that the time has come to take out of the act those powers which are there and which enable the department to deal expeditiously with any situation that would interfere with the regular maintenance of Canada's defensive strength and the regular carrying out of Canada's undertaking.
Defence Production Act
The bill which will follow the adoption of this resolution will provide those two things, the adjustment of the salary to the scale fixed by the Salaries Act adopted at the last session and the elimination of this section which would otherwise bring the act to a termination and require the winding up of the department on July 31, 1956.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact which I am sure is appreciated by all hon. members that when a resolution is required to precede a bill it usually asks approval for the introduction of a bill only so far as it is required, and in that event there may normally be in the bill other provisions than those indicated in the resolution. I am sure that many of us had hoped that the Prime Minister would indicate in his statement that the bill to be introduced would contain more than the two provisions mentioned in the resolution and would have the effect of bringing before the house some modification of the sweeping provisions of the Defence Production Act.
However, the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that the bill to follow the present resolution will purport to do two things and two things only, namely, increase the salary of the minister from $10,000 to $15,000 per annum and repeal section 41 of the act.
I shall not attempt at this moment to put myself in the position which one might be in when we come to deal with the second reading of the bill and are confronted with the principle of the bill. However, I have some observations to make which I think are necessarily called for in the light of the statement the Prime Minister has made today.
So far as the salary of the minister is concerned, I take it that this is not a very far-reaching matter. As the Prime Minister has indicated, the effect of this amendment will be to bring the salary of the Minister of Defence Production into line with the salaries provided by all other relevant statutes for all other cabinet ministers. Of course it raises the question whether there is in the mind of the Prime Minister some thought of detaching this particular portfolio from that of trade and commerce, in view of the fact that since its inception it has been held by the same minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I am permitted to answer at once, there is no such contemplation at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the Prime Minister for that information. We may then pass on to the other aspect of the bill which is indeed most far-reaching.
190G	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act The effect of the proposal to repeal section 41 of the Defence Production Act is virtually to ask the house to re-enact one of the most important statutes on the statute books of this parliament, a statute which extends to some 22 pages and embraces 40 operative sections. It is perhaps a curious fact that so much will be accomplished by such a brief provision. The bill by simply providing that section 41 of the act is repealed will be equivalent to the re-enactment for an indefinite period by this parliament of the extensive provisions of a most important statute.
I do not at this point intend to undertake any review of the administration of the department. There is much in the administration that will not commend the present measure. The Prime Minister has spoken of the part which this department has played in the defence program. It has played an important part indeed because through this department billions of dollars have been expended in the defence effort. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have had reason to think and have put evidence before the house to show that much of that expenditure has been made very loosely. There was much evidence of that before the defence expenditure committee two years ago. However, there may be another opportunity to go into the question of administration.
The Prime Minister has asked the house to give permanence to the department and to the provisions of the act. That should take our thoughts back to the circumstances under which this measure was passed. It was four years ago, in the month of March, 1951, that the house was dealing with a resolution and with a bill which eventually took shape in the act. That was just nine months after the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Along with 15 other nation members of the United Nations Canada with her armed forces was participating in resisting communist aggression in Korea. The hostilities had passed through some climacteric stages even at that time. Successes and reverses had alternated for the arms of the United Nations and a crisis of major proportions confronted the western world.
The Prime Minister has pointed out today that we have not passed from the atmosphere of crisis in the world. I am not going to dispute the assertion that there is still an atmosphere and indeed some reality of crisis in the world today. Its form has changed not a little since March, 1951, but there are other circumstances which weighed heavily upon the House of Commons four years ago in relation to this measure.
What we were confronted with at that time was a world scramble for strategic

Defence Production Act supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects ,or by way of advance payment on account of or to enable that person to carry out any contract entered into with the minister under this act or any defence contract; and
-(g) do all such things as appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary or expedient to the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section or as may be authorized by the governor in council with respect to the procurement, construction or disposal of defence supplies or defence projects.
It is hard* sir, in contemplating these provisions to conceive of anything that could be wider in scope and in the power they confer upon the minister. Under section 16 power is given to establish a defence production revolving fund under which provision is made for $100 million being placed at the disposal of the minister as a revolving fund, and we know that revolving fund has been used over and over again. Under section 17 the minister is given power to enter into contracts in many cases without tender. Section 17, subsection 1 (e), provides that the minister may enter into a contract without the approval of the governor in council if in his opinion the contract must be entered into immediately in the interests of defence or the estimated expenditure does not exceed $25,000 or, if tenders have been obtained, involving an estimated expenditure not exceeding $50,000.
Then we have the provisions of section 23 and the following sections. Under section 23 the minister has power, where any person whom he requests to enter into a defence contract on terms that the minister considers fair and reasonable has refused or failed to enter into such contract, to direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on terms and conditions that appear to the minister to be fair and reasonable, the defence supplies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject matter of the contract. In other words, where anyone called upon by the minister to accept a defence contract does not wish to do so, the minister has absolute powers to compel him to do so.
Under section 24 the minister is given power to requisition for defence purposes defence supplies of any kind. Under section 26 the minister has the power to determine priority of production on the part of anyone engaged in defence production. Under section 27 the minister is given power to appoint a controller with sweeping powers to occupy any of these defence undertakings and to operate them as an agent of the minister. That power exists in any case where a person has failed to satisfy the minister that in the performance of a defence contract he has been carrying it out in a businesslike and efficient manner, or where
tMr. Fleming.]
a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed to keep proper and detailed records of the cost, or where a person to whom a direction has been given under section 23, which I mentioned earlier, has failed to comply with it in the view of the minister.
Under section 28 the minister has power to relieve any person from other legal obligations if he is called upon to enter into a defence contract with the minister. Under section 29 the minister is given wide powers to direct an investigation into the affairs of anyone entering into a contract to supply defence materials or construct defence projects. Under section 30 the governor in council may from time to time designate as essential materials or essential services whatever materials and substances or whatever activities are in his opinion essential. Under section 31 the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he deems necessary to control and regulate the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services for the purpose of ensuring the availability of defence supplies or the construction or operation of defence projects, or to ensure that abnormal requirements of essential materials for defence supplies or defence projects are obtained in the manner least likely to cause disruption of the trade and commerce of the country.
There are teeth in this act. Section 32 attaches to breaches of the act, or of the orders made by the minister under the provisions of the act, penalties which extend tc two years' imprisonment and fines up tc $5,000. Under section 39 the governor in council is given power to make orders and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the act.
There, sir, in a brief and quite inadequate way, is a sketchy review of powers as absolute and as sweeping in their nature as are to be found anywhere in any Canadian legislation, the only counterpart in this country being the provisions of the War Measures Act, which is brought into effect only in time of war, and the Emergency Powers Act, the sister measure which accompanied this legislation in the early days of the Korean crisis and which was permitted to expire last year with no harm felt by anyone.
It may be that the minister will ask the house to justify continuation of powers as sweeping as these on the ground that it is necessary to have stand-by powers. Stand-by for what purpose? A crisis? Well, the kind

of crisis that could justify the continuation on a mere stand-by basis of powers like these is surely that kind of crisis, and that kind of crisis only, which is contemplated in the provisions of the War Measures Act. We do not wish to see powers retained by the minister which could be used by him as a club over the heads of Canadians. There is very great danger of that threatening club existing as long as powers as broad as these are retained by any minister in time of peace or even of cold war. Indeed, these powers are so broad that no businessman or manufacturer is in a position to stand up to the minister if the minister has made up his mind on anything affecting that manufacturer, if it relates in any way to the construction of any materials or projects that have any relationship whatever to what the minister may regard as the defence program.
These are not the times for permitting the continuance, Mr. Speaker, of powers so sweeping that those whose plants or whose materials are related in any way to defence must stand in fear of an omnipotent government. Let me make it quite clear that these powers are a carryover from the days of crisis, days when we appeared to stand and were told by the government that we stood on the very brink of being plunged into war. These are powers that are a carryover from a time when defence materials were in critically short supply, and not only our country but other countries in the world were engaged in a feverish scramble to obtain strategic materials at virtually any price and upon any conditions. These powers are a carryover also from a time, as I suggested earlier, when we had not advanced in any measure at all on the rearmament program. It was barely beginning then.
It was Korea, which had exposed to the western world in ugly naked form the grave dangers that did confront the western world, which led this parliament by unanimous decision to embark upon a costly rearmament program, which all of us regretted but which all of us felt to be necessary in the kind of world in which we found ourselves. We have advanced a long way on the defence program since those days. The program upon which billions of dollars have been spent has proceeded a long way. Surely no hon. member is going to assert in this house that the conditions that are faced today by the government in the continuation of the defence program are comparable with those which confronted the house four years ago when this measure was enacted.
I stress again that the one effective limitation in this act upon the powers of the minister, the time limitation, is to be eliminated 50433-121
Defence Production Act by the measure foreshadowed by this resolution. The government offers no limitation in its place.
Let me make it as clear as I can that we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are prepared to give such powers as are required in support of the defence program, and as are proper for a parliament to confer upon a government in relation to a matter as important as defence in times like these, taking account both of the dangers in the world today and the extent to which we are better equipped today than we were when this measure was first enacted to face those dangers. We are prepared to see adequate powers provided. We do not propose to put any factious obstacle in the way of the proper carrying out of a necessary defence program.
But, sir, if hon. members will thoroughly study this act and appreciate the full scope of the powers that it confers, they will certainly see that there are powers in the act for the extension of which, under conditions now existing, there is no adequate justification given by the government. We are prepared to give adequate powers. We are not prepared to support the conferring of sweeping powers, virtually dictatorial powers upon the government. Let hon. members, if they will between the time this resolution is discussed and the time the bill will come before us, ponder well upon the true effect of the very brief bill that will be introduced, involving the re-enactment and the reconferring upon the government, without even a time limitation, of these vast powers.
The course the government ought to follow now, in my submission, Mr. Chairman, is to revise the bill they propose to introduce following this resolution, and to substitute a bill which will reconfer only those powers that are really necessary to the continuation of the defence program under existing circumstances. They should withdraw that portion of the proposed bill which would have the effect of giving unlimited extension to powers which are so broad that no case has been made for their extension in their present form. I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are other duties which make it impossible for me to be here this evening, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps you might report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Canada Grain Act AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canada Grain Act to amend the statutory grades of western grain and eastern grain with respect to the grade No. 3 amber Durum wheat and all grades of soybeans as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards; to provide for the appointment of four in lieu of three assistant grain commissioners and to increase the annual salaries of the chief and other two commissioners from fourteen and twelve thousand dollars to fifteen and thirteen thousand five hundred dollars respectively.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, because of another engagement requiring his presence, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has asked me to present to the committee this resolution.
There is in fact not a great deal that I can say usefully in connection with it, because its terms express quite fully the purpose and content of the bill which will be introduced after the resolution is carried.
As hon. members are aware, the Canada Grain Act establishes the board of grain commissioners, which is responsible for the grading of Canadian grain. The proposed bill provides for an increase in the salaries of the members of the board of grain commissioners; it also provides for the appointment of an additional assistant commissioner for the province of Saskatchewan.
Then, there are minor amendments to the schedules to the act relating to grade No. 3 amber Durum wheat, and to all grades of soybeans. The bill also contains provisions which implement substantially the recommendations of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization made during the last session of parliament regarding the crediting of overages to the Canadian wheat board instead of to Her Majesty in the right of Canada.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution seems to be a bit of a grab-bag, in that it deals with three more or less unrelated matters.
First of all, there is a change in the grading of Durum wheat and soybeans, which I understand has been recommended, and so

far as I know carries the approval of people interested in growing those crops. I think there is perhaps very little question as to that phase of the resolution and the bill which will be founded upon it. I believe however that I could speak with more intelligence in the matter after seeing the bill and its provisions.
Then, secondly, there is the provision for the addition of another commissioner to the board of grain commissioners. The parliamentary assistant has said that this new commissioner is to be for the province of Saskatchewan. I would hope that the recommendations made by various farm organizations over many years to the effect that there should be farmer representation not only on this board but on the wheat board, as well as on other boards dealing with agricultural products, might be followed in connection with this new appointment. In other words, I would hope that the appointee would be an active farmer and one who would represent the views and interests of those people who are actually growing the grain with which the board of grain commissioners deals.
I was not clear as to the meaning of what was said by the parliamentary assistant when he pointed out that the new commissioner is to be for Saskatchewan. It is not clear whether he is to deal only with grain matters in that province, and not act as a member of the whole board, or whether he is to function in some other capacity.
My understanding has been that the board of grain commissioners in the past has acted as a board, and while one commissioner might have more jurisdiction in regard to a certain area, and another greater jurisdiction in another area, in the result they acted as a group in dealing with the general questions coming before them connected with the grading of grains.
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would tell us exactly what the composition of the board will be, and whether there will be any changes in the duties of the various commissioners as a result of the appointment of the new one.
The third matter mentioned in the resolution is the increase in salaries. This would seem to be in line with what has been going on for some time past in connection with other government boards. Last year increases were made in the salaries of the pension commissioners and legislation has been before the house recently making provision for increases in the remuneration of members of the war veterans allowance board. I would assume that this increase is in line with those others which have been made in connection with members on other government boards.

However, inasmuch as an extra member is to be appointed to the board, and presumably the duties of the other members would be reduced because of that new appointment, one wonders whether this is the appropriate time to increase their salaries. In other words, apparently they are going to be given more money to do less work.
It may be that in view of the general increases in salaries of members of government boards in recent years, these commissioners should also have increases so that their salaries would be brought into line with those of other board members.
I will reserve my position and that of this party until we see the bill and learn something more about what the changes in duties will be.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the resolution we are dealing with tonight is disappointing for two reasons, one of which is contained in the resolution, and the other in the fact that provisions that should be in it are not there.
I object to and oppose any provision to increase the salaries of members of the board of grain commissioners, and I will state frankly why I oppose it. I oppose it because I do not think they are capable of earning the money they now receive; much less do I think they are likely to earn the increased salaries proposed.
At the last session of parliament the board of grain commissioners appeared before the committee on agriculture. We asked them a great many questions and went into details on matters of administration. In my experience in the house I have never known witnesses before a committee who gave a poorer account of themselves than did the commissioners of the board of grain commissioners when it appeared before that committee last year.


Mr. Purdy:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; I attended in that committee, and I never heard gentlemen make a better presentation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I notice it was a non-prairie member who made that interruption. What I have said can be fully documented, and I say the evidence shows the incompetence and inefficiency of the members of the board who appeared before the committee on agriculture at the last session. As I said, Mr. Chairman, we object to this resolution not only for what it does in respect of increasing the salaries of the chief commissioner and the other commissioners but because of the fact that in this resolution the government has failed to deal with the very important and pressing problem that should be dealt with 50433-121J
Canada Grain Act
in any amendment to the Canada Grain Act; namely, a fair distribution of box cars. The excuse has been advanced to the farm organizations time after time by the government in the past that the reason it was impossible for them to make any better distribution of box cars was that to bring in an amendment to the Canada Grain Act would provide for the opening up of the act. The way it was put up to the farm organizations-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -was that the opening up of the act-


William Alfred Robinson: May I remind the hon. member that item No. 30 under public bills and orders is his own bill having to do with an amendment to the Canada Grain Act, the distribution of box cars.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having pointed that out to me. May I make this further statement in that regard, which I am sure is not controversial and which the parliamentary assistant may appreciate. I am not necessarily wedded to the provisions of that bill nor do I say that they are the only provisions that might establish a fair distribution of box cars.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. It is out of order
to discuss this question at this time in view of the fact that he has placed his bill on the order paper.


Mr. Sinclair:: In other words, you have just cut your own throat.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was just going to remind the government that had they amended the act I would not be presenting my bill. This resolution precedes the presentation of a bill to amend the grain act which will amend the statutory grades of western grain and eastern grain with respect to the grade No. 3 amber Durum wheat. These amendments will have to be studied when the bill is brought down, and we shall then be able to judge whether the provisions suggested are in the best interests of the wheat producers.
The resolution suggests that there shall be established grades of soybeans as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards. I have no doubt that that suggestion will be a valuable one, particularly to the areas of Canada like Ontario where soybeans are an important crop.
The Canada Grain Act has a long history. It was placed on the statute books of this country first in 1912. It was preceded by the Manitoba grain act, which was placed on

Canada Grain Act
the statute books in 1900. The Manitoba grain act was placed on the statute books of this country only after the wheat producers had fought a long and hard battle to get some regulation in the grading of wheat and other grains. It was found inadequate and finally in 1912 the Canada Grain Act was placed on the statute books. The present act was given a thorough overhaul in 1930. I suggest it is time again that major amendments were made to this act so that it can function in the interests of the producers much better than it is now doing.
A number of amendments to this act have been suggested from time to time. One of the suggestions was made to the agricultural committee last year by Mr. G. A. Mills, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool employees association. In his presentation to the committee he pointed out that local elevator agents are often required to work 16 hours a day, and some days even longer. Mr. Mills readily admitted that with the present congestion on the prairies some work days were indeed very short; but he presented what I considered to be a reasonable and fair case for an amendment to the Canada Grain Act that would give reasonable working conditions to the elevator agents. He was fair in his representation on behalf of the Saskatchewan wheat pool employees. He said that the elevator agents would not mind working extra hours in harvest time when the demand on elevator space was very great, but he asked parliament to amend the Canada Grain Act to provide reasonable working hours and a reasonable work week for elevator agents and employees. The request was fair and was something that the government should have considered.
The Canada Grain Act establishes a body of regulations; it sets out grades for the grading, storage, transportation and marketing of western grain. The act which establishes grades regulates the grain trade. It regulates the grain only from the farm to Port Arthur-Fort William, Vancouver or Churchill when the grain is going into domestic consumption. When the grain is going into the export market, the Canadian grades are continued from the local elevator point to the ultimate consuming nation. The good grading system which prairie farmers support, and which they are glad to see in operation, ends on grain that is consumed in Canada when it leaves the prairie area. Therefore, Canadians in Ontario, in Quebec, in the maritimes and in British Columbia are unable to take advantage of the excellent grade standards that are set out in the Canada Grain Act. If I were a member from a province outside the prairies, and if I were

representing an agricultural constituency, I would ask in this house that the same grade standards set out in the Canada Grain Act be continued on grain through the retail outlets in those other provinces in Canada for the benefit of the people.
I have seen some of the kinds of grain sold in Ontario that the trade have the effrontery to call feed oats or feed barley, and it is really just a conglomeration of weed seeds and screenings. It is something that I would say is scarcely fit for animal consumption, and it is no wonder that the feeder in eastern Canada believes he is really getting beaten when he buys prairie grains and gets grain of that standard. I believe that the good standards that are established for Canadian grain on the prairies should be carried right down to the feeder in Ontario, in Quebec, in the maritime provinces and in British Columbia. Why should grain that has been segregated be mixed and have placed in it weed seeds, noxious weeds of all kinds, and then finally be sold to the feeders in eastern Canada? It hurts not only the feeder who is buying the grain, but the whole grain business in Canada. The main advantage of this suggestion would be to the feeder, but it is an advantage that would carry right back to the grain producer if the grade standards that are put into effect first at the local elevator are carried right through to the feeder in this part of Canada. I hope that before this discussion ends hon. members outside the prairies will stand up in this house and ask the government to extend the provisions of this excellent act so that their farmers can receive the benefit of it.
I know that some hon. members think that the grain producers sometimes get too much from the government. We in this group do not believe that at all. If we get in some respects anything resembling justice it is because over the years now for a number of generations representatives from western Canada have battled in this house for the kind of legislation we are discussing tonight. If representatives from other parts of Canada would stand up in their places and battle on behalf of the feeders and farmers in their constituencies I suggest that they too would get some of the excellent legislation that applies now to western Canada.
The battle to obtain the Canada Grain Act was not an easy one. As a matter of fact the Canada Grain Act was placed on the statute books after the first historic siege of Ottawa by prairie farmers in 1910. History relates that about 1,000 western farmers came to Ottawa to demand a better system of grading the grain they were producing. As a result of

that delegation and the inquiry which followed, we had placed upon the statute books in 1912 the first Canada Grain Act.
I suggest to the government that unless some amendments, particularly the one I have mentioned already, are forthcoming, the day may come when the prairie producers will find that their only alternative, that the only course they can follow, will be to once again come to Ottawa in a body to place before the government their requests that justice be done.
I do not know of any group in this country outside of producers who when they produce a commodity and when they sell a commodity are forced by circumstances to do business with a certain organization or a certain corporation. Because of the need of amendments to this act prairie producers are being forced to take their grain to elevators with which they would not do business if they had a free choice. I made that statement before the agriculture committee last year when the members of the board of grain commissioners showed that they did not have a full or thorough knowledge of the act they were administering.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I want to interrupt the hon. gentleman to say that the grain commissioners did show that they had full knowledge of the act they were administering.


Hazen Robert Argue: That point of order is about as profound as was much of the evidence given by the grain commissioners at the last session.


James Sinclair: The hon. member was asking non-prairie members to support him. There is good support.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not heard it yet. Apparently that is the Minister of Fisheries' idea of support. In the committee last year I asked the chairman if there was a publication put out by the board of grain commissioners which showed on a current basis the destinations of exports of Canadian grain by countries and the answer to me was that there was no monthly publication issued by the board of grain commissioners showing the exports of Canadian grain, the quantities of grain and the countries of destination.
Here is one example of the way the board showed itself to be incompetent because 24 hours later they came back and said that they had discovered that for a great many years there had been issued under their authority a large and important and I imagine rather costly publication called "Canadian Grain Exports" which was put out by the board of grain commissioners for Canada, statistics branch, Winnipeg, Manitoba. We had these high-priced officials before the committee and
Canada Grain Act
when they were asked they did ncn know about this publication which they were issuing. If hon. members will look at the publication they will find in it complete and detailed statistics of Canadian grain exports, the information which they said was not available.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question. My question is: do you wish the board of grain commissioners abolished?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the kind of thing one would expect from an hon. member opposite. When you criticize anything they are doing, even though the member of the board in question is paid $14,000 a year and did not know that the board was publishing this publication, when you dare to suggest anything like that in the house, it is taken as a suggestion that you want the whole board abolished and the Canada Grain Act done away with. All we are asking is that when the taxpayers of Canada pay $14,000 a year to an individual to administer an act they should get an efficient administrator. When we get an inefficient and incompetent administrator we are going to stand up in this house and criticize him.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member-


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members should realize that they can ask questions only with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor. It is of course not within the competence of the chairman to insist that an answer be given. I also must remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his consent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The resolution before us asks that the chairman of the board-


Mr. Trainor:: I should like the hon. member to indicate which member of the board of grain commissioners he considers to be inefficient; please name him.


Hazen Robert Argue: All of them. The one I am referring to at the moment is the chairman, who gets the largest salary, which salary is to be increased by this resolution from $14,000 to $15,000 a year.
There are such things, and these things have to occur, as overages in country elevators. These overages appear at the end of the year when the inventory is taken. The inventory and the records of the company show whether there is an overage or a shortage. During the last number of years overages have appeared

Canada Grain Act
quite frequently and the farmers union representing the farmers of western Canada have asked that certain steps be taken in relation to overages.
I welcomed the announcement of the parliamentary assistant that from now on overages in grain terminals will not be considered the property of Her Majesty but will be turned over to the Canadian wheat board so that the funds from the overages may be used for the advantage of agriculture from which they arose instead of going into the general revenues of the government. Last year before the agriculture committee we had asked the board of grain commissioners about these overages. I asked the chairman whether it was possible for a member of the committee to get a report of the overages in country elevators and he said yes. He said, "Just ask me and I will give you that information". I then asked him if a farmer could obtain the same information. This evidence is shown at page 222 of the report of the committee on agriculture and colonization for 1954. He said yes, the members of the committee could obtain the information and a farmer could obtain the information.
One of the main purposes of the Canada Grain Act is to see to it that there are not continuous huge overages shown by the grain trade; because if there are huge overages shown, they have been taken from somebody and they have not been paid for. There is only one place they could be taken from and that is from the producer himself. That is the main reason we now have such a thing as the Canada Grain Act, namely because farmers over the years have had taken from them excess dockage which has resulted in excess overages.
So we asked the chairman if this information could be made available and his answer was yes. He admitted that he had been administering the act for a long time and that he had dealt with hundreds upon hundreds of cases of shortages and overages by country elevators. One would have expected him to be completely conversant not only with the act but with his own practice. But the next day he rose before the committee and said, "I was wrong yesterday; I have to admit I was wrong. If somebody requests that overages be disclosed, I will not be able to divulge that information".
The hon. member for Winnipeg South asked which member I had been referring to and whether I had considered them all to be inefficient. We were still discussing the matter of overages, when Mr. Roy Milner, one of the commissioners, attempted to explain why overages exist and how they came about. Of all the statements made before that committee, his statement was the most amazing

one and as the committee went on, it was the one that was clearly shown could not be substantiated in fact. He said that one reason why overages occurred was because of what he said was the fact-and we disagreed with him-namely, that often elevator agents will strike a bargain with a producer whereby a producer allows the elevator agent to take excess dockage in return for an upgrading of the producer's grain. We said we did not think that was done.


Owen C. Trainor: May I ask a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Owen C. Trainor: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the gentleman to whom he is referring has spent his whole life in the grain trade and presumably knows what he is talking about?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the whole point. Here is a man who knew all about the grain trade from A to Z. He has spent years in it. I am not sure, but I believe it was with such a large company as the Alberta-Pacific Company in Alberta. It may have been some other line elevator company. He did not say that he knew of one or two cases in his vast experience. Oh no; not the gentleman that I am talking about. He said this, as reported at page 251:
In the buying of grain in country elevators dockage is an important feature. There have been a good many instances in the country elevator where a farmer is agreeable to allow some higher percentage of dockage if he can get a higher grade. You must know of cases of that kind-it is done every day.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have never heard of it!


Mr. Milner:: I have been in the business all my life, Mr. Argue, and I have heard of it a thousand times-there is just a difference of opinion.


Owen C. Trainor: Which one are you going to take?


Hazen Robert Argue: In this case I take my own because I think my opinion was correct, and I think I can prove it. Not only do I think that Mr. Roy Milner was completely wrong but I think that by his very suggestion he was saying that he as a member of the board of grain commissioners was not doing his part to see that the provisions of the Canada Grain Act were adequately enforced. To reinforce my point I quote section 156 of the Canada Grain Act, 1930:
156. Everyone who, either generally or in any particular transaction relating to grain, induces or attempts to induce the manager of any elevator, or any person acting on behalf of such manager, to state the incorrect weight of any grain delivered into or out of such elevator, or to claim excessive dockage from any such grain, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.

Because of that statement or mainly because of that statement-but whether because of that statement or for some other reason; and the minister did his part in this matter-we had called before that committee representatives of the main grain elevator companies in Canada; and the members of the C.C.F. group in the agriculture committee asked each and every one of those representatives- among whom were included representatives of the wheat pool, United Grain Growers Limited, and Mr. Cecil Lamont, president of North-West Line Elevators Association-this question: What is the attitude of your elevator company towards elevator agents taking excessive dockage in the way suggested by Mr. Milner?


Owen C. Trainor: The whole thing depends on the term "excessive". What do you mean by "excessive"?


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought my hon. friend had some knowledge of the grain business. If I haul in to the elevators a load of grain that, by gross weight, has 100 bushels in the load, but by weight there are in it 2 per cent of wild oats and 98 bushels of wheat, then the correct dockage is 2 per cent. But if somebody tries to take 5 per cent of dockage off the cash ticket when there is only 2 per cent of dockage in the load, that is excessive dockage.
I am glad to point out to the house that the representatives of each of these grain companies without exception said that their specific instructions to their elevator agents were to take the correct dockage and to give the correct weight. They said that at no time did they condone an elevator agent's taking the wrong dockage and giving the wrong weight.


Owen C. Trainor: Have you not heard of the swing of the beam?


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend apparently knows something about the grain business. Now he is in with the swing of the beam. I am not referring to the swing of the beam. The swing of the beam can do things to the farmers that it should not be allowed to do. The farmer should get the correct weight and the correct dockage. The elevator companies in Canada repudiated the evidence of a commissioner of the board of grain commissioners. Yet the gentleman in question is going to get a salary increase of from $12,000 to $13,500.


Owen C. Trainor: He is worth every cent of it.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is worth every cent of it? He is the transport controller, and I could do
Canada Grain Act
all the transport controlling he has done, I am sure each day, on the telephone in a few minutes before breakfast.


James Sinclair: What a man.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is not, in fact, controlling the distribution of box cars at local elevator points. I cannot refer to that subject. Here we have a member of the board of grain commissioners who is not an acting member but merely listed on staff, and he is to be given an increase from $12,000 to $13,500. Then there is to be another person on the board of grain commissioners who comes from Saskatchewan. He is a newly appointed member. His name is Stanley Loptson, and from what I have read in the press he is a director of the United Grain Growers. I should like the parliamentary assistant to list his qualifications in detail. What are the qualifications of the new member of the board of grain commissioners? Was his appointment recommended by the three western wheat pool organizations that represent the producers in the grain business in western Canada? I ask further if his appointment was recommended by the farmers union of the three prairie provinces or, someone suggests, the federation of agriculture of which the western pools are a part.
The Canada Grain Act is important, and surely appointments to the board of grain commissioners should be made after the most thorough and complete consultation with the western farm organizations. The person appointed to the board should be a man who is qualified and not somebody who is appointed for political reasons and purposes. I am all too fearful that now as in the past these appointments are governed not by what people know but by whom they know. This is not the only board that has political appointees, good friends of the government, good friends of the Liberal party, good friends of the Minister of Agriculture-yes, good friends of the people whom he supports at various Liberal conventions that take place from time to time.
The personnel of this board is, as I have said, very important and we need the best qualified people to act as commissioners and chief commissioners. I know personally quite a number of outstanding farm leaders in western Canada who I believe would make excellent members of such a board. What I have said should not be taken to mean that I believe all the officials of the board of grain commissioners are inefficient. As a matter of fact the most efficient are paid a good deal less salary than some of the others. I might refer to Dr. J. A. Anderson, the chief chemist, whose salary is not $13,500 or $15,000 but is $8,600. There is a man who is highly

Canada Grain Act
qualified and suited to the position he occupies. There is no question in my mind at all that he was the outstanding witness from the board of grain commissioners before the committee. It did not take a salary of $15,000 a year to attract this efficient man to serve his country and the agricultural producers in the capacity of chief chemist of the board of grain commissioners.
Most of the proposals of the government as outlined in the resolution on the order paper may be acceptable but not the final proposal for a salary increase. I believe that is something that is unwarranted, unjustified and should not be granted. I believe that the government if it wished could, with the existing level of salaries, man the board of grain commissioners with competent men who have been recommended by the producers of western Canada and who would do an outstanding job in taking care of the business of the farmers in administering an act that has often been referred to as the Magna Carta of the western grain producers.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be quite brief in my remarks-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Fort William.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I rise now because anyone who lives at the lakehead where we have the breadbasket of the world, about 30 elevators, knows something about the character and ability of the grain commissioners. I have often been in their office and I have brought many questions to them. Not very long ago I presented to them the case of a young man who I thought should not be dismissed, and I received courteous and efficient treatment. I pay my tribute to the board of grain commissioners in Winnipeg as men who are doing an outstanding job. I consider the hon. member who has just spoken as a personal friend, but when he dares to stand up in the house and say that the members of the board are receiving salaries that they are not earning I think he is going beyond what he should say.
The hon. member also said that there might be a trek of farmers to Ottawa unless something else happens. Anybody who listened to the debate in the house yesterday saw how far away from the mark so many of the opposition members were and listened to the Minister of Agriculture straighten them out. As long as we have the present Minister of Agriculture the farmers of western Canada are going to be well represented. I pay my tribute not only to the minister but to the efficiency, character and ability of the grain commissioners.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, 1 am going to be quite brief in my remarks because I think we will be in a better position to consider this matter after the bill is brought down. I say that particularly in view of the fact that apparently there are going to be certain things in the bill that are not mentioned in the resolution, for instance, the question of overages. The hon. member for Fort William was very strong in his defence of the board of grain commissioners. Perhaps if the member were a grain producer he would not support them quite so strongly. I know that some members may say that the farmers are always grousing. There is one point of great interest in that regard. The farmers of western Canada have nothing but praise for the operation of the wheat board but they have nothing but criticism for the operation of the board of grain commissioners. There must be some reason for that, and if it were just a matter of their criticizing for the sake of criticizing they would also be criticizing the operation of the wheat board.
Time and again they have said that in their opinion the wheat board is a very efficient organization and they have nothing but praise for the chairman of the board. We in this group are glad that there is to be an increase in the number of assistant grain commissioners from three to four. We were glad that the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that recommendations had been sought from the various farm organizations because we took for granted that the government would, if at all possible, accept the recommendations of these organizations in making any appointment. But from what we hear now apparently they have decided to put a man on the board who may not meet with the approval of the majority of the farm organizations. I think it was mentioned that one farm organization has supported a certain appointment, but it would be very interesting to know which organization it is because there are many so-called farm organizations that in reality do not represent the producers at all.
Now, the interprovincial farm union has for a number of years asked that additional assistants be appointed because it was felt the board was understaffed, and that that was probably the reason they were not able to carry out their duties more efficiently

in the opinion of the union, at any rate. On many occasions they criticized the fact that they were not able to get information, and the records they repeatedly requested, as well as information regarding grading and shipments. They were critical also of the board regarding the question of overages.

I was glad to hear the parliamentary assistant say that an amendment would be introduced to provide that the proceeds from the sale of overages in the terminal elevators would be turned over to the farmers. I take it these funds will be turned over to the wheat board instead of being turned over to the general revenue fund as has been the practice in the past.
When we are on the question of overages, I may say that we are interested in the overages in the country elevators. I agree pretty well with everything the member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) said on that matter. After all, the country elevators are merely the agents of the wheat board. As agents of the wheat board, I cannot see why they should be rewarded for short-weighting the farmers, for overdocking them or for receiving an excess amount of shrinkage allowance. Unless they are doing some of those things, it is difficult to understand why these large overages exist. The proceeds from those overages certainly do not belong to the line elevator companies; they are the property of the farmer.
These line elevator companies, operating as agents of the wheat board, have no right whatever to keep the proceeds from these overages. I am hoping, therefore, that the government will go one step further. They are now providing that the proceeds from these overages in the terminal elevators shall be turned over to the farmers instead of the general revenue fund. The next step is to see that the proceeds from the sale of overages in the country elevator companies shall be turned over also to the wheat board so the farmers may benefit to the full extent from the sale of their produce.
I have sold a lot of grain in my time. I know there is absolutely no sense or reason to the type of dockage which the farmer has to put up with from time to time. Any time there is a run on the elevators, that is when a heavy volume of grain is going into the elevators, you invariably find that dockage is heavier than at other times. I might refer to my own operations on my farm by saying that we put a cleaner on our combine. We were bringing grain into the elevator that did not have any weed seeds in it at all, yet I was still getting about 2 or 3 per cent dockage. I took the cleaner off because I thought if I was going to be docked for clean grain I might as well put the weed seeds in the grain. We took the cleaner off and the dockage was still the same. In my opinion, this proves that they just had a standard minimum dockage, and it did not matter whether or not your grain was clean, you were going to be charged that dockage.
Canada Grain Act
Sometimes when the weed seeds are quite heavy the dockage will go up to 14 per cent, especially when pig weed seeds are prevalent.
I notice that the interprovincial farm unions are asking for an exhaustive investigation into the operation of the grain trade I shall read what they say:
However, we are convinced more than ever, following the questioning of the present board of grain commissioners by members of the agricultural committee of the House of Commons last year, that there is an urgent need for a complete and exhaustive inquiry into the whole question of grain grading and handling, since the question of ever-increasing grain overages by weight and grade is by no means solved, nor is the practice of allowing diversion charges settled.
It is quite a while now since we had an investigation of that kind, and I think it would do a lot to help restore confidence if such an investigation were carried out. If everything is all right the investigation will disclose that, and if there are things happening which should not be happening the investigation will show what steps can be taken to see that irregularities of that kind are not continued.
I also agree wholeheartedly with what the member for Assiniboia said about trying to carry the grades right through to the east. We had a lot of evidence in the agriculture committee two years ago that many of these eastern feeders were having to buy as No. 5 wheat what was actually only feed wheat. They brought samples of the grain to prove their point. The samples were not sealed and it might be argued that the grain had been deliberately mixed. I do not think that would be done because they would not gain anything. Any of us familiar with grain realized upon looking at these samples that these people had had to buy as No. 5 wheat what was in reality only poor feed. That is certainly not fair to the farmers of eastern Canada, and it is certainly not fair to the western farmers because the farmers in eastern Canada get the idea that the grain we are raising is of very poor quality.
These are some of the things I feel ought to be dealt with at this time. There is one other point. Many people say, if you are so dissatisfied with the way the line elevator companies are operating why do you not haul your grain to the pool elevators? If you haul your grain to the pool elevator and that elevator makes any undue profits, then the proceeds would be returned to you through the participation certificate. This would be true if the farmers were able to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Owing to the fact the elevators are plugged, and owing to the fact that cars are allocated evenly amongst

Canada Grain Act
the elevators instead of being allocated to those elevators to which the most grain is going, the farmers are not able to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice. Now, I am trespassing on the resolution of the hon. member for Assiniboia, so I will not say more on that question. I am hoping he will be bringing that resolution before the house in the near future so we can discuss it. I shall not say any more until the bill is introduced.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The member for Assiniboia made what I consider an excellent case, but there are a few points I should like to emphasize. During the period I was away from parliament, from 1949 to 1953, I had to earn my bread by the sweat of my brow.


James Joseph McCann: You must have gone hungry.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No thanks to you, if he did.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In 1950, we were confronted with an unusually early frost, and excessive moisture created a condition that was unknown in our area. With a group of farmers I went to see the experts of the grain commission. We received some excellent advice from them. They told us we had better get this grain out of our granaries and away to the driers before spring or in all probability it would go out of condition. We were grateful for their advice. They saved the farmers in the area a good deal of money.
We asked them why they were not giving all the farmers the information that they had given to us. They said, you see the work that is piled up ahead of us and we are not responsible for publicity. It is our job to do the testing. We have the information, but you have to go to the other office to look into the publicity angle. Our next appointment, therefore, was with Allan McLean, one of the assistant commissioners. Mr. McLean was not ready to see us for some time, but when he did see us he was well briefed from Winnipeg, I presume from Dr. Anderson. He had all the answers we wanted and promised that the board would get the information out to the farmers in the area concerning the necessity of getting this grain off the farms and to the driers before spring.
One of the farmers in the group had known Mr. McLean for many years, and he was not surprised that a commercial traveller for a grocery firm really would not know any more about the problem than Mr. McLean did. Some time later all the commissioners were in Saskatoon at the annual meeting of the farmers union. The question of overages came up at the convention and the farmers, rightly or wrongly, felt that they had been

taking a fleecing through the years and that the board of grain commissioners should give them greater protection. I do not want to get in wrong with my neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg South who sits beside me, and who is making a better defence for the grain trade tonight than the government members are making. But, rightly or wrongly, the farmers on the prairies who have been selling grain for 50 years are convinced that they have not got a square deal.
Mr. McKenzie, chairman, made it quite clear that they were policemen who were not afraid of the consequences, that they really were tough. And I was interested to find out just how tough they were. I ventured to ask the question: "Have you taken legal action against any of the offenders?" "Why, certainly we have." "How many, in the last five years?" "Well, I have not that information here, but I will get it for you." "Well, you will likely remember one case. Can you not think of one case?" And then Mr. McKenzie said, "Well, we do not consider it wise to disclose the dealings with individual grain companies. We deal with all the companies, and it is not good public relations to make public the problems we have."
I think the farmers are justified in sharing the dissatisfaction expressed so well by the hon. member for Assiniboia, when he says that the board of grain commissioners are not coming clean with the farmers, and telling them how much the companies have been taking by way of overages throughout the years, and what is being done to protect the farmers.
Personally, we sell all our grain through the pool. While we would like to have an exact accounting of the grain we deliver, we know that if the pool does have overages, eventually all the pool members will get the benefit therefrom. But those who have the misfortune to have to sell their grain to nonpool companies do not get the benefits the pool members get from overages.
We have a responsibility to see that more complete information is supplied to farm organizations and individual farmers regarding the number of bushels of No. 3 that the Searle elevator company for example buys in a year, and the number of bushels of No. 3 it sells in that time.
I know that the pool organization tries to have its agents buy grain on a fair basis. They do not want to take advantage of any of their customers. However, sometimes agents have overages, while at other times they are short. But as I said before, the pool organization does pass on to the members any benefits that might accrue.
Another point made by the hon. member for Assiniboia which, in my opinion, should be

emphasized is that the farmers in western Canada at the moment are facing the greatest crisis since the thirties. Yet this government comes along and asks that the chief commissioner's salary be increased from $14,000 to $15,000, and that the salaries of the other commissioners be increased from $12,000 to $13,500.
Just this week we were told by the government that $840 per year for a single veteran or $1,440 for a married veteran was a very generous settlement by the people of Canada to a veteran of world war I. How can we tell the veterans of world war I, who are farmers, that $840 a year is ample for them, but that the chairman of the board of grain commissioners cannot get along on $14,000 a year, and that his salary has to be increased to $15,000; or that the others, who are getting $1,000 per month, are really up against it, and that they have to have another $1,500 a year to supplement their incomes?
I submit that if this government did not have its overwhelming majority, and if it did not disregard completely public opinion in all parts of Canada, it would not dare come before parliament at this time asking for increases of these proportions.
Then, there is one further point which thus far in the debate has not been mentioned. Farmers resent very much the fact that boards in general, and this board in particular, is nothing less than an organization of favoured political servants of the government. In the Leader-Post for Friday, February 25, there is a picture on the front page bearing the caption "Stanley Loptson Goes to the Grain Board". It says:
Stanley Loptson, 42, of Bredenbury, only son of Asmundur Loptson, Liberal member for Saltcoats in the Saskatchewan legislature has been appointed a member of the board of grain commissioners.
And for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the name Loptson, I might explain that Mr. Asmundur Loptson succeeded the hon. member for Rosthern as leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan when that hon. member came to Ottawa some time ago, and fulfilled that role very well until the convention was held last year. And this is Stanley, the only son. I know nothing about him, but I think it is scandalous that the son of the Liberal leader should take on a job paying $13,500, when he has no qualifications for that job.
The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to Dr. Anderson, a very distinguished gentleman who enjoys the confidence of grain producers and of scientists all across Canada. How can Dr. Anderson respect his boss, who knows nothing about the problems the commissioners 50433-1224
Canada Grain Act
should be facing, a boss who walks in on top of the others, at a salary of $13,500?
I have before me the Public Accounts giving the names of those employed in the grain act administration who are receiving more than $5,000 a year, but I do not read the names of any of the very capable men who gave us the information we wanted when we were confronted with a problem in 1950. None of those boys got up to $5,000.
How can we expect the fullest co-operation from those very able men who have spent 25 years of their lives in the government service, who never get as much as $5,000, and who have to take their orders from the son of the ex-Liberal leader who comes in, on the first day, at a salary of $13,500?
This is not good enough in a democracy in this year 1955-when we cannot do anything better than $840 for a single veteran who gave of his best between 1914 and 1918, or $1,440 for a married veteran.


An hon. Member:: Who recommended it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Somebody asks a good question: Who recommended it? The question has been asked about Mr. McKenzie, and I must share the views of the hon. member for Assiniboia rather than those of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. No doubt Mr. McKenzie is a very genial friend; but I saw him in action at the farmers union convention, and had to form my own opinion upon his performance before a thousand farmers in Saskatchewan. I have to take the opinion of the hon. member for Assiniboia rather than that of the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
But I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South would not have any quarrel with me when I refer to the case of Allan McLean. He does not know Allan McLean, I should imagine; but Allan McLean was the Liberal candidate who ran against the hon. member for Yorkton in 1940. For some reason or another the farmers up in that area decided they would rather have Mr. Castle-den work for them in Ottawa than Mr. McLean.
As I said before, Mr. McLean was a commercial traveller for a grocery house, and a very genial person indeed. He was a good grocery salesman and made a lot of friends throughout the years. Later he became national organizer for the Liberal party. I do not know how good a job he did in that respect; but after he had worked at it for some time he returned to Saskatchewan, just before the 1949 election. Apparently he started on pay on March 14, 1949. Saskatchewan was a part of the dominion where the Liberals were in pretty bad shape. Unless something could be done very soon the future of the

Canada Grain Act
Minister of Agriculture was not too bright. But I resent very much the using of public funds to send the national organizer of the Liberal party into Saskatchewan under the cloak of an assistant commissioner to the grain commissioners. He started rolling as soon as he got out there. Mr. Percy Wright had a sessional paper produced in 1951 to find out just where Mr. McLean was rolling in that period prior to the election. He did not lose very much time. He of course got into Melville, then he got into Yorkton, into Melfort, into Humboldt and into Moose Jaw. He got into Swift Current and into Shaun-avon. He really got around at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. When it was all over the hon. member for Yorkton was left at home, and I was left at home. The hon. member for The Battlefords was left at home, and the hon. members for Moose Mountain, Humboldt and Swift Current were left at home. We all took our medicine. We are all going to live longer as a result of our holiday on the farm, but I think the Canadian people should know that the government of Canada takes responsibility for putting the national organizer of the Liberal party on salary in Saskatchewan. He is still there and a very generous allowance has been made for his travelling expenses.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce should recommend to the minister that, after giving an explanation as to the need for the first change suggested in this particular resolution, he make sure that he does not continue any longer a policy that has made the Minister of Agriculture so famous in Canadian politics, namely putting his organizers into positions of this sort at public expense. The western people want no more of it, and we cannot afford at this time to ask the Canadian people to increase the salaries of those Liberal organizers.


Mr. Castleden:: I would be remiss in my duty, Mr. Chairman, if I did not rise in my place and oppose this resolution and fight all the way through the bill which is to follow.
The resolution suggests that a bill is to be introduced to make three amendments to the Canada Grain Act. The first thing is that they are going to amend the statutory grades of western grain and eastern grain with respect to the grade No. 3 amber Durum wheat and all grades of soybeans as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards. That is a good move. It is a thing that should be done, and I shall watch very carefully to see what the people who have bought No. 3 Durum wheat are going to do with the supplies that they have

on hand. They should be watched very carefully with respect to what they do with this No. 3 amber Durum wheat when it is made available.
Then the act is to be amended to provide for the appointment of four in lieu of three assistant grain commissioners. Well, I can only say that, after what we have heard this evening, the opinion of western farmers would be that they should be careful with respect to the kind of men they appoint to that job. If they are not to be any better than they have been in the past we will oppose it very strenuously.
The third amendment is to increase the annual salaries of the chief and the other two commissioners from $14,000 and $12,000 to $15,000 and $13,500, respectively. The board of grain commissioners is a very important one today. Very few people, except those who have been brought up in the west and understand farm operations and the growing of grain and the millions of people in those western provinces whose very livelihood depends on the grade of grain that they get, the prices they get for it and the way the grain is handled, realize how vital this is to the people of that part of the country. If hon. members had lived there for 50 years, as I have, and had watched that country grow and had seen those people carry on a battle against the private grain trade, against the private elevator companies, against the Winnipeg grain exchange which took their grain, they would understand the position. When the farmer hauled his grain in he had very little to say about the grade. He had to take whatever was offered to him. He had no resources. He was in debt and needed the money, and he sold his grain. Through years of fighting, years of struggle, he got the wheat board established and the Canada Grain Act enacted. The Canada Grain Act protected his interests. It was supposed to ensure to him the proper grades of wheat that he produced. He is sometimes still in doubt as to the actual grades, but a tremendous improvement has taken place.
When the grain was bought he had no means of telling exactly the weight of the grain that came in. As a result of his fight over the years he established the co-operative wheat pool which handled his own grain, and the profits that were made out of the handling of his grain were then returned to him in a proper co-operative manner, because the profits out of the co-operative were returned to the producer in a proper form. The Canadian wheat board returned to him the price of his grain less the cost of handling. The act is a policeman over the operations

of the grain trade in western Canada consisting of a large number of private grain companies and wheat pools that have their terminal elevators, storage facilities, grading facilities and all the rest of it. This board has carried on that work. It is a tremendous job. In some years it is quite complicated.
It is also important to see that the farmer's interest is properly carried out, properly maintained and looked after when his grain is sold and when it is mixed. There are mixing possibilities in the grain trade which the farmer discovered after he went into the business himself. One of the duties of the board of grain commissioners is to see that the mixing, the overages, the handling, the protein content and all the rest of it are properly policed.
A report has been given this evening on the qualifications of the board of grain commissioners and their appointment. It is little wonder that representatives from the west are opposed to this resolution. There is only one thing they can do. It is very difficult to see how the western grain grower can have confidence in this board in the light of the things that have been recorded this evening and the facts with regard to the appointments. I should like to read into the record a part of the report of the board of grain commissioners of last year to show some of the difficulties:
In accordance with sections 139 and 140 of the Canada Grain Act, 28 terminals and 21 eastern elevators were weighed over during the 1952-53 crop year. Due to large stocks in store, the board deferred weighovers at 18 terminals and 5 eastern elevators under authority of section 141 of the Canada Grain Act, and weighovers of 2 elevators at the Pacific coast which came due shortly after a labour strike were deferred beyond the 22 month period by the transport controller by authority granted him under the Emergency Powers Act.
Since then we have not had a report on the rest of it, and the people are just wondering what the situation is. If the overweighs are not properly recorded, if full and complete reports are not tabled sufficiently early so that the farmers have a record of exactly what has happened to their grain, they can be filled only with suspicion as to what has happened.
To show the extent of the suspicion which exists I would refer hon. members to a submission made by the Interprovincial Farm Union Council when they appeared last year before the agriculture committee. They said:
As on former occasions, we once again register strong protest against the continued late tabling of the annual report of the board of grain commissioners. The crop year closes on July 31. Even allowing as much time as three months to complete their final returns and receive grain company reports, surely it should be possible to have the report ready by December 1 or December 15 at
Canada Grain Act
the latest. There seems no good and sufficient reason why it could not, and should not, be tabled in the House of Commons as soon as the session re-convenes in January.
Then they indicate that they would like to have the opportunity of presenting their brief to the agriculture committee after having had an opportunity of looking at the annual report of the board of grain commissioners That report is late again this year. They continue:
We strongly urge that the aforementioned and all other points and factors having direct or indirect bearing on the question of grain handling as it affects both the producer and consumer be referred by the government to the agricultural committee of the House of Commons for further study. We were interested and pleased to note that this committee, in their concluding report to parliament during the last session, recommended a further study of the operations of the Canada Grain Act. We trust that, in adopting the report, the house recognized parliament's continued responsibility. May we officially request that before making such a review advance notice be given in ample time for the farm unions to make their representation to this important committee on a subject of such vital importance to agriculture.
That is the way they feel about grain handling and grading.
We feel the information brought out at the agricultural committee of the House of Commons last year is, in itself, sufficient justification for a full-fledged inquiry by an independent commission (on which the producers would be adequately represented) into grain grading, weighing, mixing, handling and storing-from the time delivery is made to the country elevators by farmers right through to sale to the ultimate consumers.
As I have said, this is too important a board, a board which is too vitally concerned with this important matter, not to have represented on it the grain growers of the west. There are representatives of the line companies and the elevator companies, but the pool organizations have suffered in the handling of grain and the quantities they have been allowed to handle. There is too much of this political type of appointment going on. Apparently it has already been settled as to who will take the place of Mr. Vallance, who is retiring from the board.
When amendments to the Canada Grain Act are being considered I would urge strongly that this type of appointment be stopped; that people who have been strongly recommended by the large farm organizations in the west should be placed on this board in sufficient number in order to do a job and do it right; that a complete report should be tabled every year and on time, and that a full opportunity be given representatives of these organizations to go back and give their reports to the farm organizations as representing the farmers.
Needed amendments would give representation to the pool organizations which handle

Canada Grain Act
as much as 50 per cent of the grain in our province but which at present have no representation on the board. They should be represented rather than the elevator companies.


Owen C. Trainor: What about Mr. Milner?


George Hugh Castleden: He came right out of the
trade. He worked in it for 37 years. We should like to see the Canada Grain Act amended in the manner we have suggested. As long as we have no assurance that these things will be done we will oppose it with everything we have.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I consider it a great honour to have the privilege of speaking on this measure this evening. I want to say quite frankly that I played no part in giving ideas to this or former governments in connection with the Canada Grain Act, which is under discussion tonight. I take it that the Canada Grain Act is the result of representations made by farm organizations and farm members who put their ideas before the house as to the kind of act we should have in relation to the marketing of our grain so it would work to the best benefit of the producer and consumer alike.
Over the years no particular political party or group can take credit for the present grain act. While this is a good act I believe it can be improved. What I want to say right now is that we who speak for western agriculture are going to insist that it operate in the interests of those for whom it was set up, namely, the agricultural people of this country.
The fact remains that the government is introducing this evening a measure which contains several ideas. First, the resolution makes reference to No. 3 amber Durum wheat and all grades of soybeans and it is recommended that the grading of these be changed as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards. Further on it provides for the addition of another assistant grain commissioner, there being three under the present act. It then goes on to state that it is proposed to increase the salary of the chief commissioner from $14,000 to $15,000, and the salaries of the other two commissioners from $12,000 to $13,500.
My experience in the grain business goes back to early childhood. My first recollection is when I was hardly big enough to be lifted onto a high grain wagon to drive four horses with grain to the elevator. I can remember delivering grain in the twenties and even before that. I remember my father would come out from the elevator shaking his head and wondering why he got the grade he did. As
[Mr. Castleden.l
hon. members in this group have stated already, oftentimes a farmer because of certain conditions would receive overdockage or rather heavy dockage in respect to his grain. There does not seem to be much reason for that.
I remember an incident some years ago when a neighbour of mine took the trouble to take a sample of the wheat which he shipped that year and put it in a sealer which was put away on a shelf. He received No. 1 grade for that wheat during the crop season. Then in two years, as you recall-in 1951, I think it was-we had a very wet fall. Of course in our area in the province of Saskatchewan the wheat was in nearly all cases being graded No. 3 tough. We realized that in many parts of our district the wheat should have been graded straight grading and should have been graded closer to No. 1 but certainly not No. 3. Just out of curiosity they shipped a sample of this wheat which had previously graded No. 1 dry, down to Winnipeg for grading and it came back graded No. 3 tough, the same as all the wheat which was being shipped out of our area at that time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know the reason for that situation but the western farmers are extremely suspicious, even yet, as to the fairness of the marketing of our wheat under certain conditions. I want to say this. We are quite happy in having some sort of grain act by which we can receive at least some semblance of justice. The fight has been a long one. As I indicated formerly, members representing farm areas have come to this house and put proposals before the governments in order to get an act which would give us some conformity in the marketing and grading of our western wheat. We now find that this government has not seen fit to listen to the western organizations representing farmers with a view to setting up a board of grain commissioners who are, in their opinion, familiar with the responsibility of administering the act so that justice may be done.
I am much disturbed about the new appointment being made under this resolution or the one that is proposed to be made. Just the other day on the orders of the day I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question was with respect to the appointment to the board of grain commissioners of a new assistant commissioner. I asked what farm organizations, if any, had made a request for the appointment of Mr. Stanley Loptson. The information I received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce was that one farm organization had recommended his appointment.

I would say this, Mr. Chairman. When an important appointment such as this one is being made, the representatives of the farm organizations of western Canada should be taken into the confidence of the government and should have the opportunity to make a recommendation which would be of their choice so that we would have a commission which would be satisfactory to the farming population.
In leading off in this debate the hon. member for Assiniboia indicated that in his opinion, as a result of his experience on the parliamentary committee on agriculture, the commissioners were not capable of carrying out their duties under this act. So I join him and others who have taken the attitude that something should be done so as not to make of the board just purely a political asylum either for worn-out politicians or political friends of the Minister of Agriculture but that it should be a board representing the choice of western agriculture. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, it should be a board composed of men who have the necessary capabilities and experience and who know something about the grading and marketing of wheat. Otherwise the whole thing is going to be a farce.
I plead with the parliamentary assistant that he go to his minister and perhaps reject for the time being a further appointment. As far as I am concerned, I do not think we need an extra assistant commissioner. If we are going to do anything, we certainly should insist that those who are appointed know their job. I agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie when he asks how this government can justify making another appointment to the board and increasing the present salaries of these commissioners. The commissioner today is receiving $14,000, which is a handsome income. Each of the assistant commissioners is receiving $12,000. The proposal is to increase the salary of the chief commissioner to $15,000 and that of the assistant commissioners to $13,500.


John Horace Dickey: 


Edward George McCullough: Surely every member of this house must fail to see any justification for supporting this measure when-again as was stated by the hon. member for Mackenzie-just the other day, with regard to veterans of the first world war, this house could not see fit to give adequate allowances to them but felt that $840 was sufficient for a single veteran and $1,440 for a married couple.
There is something wrong with the mentality of the government when they try to foist upon the members of the House of Commons such a proposal as is indicated in
Canada Grain Act
this bill. I hope that the things that have been said by the members of this group, and those other members who have seen fit to speak on this matter to indicate that we are definitely not satisfied with this proposal, will have some effect. I think it is significant that not one single member of the government so far has risen and tried to justify the proposals contained in this resolution. I think that fact signifies that they cannot justify what they are trying to foist upon us this evening. It is my hope the whole matter will be the subject of reconsideration.
I am not so greatly concerned about the first part of the proposal to the effect that some changes shall be made in the grading of No. 3 amber Durum wheat or in respect of grades of soybeans. Maybe those changes are necessary. However, I would say this. If we want to keep faith with the producers of western Canada, surely we must at least give them some say as to who is appointed to these boards and must take some responsibility for the qualifications of these people who are appointed to the board. If that is not done, I think the farmers in western Canada may well be up in arms. They would not be exceeding their rights if they were to come down here with a delegation to meet with officials of the government, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others, in order to try to get some justice in relation to this matter.
In closing, may I say that, after what has been said, I hope the government will seriously consider taking out of this resolution the later recommendations, namely as to the increase in salary to the present chief commissioner and the assistant commissioners and also that they will perhaps dispense with the appointment of Mr. Loptson who is already there on appointment. I think that surely such a board as this one should be outside the realm of politics. As I indicated before, I do not think it should be a political fraternity of worn-out politicians or political heelers but rather that there should be only one criterion for appointment to this board, namely the qualifications of the men who get these positions. I also want to say that we have working with the grain commissioners and under their direction a chemist-Dr. Anderson-and others who are not nearly so well paid as are the commissioners themselves. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, until the commissioner and the assistant commissioners get down to business and learn what this business is all about and are able to operate the act so that it will be in conformity with their business, I would say there is no justification for bringing this measure before the house.

Canada Grain Act


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, all of us in this group were extremely happy when we learned not so long ago that the resolution dealing with amendments to the wheat board act was going to be presented to the house. Certainly we were looking forward to a few radical changes and amendments that were going to mean something. We based that hope on the recommendations that were made in the committee last year by members of the committee from western Canada together with the recommendations made by the farm organizations that presented briefs to the committee. These recommendations led us to believe that something that would be of benefit to the farmers of western Canada would be incorporated in the resolution that is before us this evening. When we saw the resolution we were greatly disappointed. We had hoped, as has been said this evening, that there would be something in it about the allocation of box cars. We thought there would be something in it to deal with shortages and overages. We thought that it might involve a complete overhaul of the Canada Grain Act.
As I say, we were sadly disappointed and the farmers of western Canada were disappointed. I have had many letters from farm organizations and individual farmers in my constituency asking me if I could give them some clue as to what might be contained in the resolution that was going to be presented to the house. In their opinion the personnel of the board of grain commissioners are no longer carrying out the job that it was originally intended should be done. They feel that the board is no longer looking after the interests of the farmers of western Canada. They feel that it is quite evident from what has been going on in the last few years that the board, instead of having the interests of the farmers at heart, is primarily concerned with the interests of the line elevator companies. Certainly the evidence produced last year at the committee hearings would seem to justify that belief.
The farmers have lost confidence in the board of grain commissioners. It was obvious to all members of the committee last year that they are unable to cope in an efficient manner with the duties that they are supposed to perform. The hon. member for Colchester-Hants was one of the members of that committee. In great haste he tried to come to the rescue of the board of grain commissioners this evening and to defend the evidence they gave before the committee last year. He tried to condone the fact that they did not know what the board was printing by way of publications. He tried to make a case for the board and condone their actions with

respect to the up-grading of grain by taking excessive dockage. He tried to show that the manner in which they were carrying out the inspection of grain elevators in western Canada was quite in order in spite of the fact that Mr. Mackenzie told us that one man could only service from 500 to 600 elevators in a season. In western Canada we have over 5,400 elevator houses that need annual inspection.
One thing I thought was rather shameful was that when we tried to get some statement from the personnel of the board at the committee hearings with respect to overages in country elevators we were told that it was not in the interests of anybody to be told anything about them. They said it would not be fair to give information that a particular elevator company was taking excessive overages because it would place that elevator company in a non-competitive position with respect to the elevator nearest to it. In other words, they were not prepared to tell the farmers in one town that a certain elevator company was gypping them and stealing from them. They said it would not be fair to do so because it would place that elevator in a non-competitive position with the elevator adjacent to it. That is the kind of thing that the hon. member for Colchester-Hants, who had so much to say this evening, is trying to condone.
In spite of the fact that these men showed such incompetence, the government now has the audacity to recommend that their salaries be increased to $15,000 for the chief commissioner and $13,500 for the other commissioners. I do not think that an increase in salary will mean that any greater efficiency will be shown by the board of grain commissioners. If that were the case then possibly there would be some justification for increasing salaries. We suggest that the first thing that should be done is a complete overhaul of the Canada Grain Act. We also suggest that the next thing that should be done is to put the present grain commissioners out on pasture. It will be time then to talk about increases in salaries.
I hope when we hear more of the details concerning this legislation we will have the assurance of the minister that that part of it relating to amber Durum wheat will not mean another handout to somebody other than the producers. I am somewhat suspicious about that part of the resolution, and certainly my suspicions are well founded after the experience that all of us had in the committee last year. That suspicion has certainly been justified in the last week with the appointment of the new grain commissioner.
I am afraid that somewhere along the line'

somebody is going to benefit by placing that Durum wheat in a lower category for one reason or another because there is a great differential in price between No. 2 and a lower grade. I hope the minister will be able to assure us that is not going to happen.
I should like to say a few words about the new appointment to the board of grain commissioners. As one who has been a farmer all my life and who believes in orderly marketing, I suppose I must accept my share of responsibility along with all other farmers for having supported the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners. We believe that they are necessary organizations. These boards are only the children of the farm organizations of western Canada. I am prepared to accept my fair share of responsibility. But when I think about these men whom we have placed in positions of responsibility to do for us what should be done, appointing a man like Stanley Loptson, I hang my head in shame. This appointment was ill-conceived, ill-advised and unwarranted.
Those of us who have anything to do with grain production and are interested in the whole grain picture know that there is a big job to be done by the board of grain commissioners. We know that the present board is incapable of doing that job. I am sure that the present commissioners who looked to the minister for some help were very disappointed and frustrated when they found they were having foisted on them a man who would be of absolutely no help in carrying out what must be an arduous job for these older members of the board.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this one observation. The recent appointment of Stanley Loptson to the board of grain commissioners proves to me conclusively that the Liberal party has learned nothing. I shall prophesy that if they continue to make these political appointments, whereby Liberal organizers roam the prairies at the taxpayers' expense, the Liberal party is doomed to extinction in western Canada.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Like the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to note in the speech from the throne mention of the fact that the Canada Grain Act was to be amended. I supposed it was to be amended to meet the requests of the farm organizations which had asked for a complete overhaul of the Canada Grain Act. I supposed it was to be amended to meet the requests of farmers as shown by the resolution of the hon. member for Assiniboia to allow for a system of box car allocation. My disappointment was great when I noticed that rather than following these principles which
Canada Grain Act
would have met with general agreement amongst western farmers the resolution was one to increase the salaries of the commissioners and assistant commissioners of the board of grain commissioners.
A few years ago the government might have been able to make a sound argument for increasing the numbers and salaries of the board of grain commissioners. At that time farm conditions were congested and no doubt many problems would arise. However, following the assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we are going to be rid of all our grain from the farms by the time this crop year is out, what is the necessity for increasing the numbers and salaries of the board of grain commissioners? The move is untimely, too, when the farmers in western Canada have just harvested the smallest crop in ten years. I feel I would be right in assuming that in most departments of government they follow the principle of promoting officials according to their ability. The junior man who has the qualifications automatically steps up as a vacancy presents itself. I believe that is a generally understood principle in most forms of business.
I wonder why it was not followed in this instance? I notice that the three assistant commissioners were completely by-passed in appointing a commissioner. I can only see one answer. It must be that the assistant commissioners were so incompetent they could not fill this position to which is attached a salary of $14,000 a year. It could be, too, that under certain circumstances this desirable principle of promotion according to ability must be disregarded for principles that are more politically expedient.
I have some evidence that would point out that perhaps the former is closer to the truth. Two years ago a complaint was made at a marketing point in my constituency that a certain elevator company was making a deduction of a half cent per bushel to be paid to a farmer who was loading grain for that company in a detached annex. There is a distinct prohibition against that in the Canada, Grain Act. I assumed that this police force, the board of grain commissioners, would be in there like an eager bird-dog investigating the situation. Finally, however, after repeated complaints from the farmers in that area, the situation was investigated. I should like to read from the report. This investigator came in from Alberta. He must have been a Fearless Fosdick or an invisible Scarlet O'Neil, because he said:
I did not contact any elevator men that day but 1 did hear all of them tell farmers who were calling that they would be able to take in grain the next morning and the earlier they got there the better.

Canada Grain Act
Here you have a man driving up with an Alberta licence on his car, not disguised, but acting as the highly paid official that he was. He did not contact any of the elevator men. He must have been standing in the driveway hidden behind a scale to hear them tell the farmers they would be able to take in grain the next day. He made a very thorough investigation of the situation.
There was another complaint, too, relating to deliveries of grain after hours. After this thorough investigation by this invisible Scarlet O'Neil from Alberta, he said:
I could not find any place where there was any discrimination. It is my personal opinion that there is nothing in this situation that a short crop or a lot of box cars would not remedy.
Then he goes on:
In view of the above circumstances, I would recommend that the file be closed.
I did not think the file should be closed, so I brought the matter before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. When I did Mr. Vallance said:
Mr. Johnson, I knew that file you were referring to as soon as you started. MacKinnon was sent into Tramping Lake. Have you got a complaint in front of you? We have none of those files with us, but I well remember this case at Tramping Lake because of the overcharge item.
Evidently the commissioners, the higher paid ones in the echelon, were familiar with the situation but deemed it undesirable, in view of the company that was involved, to make any prosecution. Mr. Milner, the other
member of the grain commission, later on said:
Could you give us that affidavit and the information? If you will do that, I will see to it that there is a prosecution launched.
Here we have one of these high paid commissioners, to whom the hon. member for Winnipeg South referred, stating that he knew all about the complaint as soon as the overcharge was mentioned, and you have the other commissioner, knowing nothing about it, but saying, You just give us the facts and we will go in there with a big wide broom and clean that mess up.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is a good place to pause for a moment. Having pointed out that the government could not very well appoint this particular assistant commissioner to this higher paid job because of his inefficiency, I would call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, there has been a slight change in the order in which I gave the matters last evening. Tomorrow, we shall continue with this debate, and then take, in the order I indicate, the resolution with respect to the National Defence Act; the fisheries resolution; the resolution with respect to the Defence Production Act; Bills No. 183 and No. 184, as well as Bills No. 188 and No. 189.


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


[Stage Direction]
(Copy)
Ottawa, March 8, 1955.
Similar letters sent to all Premiers
My dear Premier:
In my letter to you of January 14th, I said that I would be writing again after my return from London with a view to working out arrangements for a federal-provincial fiscal conference later this year.
Following further consideration of the matter with my colleagues, I am writing now to you to propose that we hold a preliminary
meeting here in Ottawa shortly after Easter, say, April 21st and 22nd, if those days are convenient to all of us.
I suggest that the purpose of this preliminary meeting should be to reach some conclusions on the broad outline of the agenda for the main conference and to decide upon an opening date.
I am sure we all agree that the main conference will be an important occasion, and that to be successful, a good deal of careful thought and study should go into the preparations for it.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) Louis S. St. Laurent.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 11, 1955