Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, the newspaper " Le Journal," of Quebec, in its edition of Feb. 23, published the following report in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) to the national defence estimates:

The same members who had voted for the motion of Mr. Gauthier voted for that of Mr. Thorson, excepting Mr. J. F. Pouliot, who was absent from the chamber at the time.

I was in the chamber at the time, and I did vote for the item and against the amendment, for the reasons recorded in Hansard.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

In order that there may be no misapprehension I desire to place upon record my views with respect to this legislation, and as under our rules the mover of a third reading has no right of reply I shall endeavour to be scrupulously careful not to go beyond what was said during the discussion on the measure.

In the year 1935 the late governor introduced into parliament a bill which subsequently, on April 17 of that year, became chapter 23 of the statutes of Canada, It was intituled:

An act to provide for the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

It was cited as The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. By section 3 of that act it is provided that:

(1) The governor in council may establish a committee to be known as the prairie farm rehabilitation advisory committee, hereinafter called " the committee," the members of which shall hold office during pleasure.

(2) One of the members of the committee shall be appointed chairman by the governor in council.

(3) The committee shall consist of the following:

(a) one representative of the Manitoba grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;

(b) one representative of the Saskatchewan grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;

(c) one representative of the Alberta grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;

1296 COMMONS

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Bennett

(d) one representative of Saskatchewan live stock farmers from the drought areas;

(e) one representative of Alberta range farmers from the drought areas;

(f) one representative of mortgage companies of Canada;

(g) one representative of the Canadian Bankers' Association;

(h) one representative each from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways;

(i) two representatives from the dominion Department of Agriculture; and

(j) one representative of the government in each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The chairman, it will be observed, is to be appointed by the governor in council. Under the provision of that section of the act the following persons were appointed by the governor in council: Doctor E. S. Archibald, Ottawa, chairman; Dominion Department of Agriculture; James H. Girvin, Medora, Manitoba grain growing farmers; Olaf Nyland, Shaunavon, Sask., Saskatchewan grain growing farmers; P. C. Colquhoun, Maple Creek, Sask., Saskatchewan live stock farmers; Leonard Koole, Monarch, Alberta, Alberta grain growing farmers; R. P. Gilchrist, Wild Horse, Alberta, Alberta range farmers; Professor J. H. Ellis, Winnipeg, government of Manitoba; Dean A. M. Shaw, Saskatoon, government of Saskatchewan; 0. S. Longman, Edmonton, government of Alberta, E. W. Jones, Calgary, Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Doctor W. J. Black, Montreal, Canadian National Railways; F. J. Freer, Winnipeg, mortgage companies of Canada; Doctor E. S. Hopkins, Ottawa, Dominion Department of Agriculture; B. P. Alley, Toronto, Canadian Bankers' Association.

These gentlemen were selected by the bodies whom they purport to represent, having been communicated with for that purpose by the then Minister of Agriculture. The bill now before the house for third reading repeals section 3 and dismisses from office without cause given the gentlemen I have named. The section in question reads as follows:

1. Section three of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, chapter 23 of the statutes of 1935, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

3. (1) The governor in council may establish one or more committees to be known as prairie farm rehabilitation committees, the members of which shall hold office during pleasure.

2. One of the members of each committee shall be appointed chairman thereof by the minister.

My first objection therefore is that it is not fair to men who volunteer their services, who accept responsibility and serve without emolument, to dismiss them in this public fashion without cause and without opportunity

to be heard. In other words reputable citizens of this country, giving public service, should not be subject to the humiliation of public dismissal by statute without at least some reasons being given why they are dismissed. To suggest that they may be reappointed is begging the question. They are dismissed by the repeal of the section of the statute under which they were appointed.

The second point to which I desire to direct attention is that the statute as amended -I have just read the new section 3-sets up one or more committees. I think it is axiomatic that advisory committees, dealing with a problem as vast as that to be considered in connection with the rehabilitation of the areas in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, should act as a unit, and that the advice which may be given from time to time by committees having different views upon the same problem would not be conducive either to economy in the public service or to efficiency and effectiveness in what they propose to do. The fact is that Swift Current was selected as the point from which operations were to be directed, and a laboratory was built there some time ago, but the central operations have now been removed to Regina. It must not be forgotten that there are three provinces affected, and the likelihood of completely efficient administration from a point like Swift Current is far greater than it would be from a city such as Regina, where the effects of the pressure of the government of one particular province will be much greater than they would be if the representation were from all the provinces.

Lastly I desire to point out that it is a little difficult to understand why such surprise should be manifested at objection being taken to the appointment of a new official in the person of John Vallance to administer this very important act. It was suggested that the preceding government had been guilty of appointing members of parliament, and a very strong attack was made on one gentleman who was appointed from this house to the position he now holds. If we take the language of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on a former occasion, if one can believe the reports that sometimes filter through with respect to caucuses, the hon. members for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) and Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) were not uncertain in their expressions of disapproval of Mr. Campbell on one occasion at that very important gathering known as the caucus. These are reports and rumours which merely filter through, and to which too much importance must not attach. The fact that in the

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)

appointment of Mr. Campbell it was provided that he could not be a candidate in an election apparently has been overlooked. But it is established beyond question that the gentleman appointed to administer this act resides within the area, and it has been rumoured- of course once more we must not attach too much importance to rumour-that he is not unwilling to be a candidate at a succeeding election. The manifest unfairness, therefore, if that should happen, of his being concerned in the administration of this act, must be painfully apparent to most of us.

I merely refer at this time to these objections to the measure in order that there may be no question as to the position we have taken, not out of ill will towards any individual but because it is a departure from what I conceive to be a sound principle. The possibility of an appointee again being a candidate in the area in which he is coming into such close contact with the people is something that was safeguarded in the Tariff Board Act by providing that members of that board who retired from office could not for a period of years be candidates in succeeding elections. The other point I have endeavoured to make is that it is detrimental to the public interest that those who serve without compensation or emolument should be humiliated by being publicly removed from office by statute. That is all that I desire to say, because I realize the desirability, on third reading of a measure, of being scrupulously careful not to go beyond the general statements that were made during the discussion of the measure in committee.

Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Before the third reading of this bill finally carries, and in reply to my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) who so kindly mentioned me a moment ago in regard to remarks in caucus, I may say that he is entirely wrong in what he said, and not only that but I suggest that he try to keep up the fences of his own caucus without endeavouring to look after ours.

This committee that was set up was appointed not by statute but, as I understand it, by order in council. The committee which was to give such valuable advice to the government was called together once while the late government was in office, and I believe the members were appointed some three days before they were called together by wire. The soil laboratory work that my right hon. friend speaks of has been going on for years at the university in Saskatoon, and any change from Swift Current to Regina therefore will not affect that work at all.

In speaking of Mr. Vallance, who is in charge of the work out there, I would say that surely in a work of this kind it is much 31111-82$

better to have in charge a man who has had actual experience, as Mr. Vallance has had, in Saskatchewan, rather than one even who has been in the government service on an experimental farm. Mr. Vallance came to Saskatchewan many years ago. He started in as a homesteader, went through all the trials and tribulations that every farmer in that country has had to face in recent years, and understands their situation from personal experience. Men who have been in government positions cannot see nearly as well as the ordinary farmer who has himself been through those experiences the troubles that the ordinary farmer has. Mr. Vallance is a practical man, a good grain farmer, a good live stock farmer, and a much better man to head such a committee or such work in that part of the country than any man who has been in a sheltered government position for many years and has never had to endure those hardships. As for Mr. Vallance coming back into public life, I hope some day he will do so. He was a great asset to this house and this country, and will be again if he ever chooses to run.

My right hon. friend accused Mr. Vallance of being that type of man who could not be in any town for more than an hour or two-before getting mixed up in politics. I do not think that is a fair statement in regard to Mr. Vallance or any other man appointed to public office who, in his work, is supposed not to deal with politics but with the duties of the position to which he has been appointed. For instance, just prior to the election, my right hon. friend appointed to the bench in Saskatchewan perhaps one of the bitterest partisans we ever had in that province. I make no comments in that regard; I believe that gentleman has made an admirable judge. I think he forgot politics, as he should, the moment he was appointed to the bench, and I am satisfied that John Vallance is not talking or thinking politics any more than that man now on the bench is thinking politics. Because the one happens to be a lawyer and the other a poor rural rustic from Saskatchewan is no reason why these men should be put in different categories. It may be so in the minds of some people but certainly not in the minds of the people of western Canada.

Speaking of appointments made by those in office which should not be made, my mind harks back to the election of 1926. I believe at that time my right hon. friend was in charge of the Department of the Interior, and at that time there was appointed-

1298 COMMONS

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)

Mr. BENNETT:

No, I was Minister of

Finance.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Did not my right hon. friend also have charge of the Department of the Interior at that time?

Mr. BENNETT:

I can only say that I was Minister of Finance. My memory is not good enough to say whether or not I may have acted as Minister of the Interior on some occasions; I certainly acted in many capacities in those days.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

At that time, if my memory serves me aright, my right hon. friend was at least acting Minister of the Interior.

Mr. BENNETT:

I may have been.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

I do not altogether blame my right hon. friend for what happened, because we do not expect quarter to be given in an election campaign, but at that time certain homestead inspectors in Saskatchewan were dismissed by wire, and a man was appointed, presumably to be a homestead inspector, who worked throughout the election campaign. When the election was over a check up was made and it was found that this gentleman had never made any inspections at all. He had a good deal of trouble getting his pay from the department, and at the time his statement was that he was not hired as a homestead inspector to do homestead inspecting; he was hired to assist Doctor Swanson in the election. But he got $250 for it, just the same.

Perhaps when some of us look over our past records we would be better advised not to make comments upon political appointments, even when elections are not in the offing. Mr. John Vallance is not a political appointee. He is a first-class man for the position, and I do not think you could find anyone in that part of western Canada, other than outright political partisans, who would have one word to say against the appointment of Mr. Vallance for the work he is doing. Not only that; I think it will be found that under his direction this act will be carried out in much better fashion than it would have been under a man who did not have the same experience that Mr. Vallance has had in Saskatchewan.

Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):

I should like to express the opinion of at least part of Manitoba with regard to this act, because it happens that in my riding there are three municipalities adjacent to the drought area under discussion. It seems to me that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr.

Bennett) has done a great disservice to the proper functioning of this act in the future. As I understood his remarks to-day they were simply an attack upon the man who has been charged with the administration of the act.

Mr. BENNETT:

That was a minor part of my remarks.

Mr. GLEN:

The right hon. gentleman referred to the removal of the office from Swift Current to Regina and to the dismissal of these men without cause, and his third point was a direct attack upon Mr. John Vallance. I am not here to say very much with regard to Mr. Vallance except, as has been well said by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), that I think he is probably as capable and competent as many of the men appointed by my right hon. friend. If the right hon. gentleman is no better judge of the calibre of Mr. Vallance than he was of the calibre of some of his own appointees,

I think there is a great deal of hope that this act may be carried out in a proper way.

I recall that the right hon. gentleman enunciated the doctrine that those in high positions ought to be able to carry out their policies without interference. I remember that when my right hon. friend became Prime Minister in 1930 he looked around for an ambassador to London and chose Hon. Howard Ferguson. Well, we know that Mr. Ferguson started out with very high qualifications, but g he added to those qualifications by characterizing himself as a crusader who was going to convert the old country people to his point of view. We know his record during these years, and I venture to say that the ambassador appointed by this government has done more in his first year in office than Mr. Ferguson did during all the time he was in England. I might say also that the slogan "Canada Calling" that has been adopted by the present ambassador has met with a response which I think does great credit to our high commissioner, and I believe it will bring added benefits to this country.

I remember also that before my right hon. friend became Prime Minister he criticized some appointments made by the Liberal government, and in particular he picked upon the tariff board of that day. I remember the violent attack that was made upon the chairman of that board, the present hon. member of this house for Ontario (Mr. Moore). The reins of office were no sooner in the hands of my right hon. friend than Mr. Moore, as he was then, was fired from that job and the appointees of the new government put in. My right hon. friend spoke of the rumours with regard to Mr. Campbell. Well, I made

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Glen

it my business to look over Hansard to find out what the right hon. gentleman said at that time with regard to Mr. Campbell and his qualifications, and the only remark I could find was that Mr. Campbell was appointed because he was a western member. No other qualification was mentioned. Those of us who had some knowledge of Mr. Campbell were quite satisfied that he was no world renowned economist, and some of us did wonder why a Progressive, or a member of the Progressive body, should be appointed to an office which so directly affects people in western Canada.

What was the picture behind it? I am perfectly sure the right hon. the leader of the opposition did not approve that appointment, although he might have consented to it; for I am quite sure he does not suffer fools gladly. It might be interesting, however, to know just what services Mr. Campbell rendered the Conservative party which were sufficient to gain him an appointment from the then Conservative government. It must have been a most wonderful performance to be sufficient to gain him a statutory appointment at a salary of $10,000 a year. If he survives only two more years he will retire with a pension of $5,000. It is gall and wormwood to some of us to see anything done in that fashion. Further, it is serious for us to have to bear with it, but apparently the right hon. the leader of the opposition has made it as definite as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and it cannot be changed. The right hon. gentleman opposite spoke about rumours emanating from caucus. There was no need for rumours, because any hon. member on this side of the house would be willing to express here or on the platform exactly what was in his mind.

I can recall, too, that the right hon. gentleman, in his wisdom, appointed to the railway board a very distinguished judge, Mr. Fullerton. I have nothing to say against Mr. Fullerton, whom I know. I believe he has had a good record as a judge, but as head of the railway board in Canada surely a lawyer was not the man to appoint. As it happens, he has now retired from the office and a man who has some knowledge of his job has been placed in that position.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think the hon. member is confusing two things. The head of the railway board has usually been a lawyer; the hon. member is referring to the head of the board of trustees.

Mr. GLEN:

Yes, the head of the board of trustees. Whatever his denomination might be, the fact is that he had charge of the railways of Canada, and was responsible for the framing and formation of their policies.

As I said before, if the appointments the right hon, gentleman himself has made have shown such a lack of judgment, it ill behooves him to make an attack upon Mr. Vallance simply because he does not think Mr. Vallance is qualified for the position. My view is that the right hon. leader of the opposition has done a vast disservice to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in telling Canada that in his view the administration of the act by Mr. Vallance will not be a competent administration because he believes the head is not competent.

I am thoroughly convinced that as far as possible the act must be divested of any partisan affiliations on the part of those appointed. In looking over the constitution of the committee I can think of many people who should be represented on it but are not now represented. For instance, I find no members of boards of trade within the district affected. There are no members of the trustees associations in the district. They cannot serve because they are not named in the act. Many other organizations are not represented, and yet, Mr. Speaker, the act must be carried out by those who are directly affected. I know that there are many men of all political shades of opinion who would be willing to give of their services and their best wisdom in the carrying out of the measure. After all, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is no fool. He knows well enough that the successful carrying out of the act means something to his own prestige. Certainly a year hence if the act has not been carried out as it should have been, fault will be found, and under such circumstances I would say, the Lord help the Minister of Agriculture when the leader of the opposition gets his teeth into him in connection with any failures there may have been. The Minister of Agriculture has a perfect right to ask that those in charge of the administration of the act shall be men whom he knows, and in whom he has confidence, because he will be responsible, and should have some say in it.

The minister has stated he does not intend to change the committee. One can realize that that is a perfectly honest and frank expression of opinion.

Mr. BENNETT:

The statute repeals it; they are dismissed.

Mr. GLEN:

Oh, yes, so far as the act is concerned. But so far as the administration of the act is concerned, the minister has said

1300 COMMONS

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Hansell

time and again, although the leader of the opposition will not accept the statement, that he does not propose to dismiss the men who are now connected with it.