1944-07-21

[Stage Direction]
On the order of motions:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to rise to a question of privilege. It relates to certain strong protests which have been made recently in parliament, as well as outside, with respect to the right of freedom of speech in the parliament of Canada. I have delayed bringing up this matter in the House of Commons in the expectation that the government leader in the other place, or the member around whom the issue revolved, would introduce the matter on a question of privilege in the other chamber when it reconvened on Tuesday last after having been in adjournment almost continuously since the incident occurred. In view of the fact that the question has not been raised in the other place, however, I am bringing it now before this house since it concerns the rights of members of both branches of parliament. In my opinion the inalienable right of freedom of speech which must be enjoyed by every member of parliament, whether in the other place, the House of Commons or any other deliberative assembly in Canada, should be zealously safeguarded and vigorously defended.
Without making further comment with respect to the matter I am going to ask the Prime Minister, who is not in his place at the moment, in view of the fact that the situation affects both houses of parliament, if he will call into conference with him the leader of the government in the senate so that the matter may be fully reviewed and such steps taken in both houses simultaneously as may be felt necessary to ensure that freedom of speech shall be maintained and preserved.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: As my hon. friend has indicated, the Prime Minister is unavoidably absent this morning. I will have what my hon friend has said brought to his attention.


Gordon Graydon: It is a suggestion only.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am rather at a loss to understand why this statement should be made as a question of privilege. After hearing the statement made by the leader of the opposition, I would think that it might properly come up by way of a motion in the house, rather than as a matter of privilege

Veterans' Insurance

on the routine proceedings. I am just making that suggestion now, so that both the government and the leader of the opposition may consider it.
Mr. G.RAYDON: I was hoping that what Your Honour has suggested would be the next step to be taken by the Prime Minister.



VETERANS' INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide life insurance on the life of veterans of the present war, payable to beneficiaries, as defined in the said measure, and upon the conditions thereby provided, or by regulations prescribed.
Moneys received by way of premium to form part of the consolidated revenue fund and payments under the contracts of insurance to be paid out of the said fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. POULIOT:: We shall not wait until they are dead to look after the disabled.


Mr. CHURCH:: We should have had this four years ago, when the minister opposed it in this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act and to provide for the extension of the operation of the said act to certain persons in the public service not presently included therein and to make such further provisions respecting contributions, allowances and benefits as may be deemed necessary for the said purpose and for the better operation or administration of the said act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Labour what action has been taken by the government to prevent a stoppage of work at the Halifax shipyards owing to a dispute between the industrial workers union there and the Halifax shipyards, and the failure of the company to carry out the recommendations of the conciliation board.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I returned to the city only a
short time ago, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend did not give notice of this question. I shall be glad to look into it and give him a reply on Monday.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the Prime Minister said he would bring to the attention of the proper minister the question of evictions in Toronto. I would ask if the cabinet has discussed this matter, and what the results of those discussions have been. Also I should like to know when they are going to get started in Toronto in an effort to have wartime houses erected. The situation is desperate, and the summer is rapidly going.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the wartime prices and trade board, or someone on its behalf, has been in touch with the authorities of the city of Toronto and is discussing the matter with them. Those discussions are now going on. That is all I can say about it at this time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask this further question: I should like to learn from the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether any wartime houses are to be built, and if so how soon they are to be started.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: It is my understanding that a
certain number of houses, somewhere between one hundred and two hundred, are now under construction, to be completed as rapidly as possible.


Gordon Graydon: Following what has
already been asked in connection with housing, and while I know the Minister of Finance is extremely busy and working under heavy

Mobilization Act
pressure, may I point out to him that we would like to have the new housing legislation brought before parliament as soon as he can find it convenient, with his other duties, to do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I realize the urgency of the measure. We hope to have it ready to lay before the government early next week.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, bearing upon a press report which quotes a statement made by the registrar of division F, Quebec city, in regard to the enforcement of the mobilization regulations. Summarized, the statement is as follows: that anyone who "willingly and voluntarily", to use the words of the statement-

violated the mobilization regulations, the registrar is always ready to study their requests attentively, and spare them trouble if they admit their error.	*
Furthermore, is that administration-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member may lay the foundation for his question, but must not go further than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Smile, smile, smile.


John George Diefenbaker: This is no smiling matter. It is very difficult to ask a question without epitomizing what has been said. Is it a fact that the minister has given a direction that persons employed in industry or business, even if their work is not essential to the war effort, may be granted postponement? Furthermore, have confidential letters recently been sent out by the minister, or have confidential directives been given to certain mobilization boards, giving those boards the right to depart from the terms of any of the regulations which have been passed?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am well aware of the fact that there is an election going on in one of the provinces at the present time. But let me say to my hon. friend that there is no distinction made in any part of this country as to the application of mobilization regulations. Nor has any secret directive been sent out to any province-even to my hon. friend's province.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, there was- to the province of Saskatchewan.
100-326i


Gordon Graydon: Why is there a difference in interpretation between this government and the government of the province of Quebec? That is what we would like to know.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no difference.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Get more Tory candidates in Quebec.


Gordon Graydon: Well, there will be no Liberal candidates after the election is over; don't worry about that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not very often speak in this way, but the fact is that these questions are being asked for purely political reasons and no other.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order. Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


Thomas Vien: Order. I think the question is closed. Orders of the day.


Gordon Graydon: We cannot be accused of politics; we have no candidates down there. You will not have any, either, after it is over.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Save the deposits you lost in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Vien: Order.



SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO FARMERS TINDER REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I ask the Minister of Labour if he informed by letter or otherwise the premier of Quebec that the farmers were protected under the regulations?
Humphrey Mitchell: I can answer the hon. member for Temiscouata only as I answered the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). There is no difference whatsoever in any province in Canada. The same protection to the agriculture industry is being given to every province in Canada, irrespective of whether it is east or west.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not deny that. But the minister has not answered my question. He may have written the same letter to different premiers. But, did he not write to the premier of Quebec stating that farmers were protected under the regulations?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say this, that the protection given to agriculture in this dominion is probably better than in any other country of the united nations.


Gordon Graydon: That does not answer it.
Floor Price for Ontario Wheat


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not an answer to the question. I asked the minister if he had written that to the premier of Quebec.


Thomas Vien: Order. Orders of the day.


Gordon Graydon: There is a nigger in the woodpile somewhere.



MOTOR LAUNCHES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter of some urgency which will require the attention of two ministers of the crown. I have received a letter from the clerk and treasurer of an important village and summer resort near Lindsay. My attention is called to these lines in the letter:
We have a 30-foot launch here which runs pleasure trips for guests-


Thomas Vien: Order; I cannot hear the hoti. member.


Thomas Langton Church: Well, I gave a copy of the letter to both ministers. It states:
We have a 30-foot launch here which runs pleasure trips for guests . . . carrying 25 to 27 passengers who do not recognize the danger. It is really dangerous and everyone experienced on these waters lives in dread of a bad accident due to overloading.
It has no certificate, and if this is continued there will be an accident some week-end. In the letter my attention is drawn to the fact that this launch carries twenty-seven people from the city I represent. The Minister of Transport has power to stop the sale of gasoline to yachts and other pleasure craft carrying passengers when they have not the certi-cate or safety aids required by the minister. Surely some action has to be taken. I have sent the complaint to both ministers. I would like to hear from the minister this morning. If the answer is brought down as a return, they may all be returned home over a week-end,- in their coffins.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not received the letter, copy of which is said to have been, addressed to me. However when I receive it I shall be glad to consult with my colleague the Minister of Transport, and determine if any action is necessary.



FLOOR PRICE FOR ONTARIO WHEAT, 1944-45 CROP

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, with the

permission of the house I should like to make a brief statement of considerable urgency, so far as Ontario wheat farmers are concerned.
I wish to announce that the government has decided to provide a floor price for Ontario wheat during the 1944-45 crop year. The Canadian wheat board has been empowered to purchase in terminal market positions No. 1 grades of Ontario winter wheat at $1.25 per bushel, basis Montreal.
It is the hope of the government that Ontario winter wheat will be purchased by mills at the ceiling price during the present ;rop year, and that it will not be necessary for he board to purchase wheat in volume in order to guarantee a minimum price of $1.25 per bushel for No. 1 grades, Montreal basis. However, should prices weaken, or should supplies of Ontario wheat offered for sale during the crop year exceed requirements of eastern mills, the board will exercise the special powers granted to it for the present crop year and will maintain minimum prices on the basis of $1.25 per bushel for No. 1 grades, basis Montreal.
In so far as the board becomes a purchaser of Ontario winter wheat in 1944-45 it will do so in respect to standard grades of wheat in store in terminal elevators and will do so as a market stabilization measure. Any loss resulting from board operations in this respect will be a charge upon the treasury.
I wish to point out that this stabilization measure will be operated in the place of an initial advance to producers with participation certificates hitherto provided under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. With the ceiling at SI.26, it is the considered opinion of the government that Ontario winter wheat producers will realize more from the support of the terminal market prices of their wheat than under the system of producer deliveries to the board which was formerly in effect.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-410s. Amalgam safes; automatic ore samplers; automatic feeders; retorts; mercury pumps; non-metallic heating elements; pyrometers; bullion furnaces; amalgam cleaners; and integral parts of all the foregoing, for use exclusively in mining or metallurgical operations: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the tariff is a most important question. Before the establishment of the foreign exchange control board, the wartime prices and trade board, and various

Customs Tariff
controls in the Department of Munitions and Supply, the tariff was the only obstacle to trade. For a long time all governments imposed the tariff for revenue, but now it is entirely different. Canadian imports have been affected by the tariff changes made by the Bennett government. Our import trade is much less proportionately than it was before. What surprises me is that the same men who acted as advisers to the late Bennett government in tariff matters were kept on by this government after they came into power.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are dealing with
item 410s, covering amalgam safes, automatic ore samplers, et cetera. The discussion should be confined to the item before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: We must come down to fundamentals.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We have had fundamentals for a long time.


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the hon. gentleman from the west to-[DOT]


George Hugh Castleden: I would like to know when item 409o was passed?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not passed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Item 409o was passed. I was in the chamber last night when it was passed.


George Hugh Castleden: The records do not show that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was passed.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I hold in my hand a copy of Hansard. I know there is some argument as to whether Hansard is a proper record, but it indicates that 409n was agreed to and that is the last entry in Hansard for yesterday. That will be found at page 5179. There is no mention of item 409o.


Mr. GOLDING:: I happened to be in the chair when the item was passed at eleven o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have it marked as passed.


William Henry Golding: It was definitely passed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I took my pen and marked a line after "n" and before "o". The discussion was on "n" and not on "o". Two or three times the chairman asked if the item was adopted or not, and finally the committee rose and the item carried but "o" was not called.


William Henry Golding: Just before we closed I asked if the item was carried and it was carried.


George Hugh Castleden: That was item 409n.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Item 409o. Hansard is not the record of the House of Commons. We have it here properly recorded and properly signed, "Item 409, 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409h, 409i, 409j, 409k, 409n and 409o."


Jean-François Pouliot: You know very well that as a rule all the items are signed in advance.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am not reading the items from the resolution; I am reading the scroll.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I draw attention to the fact that according to Hansard 409o was not even called.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is right. 409o was not called; we called 409n, but that was definitely carried.


Grote Stirling: 409o could not have been carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I move that we revert to 409o.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Provided that the committee agree; but I must ask the committee to keep the discussion within the ambit of the item before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: With the consent of the committee we will take up 409o and see what can be done about it. This item includes storage batteries, and it is most interesting. I should like to go back to 1935 when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister and show the committee what the duty on storage batteries was at that time. I am interested in this because in many country places where no power is available the farmers rely upon storage batteries for a great many things and they are a little handicapped in their purchases. I will tell the committee what handicaps the rural class of this country.
In 1935 there was a distinction between electric and galvanic batteries, the ordinary storage battery. A change is now being made in the designation of the item. Previously the tariff was most complicated. For electric and galvanic batteries the British preferential tariff was 15 per cent; the most favoured nation, 25 per cent; intermediate, 25 per cent and general, 27i per cent. Listen to this description of "battery" that is given. The term used was not general, it was specific and it made the thing most complicated. Listen to this:
Batteries, storage electric, composed of plates measuring not less than 11 inches 'by 14 inches
Customs Tariff

and not less than three-quarters of an inch in thickness, and complete parts thereof: free; 25; 25; 27|.
The rates given are for the British preferential, most favoured nation, intermediate and general. I wonder if that description was put there to protect the manufacturers of storage batteries. All other electric and galvanic batteries were 15, 25, 25 and 27J. There was a distinction made between the two kinds of batteries. That was the tariff that existed in 1935 and it continued until 1940, but now it is being changed. We now have storage batteries under item 409o, which reads:
Equipment for generating electric power for farm purposes only, viz: engine, gas tank, generator, storage battery, and switchboard or panel; and complete parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
The most favoured nation tariff has disappeared. The explanatory note does not mention what the tariff is now, but according to the information I have it is free, 25, 25 and 27 J. The description here is most vague. All the items are put together and it is most difficult to find out what we want in the tariff. We have to refer to a book that is published outside of our government, the "Canadian Almanac" which lists all the tariff items alphabetically. I suppose the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue maintain their own alphabetical indexes, but the members of parliament are not provided with a copy, and when they want information about the tariff they have to go to the excellent compilation made by the "Canadian Almanac". That means, strangely enough, that if we want information on the tariff we have to rely on publications outside of the government unless we wish to go through a whole lot of work. That is one point.
What will be the effect of this reduction on imports? Before the war it was easy for anyone to send $100 or $500 to the United States, or to England or anywhere else, to obtain storage batteries. Tt is not possible to do that now except with the authorization of the foreign exchange control board. I am all for a reduction in the tariff on this item, but because of the autocracy of the foreign exchange control board it is impossible for the farmers to get any batteries from the United States. They cannot take advantage of this tariff reduction to secure what they need. I remember that a long time ago a committee of this house sat and considered the duties on agricultural implements and brought in a report recommending a decrease in duties, but nothing was done about that unit! now; and now, when it is done, it is to no purpose. That is

my complaint. So long as the farmers are handicapped in getting what they need, by the regulations of the foreign exchange control board, it is impossible for them to take advantage of this reduction in the tariff. The same thing applies to exports. It is impossible to export because of the export restrictions. What is the use of the export permit branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce? They cannot do anything. They are under the control of the controllers of the Department of Munitions and Supply and under the wartime prices and trade board. That is the position, and it means that traders are tied up.
Some storage batteries are manufactured in Canada, but it is essential that our farmers have access to an open market in the United States to buy their batteries there because they are not well served by the firms in Toronto, who always serve wholesalers before serving the small dealers in country places. I had to bother the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance a number of times over numerous and justified complaints with respect to the radio service in Temiscouata county. We have a very good service there under an excellent man, but it is impossible for him to get the materials he requires from the manufacturer or from the wholesaler. That is another reason why the matter should be considered in connection with this tariff item which we are now considering. The perfect radio service of Temiscouata should have the opportunity to order as many storage batteries as they need to supply the farmers of my district without going to the manufacturers in Toronto, who do not give them the service to which they are entitled. It is as clear as crystal. The tariff item itself is good, and I do not oppose it. Once more I say that I am opposing the restrictions imposed by the Department of Finance through the foreign exchange control board, which make these tariff provisions perfectly useless.
I have the highest regard for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I believe is a great collaborator with the Minister of Finance, but the Minister of Finance should not have ail this power in his hands through the various organizations which are under his control. How is it that the British preferential tariff has been left for so long at fifteen per cent on electric and galvanic batteries? It was impossible to secure batteries f-om the United Kingdom and yet this government is the one that is preaching patriotism. They say their heart is with Great Britain, but when it comes down to brass tacks there has been a fifteen per cent tariff for so long on British goods. I have done some research but

Customs Tariff
I did not have the time to examine the whole record between 1940 and 1944. I realize, however, that it waa only after a long time that the tariff was changed.
I might give the names of some of the Toronto firms which are most unsatisfactory, and one gentleman who knows all about it is precisely the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, with whom I have dealt regarding these matters. It is impossible to get any satisfaction from these Toronto firms. When one of my constituents sent a Toronto firm an accepted cheque it was returned and the firm did not fill the order. The parliamentary assistant then got in touch with the firm in Toronto, through one of the controllers, and notified them that in all fairness they should serve my constituents in a better way. But what did they get? They got what they wanted drop by drop, only a very small quantity at a time. During all that time the farmers were suffering on account of the stupidity of these people. I am against manufacturers having the power to control the exports of any other manufacturer, or to control the imports of any other manufacturer. So long as the various organizations under the department of finance are not submitted to the control of parliament, we shall get nowhere.
There is another thing I want to say. I am greatly concerned about the way in which tariffs are made. I go back to April 6, 1936, when I made this motion in the house. I quote from Hansard of April 6, 1936, page 1815:
Mr. Pouliot moved for a copy of the last draft of the Canadian American agreement as it was on October 23, 1935.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I am not aware that there is a draft of any Canada-United States agreement dated October 23. 1935. If there is. I think it would be a privileged document and as such could not properly be brought down.
Mr. Bennett:	It has been distinctly stated
that there was no such draft.
Mr. Pouliot: Then nothing was done by the previous administration in that connection.
Motion dropped.
My point was not so much that the Bennett government, through Mr. Herridge's negotiations with the United States government, had done nothing, but rather that this government took office on October 21, 1935, and, the Canada-United States trade agreement was entered into at Washington three weeks after, on November 15. [DOT] What wizards! Is it possible for any man on earth to make a treaty in three weeks when nothing has been done before? There was no agreement as to any item of the tariff at the time. Now, sir,
they are precisely the people who boss the whole show, and it is impossible to criticize them and they are above all of us.
My conclusion is this. The controllers, the wartime prices and trade board, the foreign exchange control board-if these are to subsist any longer, to the detriment of the Canadian people, they should be told definitely by the Minister of Finance that the needs of the Canadian people should be looked after, and merely because a man lives in the country he should not be deprived of the advantages which a man who lives in the city has. Every Canadian citizen has the right to the same facilities and the same comfort, but until now, through the stupidity and greed of the manufacturers of batteries in the cities of Toronto and Montreal, the Canadian farmer has been deprived of storage batteries. Many a time when he asked for a battery he could not get it because it was easier to fill larger orders.
It is a simple matter for the minister to avoid a lot of useless correspondence by giving formal orders, in the first place, to the wartime prices and trade board, and in the second place to the foreign exchange control board, to impose no restriction on the import of such goods. He should also notify the Canadian manufacturers that if they do not serve the country people as they deserve to be served, the foreign exchange control board will allow the Canadian merchants who sell batteries in rural districts to buy all they need from the United States, and give them the right to send money to the United States to buy those batteries.
It is not mjr desire to handicap the Canadian manufacturer; on the other hand, if the Canadian manufacturer is not serving the Canadian people it is the duty of the government to redress that wrong; and the government must be obeyed, too. It is very easy for them to do that.
Besides that, the Minister of Munitions and Supply should not miss an opportunity to tell the chief of controls-successor to one who was connected for a long time with Barclay's bank and is now one of the numerous heads of the Tory party, namely Harry Borden:- that he should do nothing to give privileges to the big dealers in the cities at the expense of the smaller dealers in rural communities. It is easy to do that. If the respective controllers-Donald Gordon, of the wartime prices and trade board, or L. Rasminsky, of the exchange control board, and the rest- do not obey the minister, out they go; the minister can fire them at any time, because, I assume, they are there "during pleasure"
518S
Customs Tariff

I use the words "during pleasure" because that is the term which is used most of the time in connection with appointments, but it should be interpreted as meaning "during good service". So long as the storage battery man is dealt with in that manner, to serve the few instead of the many, the system cannot work at all, and these organizations should be condemned severely and bitterly. I am sure that all hon. members who represent rural communities agree with me in this matter. I hope they will say so to the minis

ter, and that there will be a change in the near future.
I have been most patient, and to show my good will and my earnestness I will send the whole file with regard to electric storage batteries to the Minister of Finance. I am sorry he does not read French, but most of the letters are written in English and he can learn what the trouble with these people is. The kind of thing I have mentioned will be found, I am sure, in all rural communities from coast to coast.
It is time to recognize the farmer, to give him the same rights as the man who lives in cities. I have nothing to hide in my files; they are an open book; and the minister will see that an injustice has been done to the country people, and has been repeated. I do not ask him to read all the contents of the file; he can hand it to one of his secretaries to report to him on the matter; but I should like him to inform himself of the facts and then act promptly.
Mr. IL8LEY: Mr. Chairman, with regard to imports from United States of such articles as batteries, the foreign exchange board never denies to importers the funds-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is regarding export; nobody can send money except with the authorization of the foreign exchange control board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the furnishing of money to pay for imports from the United States is never denied. I do not know as a matter of fact whether there has even to be an application for it; it goes on as a matter of course.
With regard to the wartime prices and trade board, the hon. gentleman suggested that that board or the Department of Munitions and Supply were in some way restricting quotas. Now so far as imports are concerned the whole object of the wartime prices and trade board is to secure as generous quotas as possible from the United States, and they have administrative machinery set up for that purpose. They never cut down quotas for protective purposes; they seek to enlarge

quotas so as to ensure adequate civilian .supply. They are the agency of the government charged with the responsibility for civilian supply.
With regard to adequate domestic supply, that depends upon wartime necessity. If materials and labour are required for war purposes it may be necessary to restrict the amount of materials at least that can go into the production of civilian equipment and civilian supply. That is a matter primarily under the jurisdiction of the war industries control board in the Department of Munitions and Supply; but so far as the agencies in my department are concerned they seek continually to get as large or as nearly adequate amounts for civilian supply as is possible under the circumstances. It is part of the wartime prices and trade board's fight for stabilization of the price level to see that shortages and scarcities do not develop. They have two duties, one in respect of supply and the second in respect of prices and the control of prices, dependent upon their provision of an adequate civilian supply. The hon. gentleman can depend upon it that so far as the agencies in my department are concerned, they will do the best they can to see that civilians are adequately supplied.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the minister one thing, to have the file read by someone whom he relies upon in the first place, and then have it summarized as concisely as possible, so that it may not take too much time to go through it, and then send me a copy of it and I will send it to the minister of munitions.
' Mr. ILSLEY: That is quite a lot of trouble, but I will do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct to the minister a question arising out of certain questions I asked last night at page 5167, with reference to the fixing of quotas by the joint production board, particularly with regard to quotas for export by the United States of farm implements. The minister stated last evening that the amount of exports last year was below the quota-


James Lorimer Ilsley: In some lines.


John George Diefenbaker: In some lines. I do not know whether the minister actually said that last evening, but he said it was lower in any event, and that this year, in so far as shortage was concerned, there would be an increase accordingly. I would like to know in what lines there was a shortage so that we may be able to understand ** the degree to

Customs Tariff
which the demand will be filled this year. Will the minister also advise the committee what is being done to allocate necessary metals and materials to farm implement manufacturers in Canada in order to ensure a satisfactory supply of repairs? That is a matter which I think requires very serious consideration. Last year on numerous occasions I heard complaints from farmers that they were unable to secure necessary repairs. Many of them had patriotically disposed of any old machinery they had, having donated it in many cases to the salvage committees, to ensure availability of scrap iron. The result was that they did not have repairs which they ought to have had. Many of them found it almost impossible to carry on. I have before me a copy of Business Week, dealing with what has been done in the United States. In October last, as the minister knows, a very substantial increase in the amount of metal and materials necessary for the production of farm implements was made available to manufacturers of farm implements in that country. The figures are immaterial, but it is indicated in this article that while in 1942 there was a very considerable backlog of available farm machinery still in the storages of the country, by the fall of 1943 that backlog had disappeared and it was found necessary in the United States to increase the allotment in order to assure production. A very serious responsibility rests on the government particularly at this time of the year to make sure well in advance of harvesting operations that repairs will be made available. If they cannot be produced in Canada, what attitude will the government take towards endeavouring to secure them in the United States? The production there of farm implements has gone away up in recent months, and in the nature of things there must be a supply on hand that could be made available to the farmers of Canada, and when it is realized that under the joint production board a joint effort of Canada and the United States is taking place, help should be forthcoming if asked for. Regardless of the extent to which Providence this year is favouring the farmer with the most hopeful harvest in many years, the farmer depends on a supply of repairs to make possible the harvesting of that potential crop. I should like to hear the minister frankly tell the country as a whole what the position is in this regard and what may be expected and hoped for.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would have to get a great deal of information from the wartime prices and trade board before I could answer that question. As I have said, they do the best
they can to get civilian supplies. They have done so for years and have been working on this question of agricultural implements trying to see that an adequate supply of implements and parts should be made available to the farmers of Canada. But just what the amounts are and what steps they have taken, just what the prospects are, I cannot tell at the present time without a full report from the wartime prices and trade board. The hon. gentleman can depend upon it that the importance of the situation is fully realized.


John George Diefenbaker: I received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce on April 17 last a reply giving the sales of farm machinery and equipment in Canada during the years from 1938 to 1943, and it indicates how serious the farm implement supply situation was in 1943. Whereas in 1941 the amount of farm machinery and equipment sold to farmers in Canada was over $52 million, in 1943, in spite of the fact that there was a greater demand then by reason of increased production, the amount of farm machinery sales had fallen by almost $24 million. I welcome the minister's undertaking that this matter will receive consideration and his assurance that [DOT]it is being considered, but I again point out that it is a serious situation which will have to be met and I feel sure it could be met by securing the cooperation of members of the joint production board. To-day many farmers feel that the difficulty will be solved in view of these tariff changes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I made it clear that such would not be the case.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right, but I impress upon the minister again the necessity of having the wartime prices and trade board face up to this matter, and also having the administrator in charge of farm machinery give it his immediate attention. Last May six types of farm machinery and equipment were removed1 from the ration list. There should be additional removals at this time, if only for a matter of a few months.


Mr. McNIVEN:: The hon. member for
Lake Centre has brought to the attention of the minister a very important question, namely that of repair parts for farm equipment. I am quite sure the minister is seized of the importance of the matter; and inasmuch as there is a quota on the importation of repair parts from other countries, and at the same time difficulty in having them made in Canada, I am wondering whether some of the war plants that are not now operating to capacity could be utilized for this purpose. For example, in the city of Regina there is a government
Customs Tariff

owned plant with approximately $3,500,000 worth of up-to-date modern machinery. A year and a half ago this plant employed 1,500 persons. To-day that number has been reduced to 500, and a considerable portion of that very modern equipment is idle. If a shortage of these parts does exist, and it is not possible to obtain them from the usual sources, would the minister bring to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the wartime prices and trade board the possibility of having them manufactured in plants such as I have described?


Mr. WRIGHT:: I think the matter raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre is very timely. I know there is a real shortage of repair parts for engines and the suggestion of the hon. member for Regina City might very well be given consideration by the government. It is something rather new to have a suggestion from that source which would put the government into the business of manufacturing agricultural implements, but we are always pleased to hear such suggestions.
Again I wish to raise the question which was under discussion when the committee rose last night; that is, the tariff on stationary gasoline engines. Under item 409o stationary gasoline engines, if attached to an electrical plant, may be brought in free. Under item 409f grain loaders or elevators with a capacity not exceeding forty bushels per minute are now considered to be agricultural implements ind may come in duty free, but these implements just cannot work without a gasoline engine attached to them. They are machines for loading grain out of granaries into trucks, or out of trucks into cars or bins, and they must have a gasoline engine attached in order to operate. Twenty-five years ago, when the Liberals first suggested that the tariff be removed from agricultural implements, a stationary gasoline engine may not have been an agricultural implement, but I can assure you that it is to-day. Stationary gasoline engines are used on at least the great majority of farms in Canada, for a variety of purposes. When the minister says he cannot segregate the machines which might be used for agricultural purposes and those used for other purposes, that is not a sound argument, because they are able to segregate other implements, such as tractors. A tractor, which is a gasoline engine on wheels, is allowed in free of duty for agicultural purposes, but must pay duty when brought in for commercial purposes. I believe the minister should give some further consideration to. this question. It is really an important item in connection with presenUday agricultural operations.


Mr. FAIR:: Before the house rose last night the minister suggested that he would give further consideration to changing the date of September 30, and setting it ahead two months. I wonder what effect a good night's sleep has had on that proposal.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not work it out very far in my sleep, but I took the matter up this morning with the wartime prices and trade board and they are giving consideration to it, as I promised they would. I cannot give the committee anything further.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 431c, 431d and 43Sj agreed to.
4J,2. Articles which enter into the cost of manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409k, 409o and 439c, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture in their own factories of the goods enumerated in the aforesaid tariff items, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
Provided that goods which are entitled to free entry or to a lower rate of duty than is mentioned in this item shall not be entered at the rates specified in this item: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Lorimer Ilsley: There is to be an amendment to this item consequential upon the placing of agricultural implements upon the free list. The amendment is:
That schedule "A" to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 2 of June 26, 1944, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 442 and 442a, the enumerations and rates of customs duties attached thereto and by inserting in lieu thereof the following:
442. Articles and materials which enter into the cost of manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 409, 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409k, 409o and 439c, when imported for use in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in the aforesaid tariff items, or in the manufacture of parts therefor, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British .preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
The effect of this is that those importing materials for the manufacture of articles which are made free by these budget changes, may bring in such materials free of duty.


Mr. GIBSON:: I move accordingly.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I point out to the minister that some of these articles are not manufactured in Canada. Item 409e covers spraying and dusting machines and fruit and vegetable grading machines. Are they manufactured in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If that is so, the item does not do any harm. I do not know whether they are manufactured here or not. It is possible that something may be included in the list

Customs Tariff
which is not manufactured in, Canada; if so, no parts could be imported free for use in their manufacture.


Heber Harold Hatfield: In, that case the complete machines should be allowed in free of duty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You are not allowing the engines for vegetable grading machines to enter free of duty under this item, are you?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Did the hon. gentleman say grading machines?


Heber Harold Hatfield: Fruit and' vegetable grading and washing and wiping machines. These machines are not manufactured in Canada, and the complete machine is not being allowed in free of duty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is this machine operated by an engine?


Heber Harold Hatfield: Yes, by a gasoline or an electric motor. The motors are almost impossible to secure, because they are not manufactured in Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is a matter of administration. It is very difficult to draw the line between machines of which the engines are integral parts and those in which they are not. However I do not see what bearing that fact has upon the item now before the committee. If the motor is regarded as separate from the grading machine, then the motor is not covered by item 4O0e, and the amendment would not admit free of duty the materials and articles entering into the manufacture of the motor if it were made in Canada. But if as a matter of administration the motor is not considered as part of the machine, namely the fruit and vegetable grading, grading, washing and wiping machine, then it is regarded as being covered by item 409e, and the amendment now being proposed covers the material entering into it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: 409e covers that machine.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not say the motor is included in every case; it is simply a matter of administration. But if it is not regarded as being included in the item, then the amendment does not affect it.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the
amount of customs duties collected on the articles entering into the manufacture of farm implements during the years 1941, 1942 and 1943, under this particular heading? These are component parts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In 1942 the imports of castings for agricultural implements were valued at $284,283, and in 1943 at $231,610. In 1942
the imports of other articles for agricultural implements were valued at $2,334,251, and in 1943 at $2,370,658.


John George Diefenbaker: And1 that is subject to per cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The duty was 5 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Item 443b agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I have an amendment to move at this point.


Colin William George Gibson: I move:
That the following item, enumeration anti rates of duty be added to the list of items included in resolution No. 2, of June 26, 1944, as for insertion in schedule "A" to the customs tariff:
"475d-printing plates, n.o.p., whether for printing or lithographing, and transfers taken from same, and positive and negative films, for use exclusively in the production of books which are included in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada, for use as text books or as works of reference, not to include dictionaries: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free."
This is to cheapen somewhat the cost of school books.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 476'b, 476c and 477 agreed to.
. Customs tariff-iS2. Ear-telephone sets and similar appliances, including batteries therefor, and complete parts, for use by deaf persons, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John George Diefenbaker: What was the value of imports of ear-telephone sets and similar appliances, and batteries, last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The imports of parts and batteries for hearing aid devices would probably amount to less than $10,000 in value annually. Imports under tariff item 482 of hearing aid devices amounted to almost $348,000 in 1942 and $469,000 in 1943.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A word of appreciation might be expressed at this time for the action the government has taken in connection with hearing aids. Hon. members know that particularly strong representations have been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Many of us have contacts with people requiring these aids, and we know that previously there has been a good deal of exploitation in connection with them. This will relieve that condition, in part, but I hope the government will also pay heed to the urgings of the hon. member for Kootenay West that
Customs Tariff

the national research council look further into the possibility of producing these aids as cheaply as possible for people who need them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 524a, 537, 537a, and 537d agreed to.
Customs tariff-538a. Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of binder twine, or twine for harvest binders, and twine for baling farm produce, when imported for such use exclusively by manufacturers who manufacture such twine only: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give information as to the articles entering into the cost of manufacturing binder twine or twine for harvest binders, as shown by the imports in each of the years 1942 and 1943?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The information I have is for baling twine, which I suppose would be the same as for binder twine. Baling twine is made from sisal. It is similar to binder twine, and made in the same machine. It is heavier than binder twine, and measures about 225 feet to the pound. It is used in connection with baling hay. About 25,000 pounds of sisal was converted into baling twine this year. This sisal fibre cost about $90,000. Other articles entering into the cost of baling twine are chiefly paper bags and insect repel-lants. The cost of these materials would not exceed $10,000 in value. A few years ago a new machine was placed on the United States market for baling hay in the windrow. Some of these machines are now being used in Canada. The bales weigh from 40 to 65 pounds and the baler is hauled by a tractor and can be operated by one man. That is interesting information in relation to what the hon. gentleman asked for.


Gordon Graydon: That is going the second mile.
Items 540, 542, 542a, 548 and 551 agreed to.
Customs tariff-555. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of wool or similar animal fibres, but of which the component of chief value is not silk nor synthetic textile' fibres or filaments, n.o.p.; fabrics, coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair, but not containing silk nor synthetic textile fibres or filaments, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent; and per pound, intermediate tariff, 32J cents; general tariff, 35 cents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand that all these changes with respect to fabrics, clothing and clothing materials are simply changes in the wording; as yet there has been no reduc-

tion of the duties so far as these different items are concerned? The government has not gone that far yet?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.
Items 556b, 557, 557a, 557b, 558b, 558d, 558f, 560a, 560c, 561, 561a, 562a, 564, 567a, 616c, 617, 617c, 618, 619a, 654, 688, 691, 692b and 825 agreed to.
Resolutions 3 and 4 agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
73. Fish culture, $198,730.
Mr. NEILL:: With the consent of the committee I should like to have leave 'to revert back to item 71 as I want to bring up a couple of cases.' This is not neglect on my part; I could not bring them up before because the minister had promised to have certain investigations made. They have been completed and I would appreciate having the consent of the committee to bring them up now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With unanimous consent.


Alan Webster Neill: Item 71 covers the building
of fishways and clearing of rivers, and I have two items about which I wish to speak briefly. I can put them both on the record at the same time and the minister can answer them together. The first one refers to a fish ladder on the Puntledge river a few miles from the town of Courtenay in British Columbia. This river leads into Comox lake where for many years there was a good run of valuable salmon. This run has practically ceased. The committee will not be interested in the whole history of this matter. It is an unsavoury one so far as certain government officials are concerned. I have a huge file on it, larger than the ordinary volumes of the debates of the house. Unless the minister is prepared to challenge my statements there will be no need to' go into it in detail. It did not occur during his time so that he is not responsible in any way.
The case goes back to 1913 when a colliery company wanted to obtain power and put in a dam on the Puntledge river. Sometimes it takes a long time for the government to take action or for the people to stir up the government, but it was finally discovered that this dam was ruining the run of salmon into that lake. Along about 1917 the public agitated

Supply-Fisheries
about it and continued to do so until I came into the house in 1921. In 1922 the government ordered the company to put in a fish ladder at that point, that being the law. For some reason which I need not go into, the company was allowed to put in the wrong type of fish ladder and it was washed out before long. The government compelled the company to .put in another. The same type of fish ladder was put in at the same place and it was washed out again. That happened once, twice, three times. It finally dawned on the officials that perhaps there was something wrong in the procedure. In order to make things quite comfortable and amicable all around they ordered a new type of ladder to be put, in, but it was put in the wrong place. It had the additional disadvantage that even though the ladder was there the fish could not use it The fish could at least get up the former ladders when they were there. But on this occasion, in order to make a gesture of doing something, they put in a different type of ladder which was of no value even for the comparatively short time it was there before it too was washed out. The last washout occurred in December, 1937.
I charged the officials with the responsibility for doing that. By this time I may say that the colliery company, very naturally to my mind, took the position that they had put in the ladder which they did not want to do, that it was of no advantage to them but that that was the law; they had put it in three times and if the government had no more sense than to keep on putting it in in the wrong place and putting in the wrong type, that was up to the government and they would not be responsible any further. I think that was an entirely proper stand for them to take. I maintained at that time, and I have since, that the responsibility was the government's, first, to do it; second, to put in a type that would be practical and, third, to put it in in a place and in a manner where it would stay.
Of course officials of the government will never take the blame for anything if they have done anything wrong. They will go through hell and high water rather than admit that they have made a mistake. They would not take any blame and they offered) various excuses to justify the action they had taken. First of all they said that it was working all right, that the fish were getting up. I said it was not, and I brought evidence to show that it was not. After the usual official delay they went to the expense of putting in a net above the fish ladder in order to demonstrate that the fish were getting up; they intended to catch the fish and demonstrate that I was wrong. They did not catch anything, they did) not even
catch a sucker, or at all events not the sucker they thought they were going to catch.
The next argument was: Yes, that was so, but it was impossible to put in a ladder in that peculiar position to get the fish over the dam, which was eleven feet high at the most. But we have evidence before us of salmon having been taken up the Columbia river at Bonneville falls, a height of sixty feet, without any of these desperate troubles that afflicted them here.
When that was dissipated they got a new idea. The next idea was that it could not be put where common sense would suggest at the end of the dam because that would require blasting and would involve the safety of the dam. That was a childish argument. I have blasted a stump within six feet of the windows of my house without damaging the glass. It requires judicious care, of course. We finally got a couple of first-class engineers and they said that the ladder should be put, not in the middle of the dam where it would be under such pressure that it would not work-and when it did work it was speedily washed out- but at the end of it, and that would need some blasting. That was the advice of two very competent engineers.
The next argument was this. They were determined that the ladder would not be put in and they would not admit that they had made a mistake. That is a trait of human character, I suppose, but it can be pushed to an extent in the official mind. The next argument was that the fish did not go up there anyway, and never had, so what was the use of putting in a ladder? But they put in the first one in 1922. They put in altogether four ladders, and they were all washed out, and now they said there was no need for a ladder at all because the fish had never been up there. I mention that just to illustrate the mental attitude with which I had to contend. The records of the department-I leave it to the minister, although it is not his responsibility-are full of recommendations from the government side by various officials. One man who had a long and established career in such matters said that it was the finest place for spawning fish that he had seen in British Columbia. Yet their argument was that the fish had never gone up there, and therefore there was no need for a ladder.
You can imagine that all these things took time. All these excuses had to be combated. Finally, just about the time that I was hoping for some action, the war broke out and it was put up to me as a patriotic gesture, and as common sense too, that this was not a pressing war emergency and it had better not be gone on with for the present. I accepted that view
Supply-Fisheries

and did not put on any more pressure. That is how it stands now. But now, if we can credit the morning newspapers, we are getting close to the end of the war. We can now look forward, and it is highly undesirable that we should let this matter stand any longer, for of course the run of the fish is getting smaller and smaller, if indeed it exists at all. Looking to the future I think it would be desirable if the government would give its consent now to - putting a sum in the supplementary estimates to meet the expenditure for this work. It would not require a very large sum, five or six thousand dollars, not much more than that. I am shortly leaving politics entirely, but I have been pressing this matter through the years and I would like to see it brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
The other matter that I wish to bring up has to do with this same vote, in connection with the clearing of creeks and rivers. This is a different situation. The government in times past spent over five thousand dollars to allow the salmon to get up the Rosewall creek. Their object, and their sole object in making this expenditure, is to see that the salmon do get up, and they do not care what the consequences are to anyone else who happens to be affected. That is not a reasonable method. They spent five thousand dollars, and most of it was spent in an attack, so to speak, on a big log jam which had come down and settled in a place where there were high banks on each side, and consequently it did not make a lot of difference to anybody except the salmon whether the logs piled up there or not. I forget whether they cut the jam or blasted it. I think they cut a hole or tunnel through this log jam, through which the salmon got up temporarily, at any rate, until other things happened. Cutting the jam had what we call consequential results. Cutting off a piece of the log jam allowed the next freshet to swing the jam around and carry lit down a few hundred yards, where the logs all jammed again on a bar, a flat place where there were no high banks as before. The logs jammed on this bar in a low flat place and stayed there, and subsequent logs coming down kept on piling up. The consequence was that the water spread out over this flat land in the neighbourhood and ruined the land. As we all know, delta land is the very best land you can get for farming, and it does not have to be cleared. Settlers had taken up land on both sides of this flat, but the log jam, being stuck there, piled up more and more in the course of the years and in time it got so bad that the creek sometimes disappears into the gravel and comes out lower down, but that is under exceptional circumstances. The

result was that water and silt spread over this flat land; the farm land is being ruined, and the usefulness of the river as a salmon spawning ground is also gone. The salmon would get up with the big freshet and lie on the flat ground, and when the freshet went out they were stranded and the young salmon would lie in little holes; they stayed there until the creek dried up, and the fish perished. So that the run of salmon is entirely rained.
These settlers went to the department which had caused the damage, because it is the department's responsibility. If any department does something with one object in view, and it causes a loss to somebody else, that, is the department's responsibility. That has been admitted time and again, although reluctantly, by the department. But they took an attitude in this case that reminds me of Judas Iscariot. After he had taken the step of which he later repented-at any rate he had the merit of having repented, and these officials have not-he went to the priests and gave them back the money, or he wanted to. He said: I have shed innocent blood and I want to return the money. But the priests said: No; what is that to us? See thou to it. That is the attitude taken by the officials. They said to these struggling settlers whose land had been ruined: What is that to us? See thou to it. That attitude is against common law and against common sense and that sense of fairness which should animate any department in such matters.


Mr. McIVOR:: That is well quoted and well applied.


Alan Webster Neill: Then they say, "Well; all these other things have happened, it is not worth our spending any more money anyhow." They put forth the same specious arguments which I have alluded to in the other matter. First of all they said they never did spend any money. I have a letter to that effect. But it is well known that they spent five thousand dollars, or near that. Then they said it did not do any harm anyhow;, this log jam would have done the same thing in any case. No, it would not, because it was jammed between high banks where nothing would have happened, or if it had happened it would have been higher up the creek where it did not matter. But by their action, cutting a hole through or a piece off the edge of the jam, it allowed the whole thing to float down, and it jammed on this flat river basin with the results I have indicated.
Then they tell us that the erosion had nothing to do with them, they were not responsible for erosion, the creek cutting down

Supply-Fisheries
the bank; and they said it was up to the province or, if it was not up to the province, it was up to the individual, who must suffer from being affected by that disability. But in this particular case it was not an act of Providence or of nature; it was the act of the officials of the fisheries department carrying out their duties in attempting to let the salmon up. The log jam when it stranded diverted the current and caused the erosion. It was this which made the trouble, and therefore the settlers, I maintain, have the right to come to the department to do something about it.
The next argument was that it would cost so much money; it would cost ten thousand dollars, and ten thousand dollars was a lot of money to spend on what some people may think is a two-penny-ha'penny creek. But it will not cost ten thousand dollars. I am going to read a letter from one of the persons concerned who would undertake to remedy the condition for eight hundred or a thousand dollars, and make a good job of it, and would be satisfied to release the government from all claims. I intend to read some letters which explain what damage has been done. Some of the land belongs to a widow woman. She has had five or six acres of her land ruined, worth three or four hundred dollars an acre of any man's money. Land has been either washed away or rendered utterly useless, and I contend that these people are entitled to redress.
I do not want the government to take advantage of the technicalities of the law and say, like the priests of old, "What is that to us?" It is everything to these people; and the government is supposed to exhibit an example of fair play. I would not be a bit afraid, if I or this man had the money, to take this matter into the exchequer court, for I have a pretty good idea of what that court would do, but the man has not any money to spend on an action in the exchequer court, and of course the officials take the view that they can afford to bluff this thing through.
In substantiation of some of the statements which I have made, I am going to read extracts from letters. I have enough here to go on reading for a couple of hours, because this condition has existed for a long time, but I intend to read only a few extracts in confirmation of the statements I have made. If the minister would spend a sum not exceeding S750 probably the man and other parties associated with him would be glad to accept it in settlement. I quote from a letter of a friend of mine who lives nearby and is cognizant of the situation:
Considerable amount of property has been washed away. This is caused by a huge log jam which has accumulated causing the creek to spread all over the place and cause considerable amount of damage. The gravel below the log jam is piled higher than the banks. This log jam has completely blocked the creek. There is no creek bed; the water seeps away through the gravel. In the spring as the mouth of this creek dried up small pools of water were left full of fish. Thousands of them were trapped and eaten by cranes, crows, gulls, etc. Salmon go up this creek to spawn. As a spawning bed for salmon I feel that the fisheries department should remove this obstruction known as the huge log jam in Rosewall creek.
Here is a letter from one of the parties concerned; his name is Curran:
I am taking this opportunity to write you again to ask you if you will try and do something at Ottawa to have the mouth of Rosewall cleaned out. If you recollect I took this matter up with you several years ago and you visited my place and saw the condition of this river for yourself. The truth of the matter is all the damage done in Rosewall creek has been caused by the fishery department itself.
In 1935 the fishery department cut a channel to allow the fish to get past a large jam about a mile and a half upstream from the mouth of the river. The first flood after the channel was cut swung this jam down intact to the mouth of the river where it lodged, backing up the sand and gravel and other log jams which came down there by filling up the river bed and forcing the water to run all over my fields and the land adjoining us.
Here is another letter from him. He says that the officials have been to look at his place [DOT]-the continued efforts I made brought them to this easily accessible place. It was all part of a "stall". The fisheries department is fuller of "stalls" than a livery stable. He says that the officials have been to his place, and adds:
I would suggest if possible that you check these reports. I believe their estimates run between three and four thousand dollars to put this creek back to its natural state, and that is probably the reason why the fishery department is sidetracking the issue, on account of the high cost. However, if it is at all possible to get an appropriation of between eight hundred to one thousand dollars I will guarantee to put the creek back to its natural state and make a good job of it and will pay the balance out of my own pocket.
Notice what he asks: he wants it put back to where it was to begin with, its natural state. The fact that it has been a complete failure from the point of view of the salmon getting up is nothing to him, naturally. What he thinks about is that the land for which he paid a high price cannot now be used.
Here is another letter, from the widow, Mrs. Berray. She is addressing my friend:
Fred Curran, Art Smith, and myself went up to the highway bridge on Rosewall creek and came all the way down the creek and we counted 85 dead salmon down as far as the big [DOT] log jam. Below that there are thousands that never got past the log jam. When there is a
Supply-Fisheries

That is, regardless of consequences.

it would be as well to let nature take its course. The stream will eventually scour into a new well defined outlet to the sea, hut in doing so the greater part of the cleared farmland at its mouth will most likely be washed away, or be ruined by erosion and scouring.
Now that is not an ex parte statement at all: it is not my statement but an official's statement. Different reports have been sub-

Supply-Fisheries
mitted to the minister upon which he is relying, and I have just read from an official statement. Here is another, signed J. McHugh, the resident engineer employed by the fisheries department for many years, a man of outstanding ability in his line, and one whose professional reputation would prevent him from making statements which he did not believe to be accurate. Mr. McHugh says:
There is no obstruction to the ascent of salmon at the mouth of Rosewall creek but there is quite an extensive jam from 80 to 100 feet long occupying the entire bed of the stream about one-quarter mile upstream, and it would appear an effort should be made to clear a channel around this jam on the south bank.
He goes on to say that even for temporary clearance they should spend $100 in that particular year, which was 1940. In this connection he says that the sum of $100-
-will be required for this temporary clearance which will take care of the salmon run this season. Additional work will in all probability be necessary from year to year on this stream.
That $100 was not spent, and in fact they have done nothing since then except talk. That is the situation. While it is unfortunate that public money should have been spent, I do not blame them in that case. They did what I perhaps woutd have done if it had been left to me to try to remove the log jam; but instead of tinkering with it I would have seen to it that the whole jam was blasted or burned out. It would all have gone. As it is, what was done was simply a case of being penny-wise, pound-foolish. We are all apt to make mistakes, and it is unfortunate that the ratepayers should have to pay because the government makes a mistake. But are these settlers to be ruined because the department takes this attitude- "What is that to us? See thou to it."
The government, in fairness and decency to these people ought to see to it that, whether or not the present provision will allow the salmon to go up, these people should not suffer in consequence. They are responsible for what has taken place already- and they should compensate the settlers or accept the offer that has been made them which I submit has been quite reasonable; because where the government speaks of $4,000 this man says he is willing to do a complete job for $S00 or $900. Perhaps a compromise might be decided upon and $750 accepted. The principle that is supposed to animate the ordinary man in dealing with his fellow men should actuate the government in this matter. These people should not be squeezed simply because the government has the whip hand. They can say, "It is just too bad that the best part of the land
belonging to these people, the delta land, which is very valuable in that neighbourhood, should be ruined; but what is that to us?" These people, I would point out to the minister, cannot afford to go to the exchequer court, so that if the government does not compensate them they are simply out of luck. So far as the minister's personal record is concerned, he is entirely in the clear, because the responsibility is not his. This is something that happened before his time. Nevertheless I submit these considerations to him and I hope that he will carefully weigh them. I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to bring the matter to the minister's attention.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):: So far as this ladder to which my hon. friend has referred is concerned, it is true that three ladders were built at different times but the work did not give the results which our engineers hoped it would. Recently however, at the request of the member for Comox-Alberni and of others as well, I sent the chief engineer to the district and he made an extensive and complete inquiry into the matter and returned on July 18 with a temporary report, He is advising the building of a fish pass on the side of the dam which will cost about $10,000, and we are accepting the suggestion.


Alan Webster Neill: You are going to build the
pass in the rock.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes. We are going to incur an expenditure of $10,000 in an effort to rehabilitate the fish run to the Comox watershed.	[DOT]


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


Ernest Bertrand: As to Rosewall creek, some of the letters which my hon. friend has read would not be very good if produced in court in any claim of this kind against the government because this creek runs through the mountains. Part of this territory has been deprived of timber and1 the water runs off very fast, carrying a good deal of gravel and silt down the river. It carries a certain number of logs and a.t times we have to clear the logs. Up to the present, unfortunately, the engineers have reported to the department that the damage to the land is not due to the fact that we cleared logs from the river. It has resulted from the fact that freshets bring down silt and gravel which has accumulated in one place so that to-day the water has to go under the gravel for a distance of about a mile. At all events the report of my engineers is not a complete report. All we could do would
Supply-Fisheries

be to contribute a reasonable amount for the rehabilitation of the creek as far as the fisheries are concerned. We would be abusing our right if we should pay for any damage resulting from the gravel that has been brought down by the freshets. I am quite sure if the hon. member went to the provincial government, under whose jurisdiction this matter comes, he would be able to get something, not for the rehabilitation of the creek in regard to the run of fish but in regard to seeing that in future these freshets do not deposit so much gravel on the borders of this creek.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with keen interest to the remarks of the minister with respect to these two subjects, namely the Puntledge river fish ladder, and the condition at Rosewall creek.
I wish to thank the minister most sincerely for the attitude he has taken with respect to the Puntledge river fish ladder. I was particularly glad to hear him say that the ladder would be cut out of rock at the end of the dam, instead of being stuck up against the dam itself, where it would be just an invitation to be washed out. Cutting it in its proper place, out of the rock at the end, will ensure its permanence, and there will be no more trouble about it going out again. In gratitude for the minister's action I would use my best endeavours to see that it is locally known as the Bertrand fish ladder, and that it be made a permanent tribute to the manner in which he has dealt with the matter, using businesslike and common-sense judgment, and thereby ending a twenty-five-year dispute, through taking action which will lead to the permanent benefit of the fishing industry-an important one in that part of the country. Not only will it benefit the commercial industry, but, as I stated previously, it will add to the sport fishing; because this ladder will also be of advantage to those who indulge in sport fishing.
To come to the other matter of Rosewall creek, I must say that the minister's attitude in this connection is less favourable. No doubt he takes the attitude presented to him by his officials, that the whole trouble is the result of erosion by nature, and so on. But if I did not do it sufficiently before, I should like to emphasize now that is not so. True, the initial trouble began with an act of nature. Logs jammed, and debris caught in a narrow passage and formed what is known as a log

jam. But the point I wish to emphasize to the minister is that it was a jam which was contained, as one might say, between two steep walls. There was a wall of earth or rock on both sides, to quite a considerable height. Consequently that jammed with logs. It did not do any harm, except that it prevented fish from getting through, and in time would have done damage upstream. But it would not do any harm down below where later the ground was flooded. It was partly cutting that jam out that made all the trouble.
The first government officials-and probably I would have done the same thing-did the work in the easiest way. They cut a narrow channel through the logs jammed. Whether they did it in the middle or at the side does not matter. But the result was that while they let the fish up, the logs jammed in such a position that the next freshet which came down turned it around and floated it, not in a narrow passage, not in a gully, but on to a wide flat, where there was nothing to restrain it on either side. It grounded on a gravel bar and stayed there. The gravel silted up behind it, with logs and debris and sand and gravel, and it was that that caused the trouble. I wish to start from that premise, and make it clear that that was the original source of the trouble. Had it been left alone, the flooding of these people's grounds would not have happened, because whatever further damming up might have occurred would have been on the upper side of the log jam.
Now the minister says that I should approach the provincial government and see if they would not undertake to remove this gravel. There are three good reasons against that. The first is that the province is not responsible. The second is that the provincial government knows it is not responsible, and the third is that I have already tried to do that and failed. I have tried, as I say, to get them to take action, but they know the law just as well as I do.
It is not the responsibility of the province. The province will take no responsibility, even for erosion. If a river comes down, eats into a bank, and part of a man's farm falls into the river, they will not take the responsibility. That is the law. But if the action of the river threatens to endanger a road or a bridge, the province will then take the necessary steps. There is of course what the lawyers would call the common law which prevails, that if you take a certain action you are responsible for any damage arising from that action. The province very clearly states that as the dominion caused the trouble by taking away a

Supply-Fisheries
piece of this log jam, instead of taking it all, it is up to the dominion government to take the necessary remedial steps.
If the minister would use his influence with the Minister of Justice to relieve me of responsibility I would feel willing to go into it, after my enforced retirement from the house, and take this man's case up to the exchequer court. But the law of champerty interferes with that.
I can just visualize what will happen. There are thirty-six acres involved. The thirty-six acres are not gone yet, but six acres are gone. The obvious result would be thirty-six acres at $300 an acre-$10,800, or about $11,000, for good will. Would it not be better for the dominion, even from a mercenary viewpoint, let alone the interests of justice and fair play to pay this man, if he is willing to take $750? He will put it into a condition that will satisfy him, and relieve the government of any responsibility further in the matter. Would it not be better to do that than to drag along the weary course of an exchequer court action, and probably get soaked for $10,000 or $11,000? -because the evidence is conclusive. I will not say it is damning, but it is final and conclusive, as disclosed1 by the information I have here. Even the government's own officials have admitted that they have done this, and they have admitted that the results are so-and-so. And these are admissions made by officials of his opponent, so to speak.
Scripture says, Agree with thine adversary quickly while he is in the way lest he turn and rend thee? Would it not be better to give these people this meagre portion of their rights, or remove the trouble, than that the department should get stuck with litigation and perhaps have a $10,000 verdict rendered? I do not appeal to the minister in that form, because I think he is a man who would rise superior to doing things in the cheapest way. That might appeal to some of his officials. I appeal rather to the minister's sense of fair play, which I have seen exercised in several instances since he has held office in his department.
The government is morally1-I think legally, but we will drop that-the government is morally responsible for the damage. It is a continuing damage which will go on and on until the whole of this flat land disappears. I submit it will be only fair and just either to do the work themselves, or to accept the offer this man makes. I cannot do more than I have done to appeal to the minister along these lines. I do hope he will take that sort of view I would expect fom a man who has shown his ability and fair-mindedness in the office he has occupied.


Ernest Bertrand: I believe I said everything I have to say before the hon. member spoke. As I told my hon. friend a few minutes ago, the chief engineer is just back from the west after making a study of this question as well as other matters. I have not seen him as yet. He had to go down east, he went out west, he came back here and now he is away for a few days. I will see him and get a verbal report, and if there is anything we can do legally or equitably it will be done.


Mr. REID:: When the fisheries estimates were last before the committee the discussion centred more upon the fisheries in the mari-times than upon those on the Pacific coast, but this afternoon we are dealing with the Pacific coast fisheries. As the minister knows, but as perhaps many hon. members are not aware, fishing conditions on the Pacific coast are quite different to those in the maritimes. I have one or two matters I should1 like to bring up, although I do not know whether they come under this item 73 dealing with fish culture.
I refer first of all to the depleted condition of the cod fishing grounds on the Pacific coast. I have before me an article which appeared in the Commercial Fisherman's Weekly and which perhaps explains the matter much better than I could do it. This article reports an interview with Clarence L. Musclow, a cod fisherman of fifteen years' standing. I quote:
"The fishery in the lower gulf is all but ruined," Musclow, in Vancouver last week preparing for his sixteenth cod fishing season, stated. "Even on the grounds which have not been fished by the regular cod fishermen, stocks are killed off. Places which in earlier days were good for 2-3,000 pounds of cod, now yield nothing. Excellent fishing locations adjacent to tile international boundary produce only one-half of the quantity taken formerly.
"Even the outside grounds, as off the Vancouver island west coast, are depleted," Musclow continued. "At Swiftsure, fishermen were once knee-deep in lingcod and moved off to get rid of them. The same story is heard closer inshore."
Fishing practices in the past are largely blamed by Musclow for the present condition whilst at the same time he deplores the lack of scientific facts concerning the cod fishery and the slowness of current investigations.
He goes on at considerable length, but I shall not take up the time of the committee to read the entire article. I believe the statements which he makes should be considered seriously by the minister and his departmental officials. The following article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun may interest hon. members. I shall read only a part, as follows:
Years before the war, the cod fishermen supposedly operated on three cents per pound. The
Supply-Fisheries

Japs virtually controlled the cod fishing industry, and 90 per cent of their membership lived on rice, fish, seaweed and Jap sauce, and assiduously sent their money back to their homeland to help build the military and naval equipment that raided Pearl Harbor, Singapore, et cetera.
When these proteges of the three cents per pound fishing operatives were liquidated from the industry a few years ago and the Canadian fishermen finally inherited their own fishing grounds, they found the local codfish grounds 75 to 90 per cent depleted. Whereas the Jap could go out and catch from 500 to 1,500 pounds of cod in a day, the cod fisherman is lucky now to average 100 to 150 pounds per day.
I can vouch for those statements, because I remember when many years ago I first went to live on the gulf islands between Victoria and Vancouver anyone could go into any of the bays and get sufficient cod for the needs of his entire family. It was not long before the Japanese started fishing in those bays, and within three years there was not a cod fish left. They fished day and night until the cod fisheries were entirely ruined. The complaint is being brought up to date by this article which appeared under the name of Musclow. Because of this article and other representations which have been made to me I bring the matter to the attention of the minister and ask him to have a complete investigation made into the depletion of the cod fisheries on the Pacific coast.


Ernest Bertrand: For the last several years the fisheries research board has been making an extensive study of the lingcod question and they are still proceeding with their investigations. Just recently the regulations were changed in connection with the lingcod. First, we stipulated a minimum size. Second, we prohibited the use of trawl nets in certain areas where the lingcod seems to be scarce. Third, we are stopping the issue of licences for sunken nets to catch dogfish because while they catch dogfish they also catch quite a lot of lingcod. The cod is one of the most edible fishes we have on the west coast and we hope to be able to reestablish these fisheries as they were before depletion.


Alan Webster Neill: On September 11, 1942, the government passed an order in council providing that finnan haddie will mean a combination of smoked haddock, smoked cod, smoked hake and smoked pollock. This was to amend the regulations dealing with canned fish. It reminds me of the man who advertised, I think it was in Paris, that he had for sale a combination of horse and rabbit. When he was asked what that indicated, whether it was fifty per cent horse and fifty per cent rabbit he said, "Yes, it is made up of one

horse and one rabbit." Smoked finnan haddie has been known throughout the world for as far back as we can remember, and it has a
certain reputation of its own. I am speaking only of the canned product, not what is sold in the salted form. That is another story by itself, which I will not go into. I wrote to the government protesting about this matter. I would not have brought this up now because I got my answer and I did not see what more could be done about it. However, since then the trade discovered that my protest was absolutely justified.
My protest was that it was not reasonable or fair, either to the consumer, to the fisherman or to the in-between man, to say that smoked finnan haddie meant something different from what the name implied. The government was saying that it could be smoked cod, smoked hake and smoked pollock. As a rule those fish are inferior to the well known finnan haddie. I asked the government about it and the answer I got was along these lines, that the Meat and Canned Foods Act governs the labelling of canned fish and requires that a true and correct description of the contents of the cans be shown on the labels. It goes on to say:
In view of representations that the pack of canned "finnan haddies" could be considerably increased to -meet the existing demand if permission were granted to include smoked haddock, smoked cod, smoked hake and smoked pollock in the canned product known as "finnan haddies", approval was secured for the definition referred to in order in council P.C. 8167.
So that when the housewife goes to buj' what she thinks is finnan haddie and used to have confidence that she was getting smoked haddie, she may be getting smoked pollock, or ninety per cent, or eighty per cent,, or thirty per cent smoked pollock, or a combination of smoked pollock, smoked cod, smoked hake and these other fish. Smoked pollock is an inferior fish. I forsaw the result and it has come to pass. The general public thought that they were being fooled. They would go to the store and buy what they thought was smoked finnan haddie and find when they opened the can that it was eighty per cent hake or pollock, and they would not go back and buy any more. Naturally it has hurt the popular demand, because once people are deceived they will not buy again. Pork and beans is a well-known product, but if -you put out tins marked "pork and beans" and they contained beef and carrots, where would the demand for pork and beans be? There are people who like pork and beans, but when they buy what they think is pork and beans and find that the can contains other things than pork and beans, the demand drops off.

Supply-Fisheries
That is what has happened with finnan haddie. The demand for it by those who like to eat finnan haddie has dropped off. Some people call this combination which they bought, thinking it was finnan haddie, "cat food." It is an insult to the Scotch origin of finnan haddie to suggest that anything connected with finnan haddie is cat food. The result will be that after the war the demand for canned finnan haddie will drop off.
I cannot understand why a government which says that the Meat and Canned Foods Act requires that a true and correct description of the contents of the cans be shown on the labels allows this to be done. Is the description on the can a true and correct description? No, it is not. When you buy canned finnan haddie nowadays you are buying a sort of grab bag proposition. You may get what you think you are getting, and you may not. You may be getting some inferior fish, less or more of it, as the case may be. I suggest that the minister should look into this and see if it is not too late to put the thing back in its original form. If people want to buy smoked pollock, by all means let them do it, but do not allow smoked pollock to be called something else. Do not let people call a horse a rabbit when it is not.
I was so hopeless of getting any action when I first took this up that I dropped the matter, but I have heard through business channels the demand for so-called finnan haddie is dropping. I wish the minister would give the committee the assurance that he would look into this matter. He does not need to take my word; let him go to those who are engaged in the business. The housewife thinks she is getting canned finnan haddie, and when she finds that it is not finnan haddie at all but smoked pollock or smoked hake or a combination of these other fishes, she feeds it to the cat. The cat may also get fussy after a while and it too may object.


Thomas Reid: The minister may remember that a great many fishing vessels were taken out of the fishing industry in British Columbia by the military authorities, army, navy or air. Complaint has been made about the depletion of the fishing fleet in many districts. How many boats have b'een returned to the industry in the last year or two, and how many new ones have been built?


Ernest Bertrand: There have been about fifty boats returned, some of them very recently.
As to haddie, chicken haddie is a trade name which is used to represent flaked fish. I may say that we are allowing what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni calls cat food to be
called chicken haddie at the request of the trade. I understand that they are pleased with their new product and that it is selling very well. If we ever learned that it was hurting the trade, we would repeal the order, but the information we have up to now is in favour of keeping this product on the market.


Alan Webster Neill: I was afraid that the minister would take that up wrongly. I was not talking about chicken haddie at all. Chicken haddie, as the minister says, is a trade name. I wrote to the minister some time ago and I see that I said in my letter:
Chicken haddie means canned haddock or cod or hake or cusk, or any combination of the above.
Chicken haddie is an entirely different product. I was not talking about chicken haddie at all to-day. Chicken haddie is a trade name, just like chicken halibut is. Chicken halibut means halibut, not of an inferior grade, but below a certain size. Inasmuch as it is a trade name, you cannot take any exception to it. If a firm adopts a trade name you know what you are buying, and you get the thing described on the can. But this is a different order in council passed at a different time. It says:
"Finnan haddies"-
Not chicken haddies.
"Finnan haddies" means a combination of smoked haddock, smoked cod, smoked hake and smoked pollock.
The contents are not the same at all because chicken haddie means a combination of haddock, cod and hake, or cusk. I do not know just what cusk is. I was not quarrelling over chicken haddie at all because that is a trade name and you know exactly what you are buying. But when you buy what is supposed to be canned finnan haddie you are getting something that is not finnan haddie. It is a deception of the public and ultimately will be ruinous to the trade because people will discover that they are being deceived and will not buy it again. It is unloading something on the purchaser which is not what it pretends to be. It may be all pollock, or haddock, or hake, or a combination of them. There is no guarantee as to what percentage of finnan haddie you will get, and it will ruin the trade eventually for canned finnan haddie.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
75. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, $289,000.
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I want to compliment the minister on his administration ol the fisheries on the Pacific coast. I should like to ask to what extent the salmon fisheries
Supply-Fisheries

in the Skeena and around the Queen Charlotte islands have been reestablished. I know that the department did some research there last year. What have been the results?


Ernest Bertrand: The increase this year, as hon. members may see, is $42,000. The break-up of this amount is as follows: $25,000 for the Skeena river sockeye salmon investigation. The research board is making an investigation in the Skeena river and tributaries, and the biologists with the party are now at these waters studying the reason why there is such a depletion of sock-eye. We hope to be able to restore the sockeye catch to what it was previously. I am told by the scientists that the reduction may be due partly to the great number of rainbow trout in the lakes. Last summer a party went to Babine lake to examine the situation and caught a number of rainbow trout, They ran up to fifteen pounds apiece, and quite a number of small salmon, running up to fifty, were found in the stomachs of every one of them. As the numbers of these trout have increased greatly in recent years it may be necessary to have some of them removed, but the report has not yet reached my department. The fisheries research board is studying very seriously the question, and we hope to be able to restore the sockeye fisheries of the Skeena river.
We are spending $10,000 on the prairie provinces fisheries investigation. An investigation is going on concerning the tullibee and the whitefish. We have in mind the establishment of a biological station for the prairie provinces. A chief biologist has been appointed; his name is Doctor Doan; and two parties are at these waters to-day studying the question.
There are a certain number of problems which are very difficult to handle, but we hope very much to be able to give great assistance to the fishermen in regard to these valuable fisheries. I would not like to say too much on this matter because it might not be good for the trade.
We are to spend $3,000 more on the investigation of the Irish Moss gel and carry on additional scallop, crab and lobster investigation; and $2,000 on the development of new inspection methods and fish plant sanitation; and $2,000 to provide for annual increases.


Olof Hanson: Can the minister state whether any investigation is being made concerning the pink salmon?


Ernest Bertrand: I am informed that, though no investigation is going on now, for ten years there has been an investigation

concerning the pink salmon. We have had reports following these investigations but we have been unable to find any easy way whereby the supply of fish can be restored when it is depleted. It is a big job, not similar to an agricultural problem. Sometimes it takes years of research before it is possible to find the reason why fish are taking to some other areas.


Thomas Reid: I should like to add my word to that of the hon. member for Skeena regarding the need for further investigations as to pink salmon. I was wondering whether the fisheries research board has ever come to a final conclusion regarding any of their investigations. A large sum of money is voted by parliament every year, but very little interest is taken in the house in what is being done by them. I know that there has been some investigation with regard to the pink salmon. The fact of the matter is that the runs of pink salmon are growing less and are getting to a low level alarming to the fishermen. The fisheries research board has made investigation in regard to this one variety, but have they eome to any final conclusion or made any definite recommendations? I should also like to know whether they have come to any conclusion on any of the investigations which they have made on other varieties of salmon or fish.


Ernest Bertrand: The trouble is that the pink salmon is a run that occurs every other year in the Queen Charlotte islands. One year they are plentiful, the next year they are not. We have gathered a certain amount of data which is valuable, but we have not been able as yet to restore the odd year deficiency, and we cannot say that a definite conclusion has been arrived at, because we do not know and we have found as yet no reasons why they do not come in the odd years.


Thomas Reid: Have they made any investigation about the dogfish carcasses? It has got to a point on the Pacific coast that hundreds of tons of dogfish are being dumped without anything being done with the carcasses. They take the livers out of dogfish for vitamins. Somewhere around three hundred boats, mostly from the United States, are fishing off the west coast of Vancouver Island, and so great has the menace become by the dumping of hundreds of tons of dogfish carcasses on the beaches that the fisheries are being ruined. Have the fisheries research board or the department looked into this matter? It has alarmed the fishermen out there. One writer says:

Supply-Fisherie*
At a time when federal authorities have asked every Canadian citizen to do his utmost to conserve all fats and oils; when the nation's increased meat and poultry supply programme has been endangered through mineral and protein supplement shortage, the loss of millions of pounds of fish meal by throwing overboard dogfish carcasses from which the livers only have been taken, is inexcusable.
Canadian fishermen and reduction plant men are incensed over the great loss. They reckon that in 1943 almost thirty-six million pounds of dogfish went to sea bottom or were dumped on the beaches. It is true that this fish is not eaten by human beings in this country, but surely some value can be found for it, and I have been wondering whether any investigation has been made by the fisheries research board as to the real value of the dogfish.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to say a word on that. I can recall, and no doubt the hon. member for New Westminster can too, when dogfish were the most unpopular things in God's world; anything that could be done to get rid of them was welcomed, because they are horribly destructive of nets, they go through the salmon nets and they will eat salmon too. But suddenly it was discovered during the war that their livers had a value for their oil content, and as the hon. member says there has been a large development of that trade. I am afraid the condition of which he complains is one of those things which cannot be helped. He talks of the carcasses being dumped on the beaches. I would imagine that that would be due, not to their being dumped there but to their having come ashore there, because a man goes out fishing in a comparatively small boat, and when he catches a dogfish he cuts the liver out of it and puts it in a tin and throws the carcass over then and there, and probably it would be eaten by other dogfish, because they are cannibals. But the carcasses which the hon. member says are found on the beaches presumably float there. The fishermen's boats hold only two or three tons each, and to take two or three tons of dogfish to the beach and cut them open there would be a waste of time and space. What they do is cut the liver out then and there when the dogfish is caught. It has been suggested that instead of doing so they should be compelled to take every carcass home. The result would be that the amount of dogfish one man could catch in a day would probably be limited to a ton and a half to two tons, and he would have to go quite a long way to a reduction plant which would take the carcasses, and all the fisherman would get would be three or
four dollars a ton. In the old days when times were bad they used to catch them-I know the Japs did-and sell them to the reduction plants in the winter time. But it was very arduous work and they got only a small wage. They were glad to abandon that work because it proved more profitable to take out the livers, the flesh not being worth anything.
It can be readily understood, of course, that fish that feed on dead bodies would not be palatable, so that flesh would have no market value except for fish meal. Nowadays we have developed a system of catching pilchards, which come in great numbers and which can be more readily, and I might add, more agreeably caught, since it does not involve the same hardships. They are taken to the reduction plants. So that the demand for dogfish would be small indeed and it would not pay to catch them, and the regulation would be most prohibitive if they were compelled to take the carcasses in because the only place where they could be sold would be at reduction plants scattered far and wide, so that they might have to go a hundred miles and more to get to a plant. It would not pay them. It would kill the industry. The liver contents are badly needed, but nothing can be done in the meantime. I think there would be a greater gain from the money obtained from the liver as against the loss of the body, which is of no edible value.


Thomas Reid: There is another aspect of the matter I overlooked. On the one hand you have five or six million pounds of fish meat, and on the other you have five or six million pounds of dead fish which,, the fishermen say, destroys the fishing ground. It is said on good authority that within two hours of the dogfish carcasses being dumped into a bay, the live dogfish and the cod leave the bay entirely. That is something for the fisheries research board to look into. They might ascertain whether the dumping of dogfish into a bay does result in driving out from the fishing beds the other dogfish and codfish.


Mr. BRYCE:: I congratulate the ministry of fisheries on its intention to set up a research station in Manitoba. This will greatly benefit the northern lakes of that province. The minister knows quite well the difficulties we have had there, catching fish and sending them to the United States boundary only to find that the fish were not acceptable there, so that they became a dead loss. I am quite sure that the establishment of this research station will overcome that difficulty and will get to the bottom of the grievance that exists in the northern lakes. I think the minister
Supply-Fisheries

knows what I am referring to, and I do not wish to give it more publicity than is necessary. I would point out to him an ideal situation for this research station. At the mouth of the Red river there is the town of Selkirk, which is an ideal station, because we have cheap electric power, a great deal of water and accommodation for employees that are likely to be engaged there, and it is adjacent to the capital of Manitoba. There is good service by bus and there is a good pavement. There are quite a few fish-packing concerns there which could work in with a research station.


Mr. MARTIN:: Does the hon. member like Winnipeg goldeye?


William Scottie Bryce: If the hon. gentleman wants to make a speech I am quite prepared to sit down. I am not in a hurry; I can wait until later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was asking the hon. member facetiously if he liked Winnipeg goldeye.


William Scottie Bryce: I am sorry; I apologize to the hon. gentleman. Lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba are the largest lakes out there and are quite close to Selkirk. There are also facilities for working on samples in a laboratory there. I hope that the minister will remember Selkirk when he is establishing that station.


Mr. FULFORD:: There is a persistent
rumour that Atlantic salmon are being planted in the tributary waters of lake Ontario and in the upper regions of the St. Lawrence. Is that simply a rumour or is there truth in it?


Ernest Bertrand: First, in reply to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), I may say that we have not decided yet where the biological station will be, but we are looking into all these matters and the station will certainly be placed advantageously as recommended. I understand that it is important that the processors, the fishermen and the fish should be able to meet at the same place for the purposes of the biological station.
As regards the question asked by the hon. member for Leeds, the department has nothing to do with the planting of salmon in lake Ontario. I know that one of the provinces, I am not sure whether Ontario or Quebec, has had articles in the newspapers to the effect that they would try to plant Atlantic salmon along the St. Lawrence. Years ago salmon were plentiful in most of the rivers tributary to the St. Lawrence up to Lachine rapids, but to-day they have disappeared. I know it is being done, but not by my department.
[Mr. Bryce.1


George Hugh Castleden: Has the department any publications on research that has been done into fish diseases in the northern lakes and the great lakes?


Ernest Bertrand: We have a private report, from Doctor Miller which is quite interesting. It is a scientific report, but we do not intend to publish it. It deals with fish diseases. If the hon. member wishes to see it 1 shall be pleased to show it to him.


George Hugh Castleden: Are they continuing this work and trying to remedy the situation?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes. They are continuing the work and we are sure to make some progress, if not improving the situation at least in regulating the trade so that the commodity will be acceptable to importing countries.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I support what the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) has said. I presume he is referring, when he mentions the northern lakes, to lake Athabasca and Great Slave lake. I brought up this question a few years ago-


Ernest Bertrand: Last year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps it was before tlr minister's time. I had just been up there and learned about that skin disease, and the minister at that time assured me that it would be cleared up promptly. Has it been cleared up?


Ernest Bertrand: I remember
that last year the hon. gentleman drew my attention and that of the committee to Great Slave lake and1 lake Athabaska. We have a party at work there now, a biologist and three or four men, who went out two or three months ago and are in the field now. I do not think anything can be done commercially at least during this year, or until the end of the war, but a>t least we have a biologist there studying the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
77. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon -fisheries commission under treaty between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $42,000.
Thomas Reid: There is one matter I should like to place before the minister, which is dealt with in a resolution passed at a meeting held in Victoria this year. Perhaps I cannot do better than read the resolution itself:
At its meeting held in the city of Tacoma, Washington, in April, 1944, the Pacific Northwest Trade Association requested the governments of Canada and the United States to give

Supply-Fisheries
immediate attention to the adequate protection of the Pacific coast fisheries of the two nations. These nations have spent many millions of dollars, have imposed many restrictions on their fishermen and fishing vessels, and have created two international commissions to preserve and develop these coastal fisheries, yet much of this expenditure will have been wasted and much of the effort lost unless these fisheries are protected for an adequate distance off-shore against the encroachments of Japanese or nationals of other countries than the United States or Canada.
Now, therefore, be it resolved: That this association now meeting at Victoria, British Columbia, this June 27, 1944, again calls the matter to the attention of the two governments, again points out the necessity for prompt and effective action being taken, and urges that the consideration of this important Pacific coast problem shall not be confused with the divergent problems of the Atlantic, or any other region, but be dealt with as a separate and distinct problem which can and should be considered upon its own merits, and at once.


Alan Webster Neill: Who is asking that?


Thomas Reid: The Pacific northwest trade association.
The Fraser river basin is one of the most valuable fishery spawning regions in the world, and is frequented by all varieties of Pacific coast salmon as well as by other species of fish, yet in the creation of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, by treaty between Canada and the United States, the powers of that commission were confined to dealing with sockeye salmon alone.
For the information of hon. members may I say that five varieties of salmon frequent the waters of British Columbia, and of these varieties only one, namely, sockeye, is under the jurisdiction of this international commission. In this resolution this association asks that all varieties come under its control for investigation, research, protection and rehabilitation.
Now therefore, be it resolved: That the governments of the two nations be urged to amend the treaty referred to so that the commission created thereby shall be authorized to deal with all varieties of salmon, and any other valuable commercial fish which are found in the Fraser river basin.
Too often in the past hydro electric, irrigation and other construction projects have been planned without consideration having been given to their effect on important fishery resources, although in many instances, it would have been possible that had such considerations been given the one might have been developed without harm to the other, and although, in some instances at least, it was doubtful whether the project was of greater economic value to the public at large than the fishery.
Now, therefore, be it resolved: That before any hydro electric, irrigation or other construction project be authorized which may seriously affect any substantial fishery, either recreational or commercial, a careful survey should be made by some disinterested public agency to determine the actual and relative values of such project, and such fishery and that every endeavour be made not to sacrifice
the one for the other, or, in any way, to prejudice the general public interest.
Be it further resolved: That before any hydro electric, irrigation or other construction project which affects an existing fishery be authorized, it should also be mandatory that the provincial or the state or other government having jurisdiction over such projects notify its respective fishery department of such prospective projects in order that adequate investigation of any fishery involved may be made before there is any commitment, direct or indirect, or authorization of such projects.
May I interrupt for a moment to say that we expect that hydro-electric development on the Fraser river to take place in the future. The whole British Coumbia watershed has been surveyed and mapped out with that purpose in mind. The fisheries commission do not take the stand that there shall not be any hydro electric development. They do say, however, that before any such hydro development is proceeded with or any dams constructed, consideration should be given to the possible effect of such development on, the fisheries. Mention has been made from time to time of the fishways which have been built in the great dams on the Columbia river, some of them costing as much as seven or eight million dollars. Hon. members may be interested to know that although these fishways are presumably successful, the fact is that the Columbia river fisheries are going down- year by year, and I believe independent observers would say that in time the construction of these dams across that river may mean the destruction of those fisheries.


Mr. POTTIER:: Do the fish keep going up the fishways?


Thomas Reid: Yes, they do, but the young fry have to be brought down again, and that has not been entirely successful. The fish can go up above the dams and spawn, but the young fry coming down again have met with difficulties. So that year after year those fisheries have been going down, and competent observers say that if some further steps are not taken the fisheries of the Columbia river may be completely destroyed. That is the reason for the warning coming from this association, that when hydTO-eleetric development on the Fraser river or its tributaries is under consideration, care be taken to see that the same thing does not happen there. We are not taking the stand that there shall not be any hydro-electric development, because we realize that as the population of the province increases there will have to be some development along these lines.	.
Mr. O'NEILL: I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for New Westminster, who apparently has approached this

Supply-Fisheries

question pretty much from the sole point of view of the fishermen, who say nothing must be done that will destroy the salmon fisheries. But there are other people in the province of British Columbia who are just as anxious to see that we do not make the whole interior of the province and all the tributaries of the Fraser river a spawning ground for salmon. For many years the people of Kamloops have looked forward to the day when power would be developed on the Adams river, which is one of the tributaries of the Thompson, which in turn is one of the tributaries of the Fraser, and so undoubtedly will be considered one of those streams upon which hydro-electric power must not be developed if such development would by any chance interfere wfith the salmon fisheries. While I am in sympathy with the demand of the fishermen that their fishing grounds should not be destroyed, on the other hand it does seem to me, to use a railway phrase, that we have been asleep at the switch in this country. We have permitted our great neighbours to the south to erect barriers on their rivers in order to develop power, and practically to destroy the salmon fisheries of the Columbia river; and now, to make sure these salmon fisheries are maintained as much as possible, you are going to make the interior of British Columbia a spawning ground for salmon for the benefit of the fishermen of the Fraser river and also the fishermen of the United States. It does seem to me that the farmers, and those now living in the interior of British Columbia, who have waited for years and years for power developments, are now to be denied the benefits of that electrical power on their farms because it may interfere with the salmon fisheries.
There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration besides fisheries. If provision can be made under which these tributaries may still be used as spawning grounds for salmon, without interfering with hvdro-electric development, then I would be quite prepared to discuss the question. But if it must be discussed from the point of view that it shall not interfere with salmon fisheries, then I am not prepared to discuss it at all. If it can be considered from the other point of view of developing power on these rivers without unduly restricting the salmon spawning grounds, all well and good. But I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that when this question is being discussed the rights of other people, besides salmon fishermen, must be given some consideration.


Thomas Reid: I do not know if the hon. member for Kamloops heard clearly the remarks I made. I was careful to point out that the Pacific salmon fisheries commission tMr. O'Neill.]
realized fully that there had to be hydroelectric power development. If the hon. member was paying any attention to the resolution I read he would know that very point was emphasized by me. I am not altogether surprised by the hon. member's remarks, because only a week or so ago a debate took place in his city in regard to an old dam which was constructed long years ago by a logging company. That dam is at the entrance to a lake known as Adams lake. It has been in disrepair for I do not know how many years. For the past twenty years it has not been used by the logging company. When it was built and operated by the logging company there was a fishway through it, into Adams lake-which, by the way is a lake with at least eighty miles of spawning grounds available. No great difficulty was experienced in those years by the fish. The logging company, however, has now been carrying out its operations by truck. Over the course of years the dam has fallen into disrepair, and for many years salmon coming to spawn there have been unable to get past. So that the fisheries commission in its investigations, after looking over the matter, sought the removal of this dam. They were not seeking the removal of hydro-electric development. Rather they were asking for the removal of a dam which had not been used for twenty yeass and which was a menace to the salmon going to (he lake. Those are the facts of the case.
As I said, there must be development of hydro-electric power in British Columbia, and there must also be development of our fisheries. The two must go hand in hand. My warning to the government and the country is that from a fisheries point of view we cannot sit idly by and see the power companies erect dams irrespective of whether they kill the fish or not, as happened across the line.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, we have heard the view of power versus salmon ably presented by the two hon. members who have just spoken. There is a great deal of truth in both arguments. With reference to the situation in respect to dams, of which the hon. member for New Westminster spoke-a dam which has been a menace to fish for twenty years, and for which no one would admit responsibility-might I say that that could easily have been settled. As a matter of fact we had the same condition in my district. There was no possibility of its being used for power purposes, and it was a menace to salmon coming up. Therefore I gave a good friend of mine five sticks of stumping powder-and that was the end of that; and it saved a lot of trouble.

Supply-Fisheries
If I heard the hon. member for New Westminster correctly, he read a resolution passed by a body with which he is connected stating that these things should be investigated. There is no doubt that they will have to be investigated, having in mind the greatest good to the greatest number. It will be found that in some rivers it will be necessary, and perhaps advisable, to let the fish go and to proceed with the power development. In other cases it might be the other way round- that the power development would not be substantial, and that it would be more valuable as a fishing area. For instance it would be inconceivable to abandon the Fraser or Columbia rivers entirely as sources of fish, because they are perhaps two of the greatest fisheries rivers in the world. It ultimately boils down to this, that the choice must be made as to which it may be advisable to drop. Perhaps it might be wise to keep the power development in certain rivers, or perhaps the tributaries of those rivers, and leave the fish in other rivers-that is, in other cases it would be the other way round.
I wish now to speak about another point to which the hon. member for New Westminster referred, and to which reference was made by the association for which he speaks. While I did not hear him clearly, I did gather he was pointing out that there was some danger of attacks being made upon our fisheries, not in the rivers themselves within our territories, but outside the rivers.


Thomas Reid: Outside the .three-mile limit?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, outside the three-mile limit. While the condition has not been the same since the war, there wag a pronounced and clear case a few years ago. Fish have peculiar habits. There is not one fish for every square yard or for every ten square yards in the ocean. Fish travel in well-defined movements. Aircraft, looking down, can spot these movements just as they can spot submarines. The conclusion is that they can be seen hundreds of miles off shore. The particular case I have in mind was in connection with the development at Bristol bay, where the Americans get large quantities of fish. It is up in the Alaska area, and the Americans take enormous supplies of fish out of there. Well, it was discovered that our oriental friends, the Japanese, with their usual astuteness, had cleaned out the greater part of their own area-because a Jap's idea of fishing is to take the last fish and the last fin out of an area, whether it is his own or anybody else's. So they go and beg, borrow or steal somebody else's fish. He had depleted his own fisheries and he was then engaged in
100-327i
depleting the fisheries he had leased from the Russians, and saw the possibilities in the excellent waters of Bristol bay.
It is generally recognized-I do not know as to whether there is any international law on the point-that the territorial waters or rights of a nation shall extend three miles beyond its coastline. And I believe it is further recognized that that distance shall be computed from the headlands-that is, one would not compute it from a deep bay, but rather from headland to headland. The Japanese, probably keeping within the law, came up there and ran a big mother ship fol canning salmon. Then they spread a net- I have heard it was 200 miles long; I do not know if that is correct. However it is said they ran an enormous length of net, sufficient to run practically across the mouth of these Alaskan waters. They kept far enough out so that they could not be interfered with under territorial waters regulations, and yet sufficiently close to get the benefit of the fish going into those waters.
If they could do it there, then it would be only a short time before they would do it lower down and cut off our supply going to the Fraser river. The United States made a protest in a friendly way, as one friendly nation to another, stating that the Japanese were not playing the game-even though perhaps they were keeping within their actual rights. After all, these were American fish spawned there, taken care of, and protected. The Americans would not let their white fishermen take these fish, except at certain times, in order to protect them. And it was just a little bit too strong to see the Japanese come along and clean up the whole output. The Japanese replied with their usual courtesy and said that they were sorry but the Americans were mistaken; they were not trying to take salmon, they were simply prospecting for crabs. They had taken out this large ship, equipped it with canning, appliances, and all they were doing was prospecting for crabs. They were so sorry that the Americans, their good friends, would even suspect that they were capable of doing anything	that	might be	considered	an
unfriendly act, the Americans whom they loved so much and continued to love until the last minute before Pearl Harbor.
The Americans were not fooled, and they replied in like manner. They said they accepted the statement and the assurances of the Japanese, they were quite sure they were sincere when they said they were only prospecting for crabs, but unfortunately or fortunately they sent an aeroplane up. It came down low enough to the mother ship that they
Supply-Fisheries

were able to see the names on the cases of salmon that were being packed and it therefore looked as though the Japanese government had been mistaken in saying that they were prospecting only for crabs. The Japanese government then reiterated their assurances of devotion to the United States and so on; they said the Americans must have been mistaken and anyhow they had given orders it was not to be done again.
Of course it was continued. This was just about a year before the war. The United States fishermen got a little tired of using diplomacy and they decided to help themselves. They sent down to Seattle for a couple of hundred rifles and they said that when they got those back they would settle the situation by more drastic and practical means. Then the war broke out and that waa the end of the matter for the time being.
As the hon. member for- New Westminster has pointed out, we should negotiate an agreement with the United States similar to the one in connection with the Columbia river salmon. It could cover not only the sockeye but other varieties of fish. I urge the government to consider seriously this aspect of the matter. There is no doubt that the Japs were legally within their rights. It was suggested about that time that a ship was coming out from Norway for the same purpose. The United States government made friendly representation and the thing was stalled off for the time being. But the question will have to be faced sooner or later. Some people will say that it can be done by having a gentleman's agreement or by some other means to extend the territorial waters of Canada beyond the three-mile limit to what is known as the continental shelf. But there are objections to this method because the continental shelf varies. At some places it is quite close to Canada, and at other places it is a considerable distance away. I do not think the problem can be met in that way. It seems to me that the solution is in having an agreement with the United States -along the lines of the one in connection with salmon. As soon as the war is ended the Japanese will again be in a position to- do this, or it may be the Norwegians or someone else. They will come here and take advantage of the millions of dollars we vote year after year protecting the birth and early life of the salmon. Are we going to sit. down and watch them take these fish by putting down nets beyond the territorial limits?
I do hope the minister will take note of this. This thing needs investigation and it needs foresight. We are on terms of good friendship

with the United States at the moment and now is the time to make an agreement of that kind.


George Hugh Castleden: To what extent does this item number 77 duplicate the $1,000,000 item in connection with the fisheries commission?


Ernest Bertrand: This item is only for the maintenance of the commission, whereas the other item is a capital expenditure for the building of a fish pass at Hell's Gate and to provide means of overcoming other obstacles.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: We are fortunate in having three members from British Columbia who know as much about fishing as any other members in this house. I am not one of them, but Hell's Gate happens to be in my riding. The hon. member for New Westminster, the hon. memebr for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Skeena have a thorough knowledge of the fishing industry. I want to say a word about the hon. member for New Westminster. I think he knows more than the other two hon. members because he comes from a riding which is next to mine. As Hell's Gate is in my riding I am much interested in this matter. I want to pay my tribute to the hon. member for New Westminster, and when I do that I think I speak for the fishermen of British Columbia, certainly for those in my riding. The work carried on by this commission, of which he is a member, has done considerable for the fishing industry of British Columbia.
A short time ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to the benefits accruing to the country from the fishing industry. If my memory serves me rightly, the value of the fisheries in British Columbia alone in 1941 amounted to $21,000,000. The benefits from that production accrue to the whole dominion.
This commission has done excellent work. I think the principal reason for that is that the two leading technical men in the commission come from my riding. The deputy minister of fisheries does not exactly come from my riding but he showed excellent judgment in marrying a lady from my riding. His chief assistant does come from my riding.
I do not think I have any more to say on this matter except, that I hope there will be no question at all about passing the $1,000,000 vote. This is a small matter when we consider the value of this industry. If I am not mistaken in my figures, on the basis of the prices received last year and the run of 1913,

Supply-Fisheries
the value of this production in British Columbia alone would be 840,000,000. Surely- we can afford to pass this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
78. Grant to the united maritime fishermen's association, $3,000.
Vincent-Joseph Pottier: On June 30 when the minister's estimates were, before the committee he referred to the brief presented by the united maritime fishermen's association, and in referring to it he said, as reported on page 4416 of Hansard:
The brief presented to us by the united fishermen says that they do not want the unrestricted use of trawlers, meaning that they do not want the trawlers to fish anywhere. We are going to see, through the system of granting a licence, that the trawlers fish far away from the shore.
I think the minister has misinterpreted the brief presented by the united maritime fishermen's association. Their brief reads:
Clearly then the unrestricted use of trawlers is inimical to the interest of the inshore fishermen, and on behalf of its members this association must continue its opposition to them.
The unrestricted use to which they refer there is not only the unrestricted use of the fishing grounds but unrestricted use in so far as the number of beam trawlers is concerned. It is important that we be seized of that difference. The reason why the united maritime fishermen are opposed to -the beam trawler is that it affects a large number of fishermen, and an increase in the number of beam trawlers tends to put fishermen out of business and centralize the industry in two or three places in Nova Scotia, Halifax and Lunenburg for example. I hope that the minister will not continue with that interpretation.


Ernest Bertrand: It means
both.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: If the minister understands that, there is no need for me to pursue the matter further. I agree with the united maritime fishermen; I am opposed to the trawler. I have said a great deal about it before, and I shall not repeat. I have not changed my mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
79. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 19, 1942, $120,000.
Thomas Reid: As the minister and perhaps the members of the committee know, a treaty regarding pelagic sealing was made in 1911 between four countries. In 1941 the treaties
were terminated. We are receiving considerable value each year from the United States, and at no expense to us, because under the treaty we prevent our fishermen from interfering with the seals on their way north to the Pribilof islands. Our share last year was twenty per cent of the seals caught, which gave Canada 23,400 skins. These when processed are worth $50 apiece. The processing costs from $12 to $15 apiece, so that Canada got roughly $800,000 as her share. I have a suggestion to make to the minister. I think that he should consider sending a man or men up to the Pribilof islands from Canada for a few days each year, if for nothing else than to show that we are interested in what is being done by the United States in regard to the killing and taking of seals from the Pribilof islands. We have had considerable benefit from the treaty, but I do not think we have had a representative go to the Pribilof islands to keep an eye on what is being done there. Perhaps the minister would give that suggestion his serious consideration.


Ernest Bertrand: As the hon. member for New Westminster has said, this is a very valuable asset for Canada. Here is an example of how the fur seal population is being restored through international cooperation. We have a treaty with the United States which has just been renewed. We have no representative in the Pribilof islands. We do not doubt at all the honesty of the United States authorities. They number the barrels containing the skins and we have the privilege of indicating by number which barrels we w'll take. For instance we may say that we will take barrel No. 3, barrel No. 5, barrel No. 13. and so on, so that we have an equal chance of getting representative skins.


Thomas Reid: What I had in mind was not so much to check up on the United States authorities, because after all they are acting in good faith and we must assume that they are. But when the treaty was first signed, four countries were a party to it, United States, Canada. Russia and Japan. We do not know what countries may want to enter into a treaty _ of this kind after the war. My suggestion is that we should send a representative up there to show our interest in the matter and to gather information so that we shall be better able to discuss the matter when the time comes for renewing the treaty.


Alan Webster Neill: I understand that under the original treaty the Russians gave us fifteen per cent, United States fifteen per cent, and the Japanese fifteen per cent of the catch.
Supply-Fisheries


Ernest Bertrand: There we'< a number of islands and the proportion varied with each island. On Pribilof island the proportions were as follows: Canada, 15 per cent; United States, 70 per cent; Russia, 0; Japan. 15 per cent. On Commander island: Canada. 15 per cent; United States, 0; Russia, 70 per cent; Japan, 15 per cent. On Robben island. Canada, 10 per cent; United States, 10 p r cent; Russia, 10 per cent; Japan, 70 per cent


Alan Webster Neill: Japan repudiated the treaty a year or two ago, did she not?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the deal now?


Ernest Bertrand: The agreement is that the proportion that Japan was taking is divided between Canada and the United^ States. Japan has abrogated the treaty, but of course they are free to catch seals passing around their own territory.
Item agreedi to.
80. To provide for payment of a bounty for the destruction of harbour seals, $15,000.


Alan Webster Neill: How much do we pay now for each individual hair seal shot, and how much was paid out of this vote last year?


Ernest Bertrand: We pay S2.50 per nose. The nose is the proof which the fisherman supplies. Last year we paid out $6,245.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that the
amount paid per seal is not enough. That is illustrated by the fact that you have so much money left out of last years' vote. If you -paid out only $6,000 odd, it shows that the fishermen are nob much interested. A hair seal when shot immediately sinks, so even if the fisherman shoots one his chance of recovering it is small. You may shoot half a dozen and recover only one. These hair seals can do great damage to a fisherman's nets, and a fisherman with a long line of nets out cannot afford to leave his fishing when he is perhaps getting a good run of fish to shoot a hair seal for $2.50. The greatest destruction of the seals in years gone by was through the government patrol boats on the Pacific, which supervise the enforcement of the law. At certain seasons of the year the boats would go to the breeding grounds and shoot or club the seals and much greater destruction was done in that way than by casual shooting by individual fishermen. You can hardly expect a fisherman to drop his fishing when he is having a nice run of fish to go after one seal. That we are not paying enough is indicated by the
IMr. Neill.1
fact that only $6,000 was paid out of the vote last year. I suggest that the amount paid per seal should- be raised to $5 and- that as soon as the war is over aggressive steps should be taken to renew the destruction done by these patrol boats. During the war these patrol boats have been taken over for other purposes or have been continuing their activities in a very limited fashion. They have not been able to do the destruction on the breeding grounds which they did before. I hope the government will provide the money. It is not very much; in fact it is not enough. The bounty should be increased in order to encourage people to go after these hair seals; also they should try to strengthen the service of fisheries patrol boats so that their activities will be renewed when the war is over. We pay to catch wild animals in British Columbia, such as the cougar and the wolf, a much larger bounty than that. With the aid of a good dog a man can get a cougar comparatively easily, yet the bounty is something like ten or twelve dollars. Two and a half dollars is not enough, when a man can go out and catch dogfish and take out their livers and get far more money that way.


Thomas Reid: I should like to join my representations with those of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and also to commend -the minister for the steps he has taken so far to help out in the Fraser river. For some unknown reason, during the past two years, the seals have grown to enormous numbers. I myself last year counted on one bar at least a thousand seals, and the closest you can get is about half a mile It may be possible to go to the rookeries and kill these seals, but in th-e Fraser river you cannot get nearer than half a mile to them; one shot from a gun, and instantly they are in the water. The minister has been good enough to interest himself in an endeavour to get rid of them to so-me extent in the Fraser river. The-ir numbers have grown so much that fishermen are refusing to put their nets in -the water. At a meeting I attended during the Easter recess, fishermen said that of every ten salmon in a net, seven would be destroyed before the net could be picked up. due to the seals running along and biting them, and the net would be destroyed as well. I ask the minister seriously to consider the increasing of the -bounty so as to encourage the fishermen to go after them to a greater extent because, as pointed out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, when a fisherman takes a shot at them and hits a seal, the seal sinks, unless the man is close enough to get it before it goes down too deep,

Supply-Fisheries
and thereby many' fishermen are discouraged from attempting to get these hair seals. They are in the Fraser river by the thousands. I do not know why they stay there. One suggestion is that it is because of the gunnery practice of naval and air forces outside the gulf.
I think the minister should redouble his efforts if he can, and consider increasing the bounty as suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for New
Westminster talks about numbers of seals as great as one thousand on a sand bar. I had no idea that things were as bad as that. The suggestion was made that they should be mined on these beaches where they go to sun themselves. Has anything been done along that line, and with what results?


Ernest Bertrand: Last year we made an extensive study of this problem, and we took some members of the Department of National Defence for Air to view these sand bars and tell us if it would be practicable to install mines there or endeavour to bomb them when they congregated there; but it was too difficult We were told that the weight of these seals is not enough to explode bombs, and that to use them under the circumstances would be very dangerous. Then we got officers of the Department of National Defence for Air to practise shooting at these seals on certain days of the week when the fishermen were not there, and we believe that they have destroyed a certain number; but there were some protests from the neighbours. We are still studying the question. We do not know exactly upon what lines success will lie, but the board is still giving attention to the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
82. To .provide for the replacement of the Gaspe peninsula fisheries experimental station, $35,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Gaspe is not in the chamber at the moment. I believe the member from that district is a soldier and he may be on military duty. I want to say a word in respect to his problem, since he and a delegation recently appeared from Gaspe before the reconstruction committee. I am glad to see that the minister has an estimate to do something to increase Gaspe fisheries. As far as I can see, Gaspe is one of the forgotten areas in Canada.
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier!: Fisheries administration is under the provincial authorities.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I see you are providing for a vote of $35,000.


Ernest Bertrand: I can explain to the hon. member what it is for. .


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is to provide for the replacement of the Gaspe peninsula fisheries experimental station. All I want to say is that I am in accord with this vote, because it is beneficial to Gaspe and will be beneficial to the country. Gaspe was perhaps the first part of Canada which was touched by explorers;
I believe Jacques Cartier landed there in 1534; and to me it is more or less neglected country, but it is very beautiful, and whatever the minister can do to help the Gaspe people he should do. I would not have got up to say anything on this item had the hon. member for Gaspe been here to say it himself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S3. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission to overcome obstructions to the ascent of sockeye salmon at Hell's Gate Canyon, and for investigation and overcoming obstructions to such salmon at other points on the Fraser river watershed, $1,000,000.
Ernest Bertrand: This sum is for the construction of two passes at Hell's Gate. I just want to say that I hope these passes will be finished by the month of April next, and if we can restore the sockeye run on the Fraser River by the building of these two passes it will be a great thing for the fishermen of British Columbia. Just to give an example, I might say that if in 1941 the catch had been as good as the catch of 1913, the year before the landslide, at the prices of salmon in 1941, instead a return of about $8 million it would have given a return of $40 million. We hope to be able to restore this run on this basis.
I do not want to let this item pass without paying a tribute to the members of the Pacific salmon fisheries commission. They jiave been working for six years, and I want to mention especially my hon. friend the hon. member for New Westminster, who was chairman last year; Mr. Edward W. Allen, barrister of Seattle, who is chairman this year; Mr. B. M. Brennan, Doctor Thompson, Mr. Milo Bell, and others who have worked very hard and given a great deal of their time and gone out of their way for the successful planning of these passes, which investigations now show have certainly been needed for the past thirty years.


Thomas Reid: On behalf of the members of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission I wish to thank the minister for introducing this vote of $1 million, which will be matched by $1 million from the United
Supply-Fisheries

States. This will take care of the two fish passes, at Hell's Gate canyon and thirty-seven obstructions on the Fraser river estuary. I wish to thank the minister for the vote on ' behalf of the commission of which I am a member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. .
8Jf. To provide for the extension of educational work in cooperative producing and selling among fishermen, $50,000.
Mr. BURTON:: Will the minister indicate how and where this work is being carried on, and the possibility of its being extended to other parts of Canada?


Ernest Bertrand: This item of $50,000 is the same as the item that appeared in the supplementaries last year. We are asking for $10,000 more in order to help in some other fields. This is probably the best-spent money in this department, because the work done at St. Francis Xavier, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and the university of British Columbia is of immense value. We hope to spend ten thousand more this year, but that will come under the supplementaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS 258. Departmental administration, $191,595.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item there is a matter which I should like to discuss with the minister for a few moments. I have already taken it up with him by correspondence, but unless something has been done about it recently, the request I have in mind has not yet been met. I am speaking on behalf of the women who do the char work in some of the public buildings that are under the Department of Public Works. My knowledge relates particularly to the fedenJ building in the city of Winnipeg and other Li ildings there that come under the direction of this department, The women who do this work feel that they should be entitled to some of the privileges that go with service extending over many years and that the privileges accorded the men doing similar work should be accorded to them. There are two of these privileges in particular about which I wish to speak-holidays with pay and a certain amount of sick leave without loss of pay. Shortly after the matter was brought to my attention last fall I wrote to the minister on October 6, 1943, setting out the situation and asking that be give it his consideration. Anticipating that there might be some argument over the status of these women, whether they were part-time, temporary employees or permanent employees,
I made reference in writing the minister to the 
notice of employment that was given to one of these women in Winnipeg, whom I happen to know, which notice I hold in my hand at the present time. It is on the departmental letterhead.
Department of Public Works, Canada Chief Architects' Branch
Maintenance Office-Dominion Public Buildings
In replying please quote file No. 1177-48.
The letter is dated June 16, 1941, and is addressed to a lady in Winnipeg doing this kind of work. The letter says in part:
This is to advise yon that the hon. the Minister of Public Works has been pleased to appoint you, during pleasure, as a charwoman on the above,-
"The above" refers to P.W.D. Staff, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
-at a remuneration of $660 per annum, for which you will be required to work a minimum of 7 hours per day, your appointment to date from the day on which you commence your duties.
The letter goes on to tell the lady whom she is to get in touch with and sets out certain other particulars in connection with her employment. The point I wish to emphasize is that the appointment was made on the basis of a certain amount per annum; she was not hired at a prevailing hourly rate. It was at an annual salary, if you wish to call it that, of $660. I pointed out when I wrote to the minister on October 6 that further evidence of the annual basis on which these women are employed is found in the fact that if they lose time owing to illness their pay cheques are docked and the amount they are docked varies according to the number of days in the month in which they are absent. In other words, if they lose a day in February they lose more money from their cheque than if they lose a day in December, which I suggest is evidence of the fact that they are paid on an annual basis and not on a daily or an hourly rate. I happen to know that some of these women have been employed with the Department of Public Works doing char work in the public buildings in Winnipeg for as long as ten or fifteen years, so that they can hardly be referred to as temporary employees. The dutirs of these women have been set out in a memorandum which reads:
Charwoman. Definition of class:	Under
supervision, to perform routine cleaning work in a government building as assigned.
Examples:	sweeping and scrubbing floors;
washing windows and woodwork; dusting and cleaning furniture; emptying wastebaskets and spittoons.
Qualifications . . .

Supply-Public Works


Thomas Reid: Are they under the civil
service?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a part of the problem.


Thomas Reid: I am wondering why charwomen should have to go through the civil service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To continue, note the requirements these women must meet:
Qualifications: preferably primary school education; knowledge of simple cleaning work and implements; ability to read and write; willingness to work; good physical condition.
Compensation: Prevailing rates shall apply.
I suppose that is probably where the confusion comes in. You have a memorandum on the one hand that says the compensation shall be the prevailing rates, and on the other hand when these women are engaged they are given the kind of notice to which I have already referred which states that they are engaged at a remuneration established on an annual basis. I have before me as well a memorandum setting out the specifications of the work of a cleaner and helper. In this instance the reference is to the men who do work similar to that done by the women. I could read it, but I need hardly take the time. There are a few duties included in the work assigned to men which are not included in the work assigned to women, but the definition of the class is strikingly similar. It reads:
Under supervision, to perform routine cleaning and janitor work as assigned and in some cases to perform or assist in general household or domestic work.
Perhaps I should read the qualifications in
this case as well:
Ability to read and write and preferably primary school education; knowledge of simple cleaning work and implements; willingness to work; good physical condition.
Compensation, annual: $1,020, $1,080, $1,140.
Note: For part-time work the compensation shall be in the same proportion to the above rates as the number of hours worked to standard working hours.
I want to emphasize the fact that there is a striking similarity between the definition of the class under which the men work and the class under which the women work; there are also striking similarities in their duties and qualifications, but the women are treated as though they were temporary, part-time employees whereas the men are treated as permanent employees. Apparently on the basis of that distinction the women are denied holidays with pay and sick leave without loss of pay. Nevertheless, anticipating that argument, as I have already pointed out, I drew to the attention of the minister when I first wrote
him the nature of the document these women receive when they are engaged.
The minister replied to my letter under date of October 26, 1943, and said in part:
The situation is as follows. The char staff work only part of the day. They are paid the
prevailing hourly rate in tire disirict. h * work must be considered as extra; is not hard; and is much in demand in all parts of the country.
That would seem to place a premium on it,
I might interject.
In any part-time prevailing rate work there is a general rule, followed by both industry and government, that holidays and sick leave are not applicable, and this rule has been followed in the particular ease you have reference to in Winnipeg.
We do not consider, particularly under circumstances of to-day, that any change should
be undertaken.
Yours sincerely,
Alphonse Fournier.
Inasmuch as I had gone to the trouble to emphasize the nature of the document which these women receive when they are employed, I felt that I had to reply to the minister's letter and I did so on November 16, calling attention again to the kind of notice these women receive, at least the women in Winnipeg, appointing them on an annual basis. I want to emphasize that there are many women in that city who have been doing this work for a good many years. There is nothing parttime or temporary about it. They have a set number of hours which they work every working day the year round, and as yet they have not been granted these two concessions.
In reply to my letter of November 16 the minister wrote me under date of November 23. This letter was somewhat shorter but slightly more welcome. He said:
Dear Mr. Knowles:
I have yours of the 16th instant concerning the matter of holidays and sick leave with pay for charwomen working in public buildings throughout Canada.
Your representations have been carefully noted and will be given every consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Alphonse Fournier.
After some months, not having learned of any progress in the matter, I wrote the minister again, restating the case, but to my regret nothing was done. On February 25, 1944, the minister wrote me in part as follows:
The order in council you referred to-
I had referred to an order in council that had been mentioned in the daily newspapers. -does not cover holiday leave for the char staff. It applies only to full time and seasonal prevailing rate employees. As the charwomen are part time only they do not come under the terms of this order in council. This follows

Supply-Public Works

the practice employed in the industrial and the commercial world where holiday and sick leave are not granted to part time employees.
For your information, however, I may say that this whole question, together with others, is being reviewed by this department with a view to adopting some additional regulations covering sick leave in keeping with the kind of service performed by the different employees.
That also was signed by the Minister of Public Works. It may be that these women who do char work are employed on a different basis in different parts of Canada. That is my reason for bringing up this question to-day, in order that we may discuss it fully. It may be that the minister can point to some instances where they are employed on a temporary basis, but on a number of occasions I have consulted the women who do this work in Winnipeg; I have known some of them for a good many years, and I know that as far as their work is concerned it is of a permanent nature. I repeat, some of them have been employed there for as long as fifteen years. Their hours are set; the document I read referred to seven hours a day. Their remuneration is fixed on a yearly basis, and is divided into twelve equal amounts for the twelve months of the year. If these women lose any time because of illness they lose their pay, according to the number of days in the month in which that time is lost. It seems to me that if there are any little technical difficulties that have to be overcome the minister or the government ought to take steps to get around those difficulties in the interests of fair play as far as these women are concerned. Quite frankly, I have had the feeling that advantage was being taken of these women because of the nature of their work. They are rendering a real and very important service. Most of these women are working because of particular need. It. is by no means easy work. It is hard on their health. It takes them out at evening hours, which is by no means a desirable time to be working, and I think this parliament would want these women to be given every possible consideration. In my opinion their request that they be granted annual holidays of two weeks with pay, after they have worked a certain number of years, and a certain amount of sick leave without loss of pay is a most reasonable request, and I hope the Minister of Public Works and the government will find some way by which this can be done without' further delay.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member has certainly fairly stated the case of these women in Winnipeg. Under the public works department we have quite a number of charwomen
fMr. Knowles. 1
working in different cities throughout the country where there are public buildings. These women work from two to three hours a day up to seven hours a day, as in Winnipeg. In Ottawa there is a very large number of women working every day from six o'clock in the morning until eight-thirty, which is two and a half hours. They are part-time employees, although they also are paid on a yearly basis. In other places they work four or five hours a day, while in AVinnipeg there are thirty-five women working seven hours a day. I do not know if there are many cities in the country where we have women working that many hours. Representations were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and we found that according to the labour regulations in Winnipeg holidays were given to these people if they worked forty-four hours a week.
In this instance they worked' forty-two hours. I have submitted this special case to treasury board. They have asked questions with respect to the labour regulations in Winnipeg. A few days ago I secured copies of those regulations and I am sending -the results of my inquiries to treasury board. I feel most sympathetic in this matter because it is a kind of borderline case. Had they worked two more hours a week they would have got the holidays as a matter of course. As the hon, member has said, this is a technicality, and I believe some redress should be made. I am expecting treasury board to deal with the matter in the near future, and I may tell the hon. member that I haive made recommendations to the effect that they get these holidays, as they are had in other trades.
I do not know if the same conditions would apply elsewhere in Canada. I believe this is a special case. There may be some isolated cases elsewhere, but they do not generally work the forty-four hours a week which would entitle them to- holidays. In this instance, however, hon. members may be assured that I will do my utmost to secure redress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am grateful to the
minister for the statement he has just made, and I apprecate the sympathy he has expressed, and1 his willingness to do everything he can to cope with any technicality which may stand in the way. What he has said makes one feel that it was worth while to make the representations I did, and not to take the first "no" as a final answer.
I hold in my hand a letter sent to these women in Winnipeg by an official of one of the civil service organizations. This official had been in touch with the minister on a

Supply-Public Works
recent date, and the letter indicates that the minister was showing sympathy for the situation. I am glad to learn of the recommendation he has made, and I certainly hope our friends of the treasury board will reveal themselves in this instance as hawing some humanity in their hearts.
There is one other point I should like to make in connection with the work these women are doing in Winnipeg.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Women everywhere; not only Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome my hon. friend's interjection. What he is saying is absolutely correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are too poorly paid and not taken care of, as the hon. member pointed out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My reason for confining my remarks to the women in Winnipeg is that I know the situation there very well. It is a good idea in this chamber-and I believe the hon. member has emphasized it-to talk of things we know about.
So far as their cleaning work is concerned, I understand these women are supposed to clean so many thousand square feet a night; I am not sure as to the measures used. The regulation, however, is laid down in Ottawa. I am informed that the superintendent on the job in Winnipeg or, in fact, in any other city, has no authority to vary that regulation. This produces considerable difficulty and unfairness in connection with the work these women do.
In one instance a thousand square feet of floor space may require five or ten times as much work as a thousand square feet somewhere else. If one happens to get an open stretch of plain, ordinary floor, that would be a totally different story from having to clean the same amount of floor space on which there are desks, cabinets and other office furniture. For example, I am told one of the members in the cabinet has an office in a public building in Winnipeg. Naturally, because of his duties here in Ottawa, he does not go to Winnipeg very often. The result is that the woman who has his office in her allotment of floor space has a break, so far as that office is concerned, because it is not used much and does not require much cleaning.


Gordon Graydon: Would that be an
Ontario cabinet minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; but now that I have
referred to the minister, perhaps I should
mention that it is my hon. friend from Manitoba, the Minister of Mines and Resources.
In taking this matter up with their superintendent, and pointing to him the inequality of the work they are called upon to do, I am told the women have been advised that nothing could be done, because the regulation had been issued from head office to the effect that each woman must clean so many thousand square feet. It seems to me that difficulty might easily be taken care of if a little more authority and responsibility were given the superintendent on the job. Would the minister give consideration to that point?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not often hear complaints about working conditions of people working for my department. I do not believe we treat them harshly. We have set down certain regulations with respect to the work they are to do in working hours. Really, however, in the two years I have been in the department I have not heard that they were given too much work. In Ottawa we have about 1,700 charwomen, and I have never heard that they complain they have been given too much space to cover. They may be given a thousand square feet to cover in two or three hours; I do not know what the time is. But they do not wash those floors every day. Sometimes they just come in and see that everything is in order, and kept clean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, I think they do their work all right.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes; they are all good working people who are employed. We would not keep them if they were not. And I would not want to hear any exaggeration as to their conditions of work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister has missed my point. I am not complaining on their behalf as to the total amount of work the entire group has to do. I am complaining about the inequality in the amount of work allocated to the women, owing to the fact that the superintendent on the job has no authority to divide it up on a basis of actual volume, depending upon the conditions of the floor space cleaned.


Alphonse Fournier: We will tell our superintendents to be just as fair as possible in dividing the work among the women.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Public Works which would tend toward efficiency, at least in Fort William. My suggestion would be that women cleaners receive the same pay
Supply-Public Works

as men. We have difficulty out there in keeping women on their jobs; they have been resigning. Men cleaners are placed under the jurisdiction of the civil service. Anyone who knows anything about the way women fix things up, and clean them, will know that they are much better cleaners than men ever were. At least they should receive the same pay as the men. If they work overtime these women should be paid double time or time and a half, just the same as the men. I think the suggestion is most admirable and it would make for harmony and happiness among these women who are cleaners.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to say a word with respect to the employees of the Department of Public Works and I join in a general way with the hon. member for Fort William. I had thought that by now this government would have put into operation the policy which has been enunciated so many times in this house, that of equal pay to men and women for equal work.


Mr MacNICOL:: You announced it yourself.
Mr. GRAY'DON: Yes, but perhaps my powers of conversion have not been as powerful as they would have been had I been allied with the hon. member for Fort William who supports the government. However, I did not rise to discuss that matter at this time. I wanted to refer to the uniform coats which have been furnished to the elevator operators in the parliament buildings and other public buildings in Ottawa. To me they are scandalous, and I think the Minister of Public Works will be the first to agree with me in that. I am ashamed to belong to a parliament that will provide that type of coat to men who are meeting the public from time to time. They should be provided with good serviceable uniforms for their work. Something should be done to prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing because it does not leave a very good impression upon the public, to say nothing upon the men who have to work in them.
I am sorry His Honour the Speaker is not at the moment in the chamber, but perhaps what I am about to say will serve as a notice to him of a question that I intend to ask when his estimates are before the committee. My remarks have to do with the protective staff of this building. I realize that the minister has nothing to do with these employees, but perhaps I may refer to them briefly. The protective staff of this building have had to go around in winter uniforms during the hot weather, and that is a national disgrace and a scandal. These men have to

meet the public and work when they are uncomfortable, and the whole situation is one which should be remedied.
With respect to the employees of the minister's department, I hope he will rise in his place and say that a great mistake has been made, that it was not done with his authority or approval. I should like to see the responsibility and blame attached to some one. Some one must be to blame for a condition like that. To some people this may seem to be a small point to raise, but it only illustrates .nefficiency in the department which must be rooted out. It should be rooted out by those whose job it is to root out such things; that is the opposition. I should like to see these men dressed in decent uniforms so that those who see them will know that the government are interested in their employees.


Alphonse Fournier: If the leader of the opposition had not used such violent words as "scandalous" and so forth I would have been 100 per cent of his opinion. The first time I walked into the House of Commons and saw those coats on the elevator men I was shocked. I inquired where they had found the coats, and the answer given to me was that when they had come to try to get the cloth for these coats, this was the best the puichaser could find because of the shortages. I am not an expert in these matters, but I fully agree that I would not force any man to wear a coat like that


Gordon Graydon: Where did they get these coats?


Alphonse Fournier: They probably asked for tenders as we always do when we want to clothe our employees. They had to use the cloth placed at the disposal of the public, and this was the best they could find. I would not blame my officials to the point of saying that they had done something scandalous, but I did tell them that in the future they should try to find something more suitable and more presentable for public servants who are meeting the public in the capital city. I really hope next year when my estimates are up that these men will be better clothed.


Gordon Graydon: I expect that the minister will be on the other side inquiring of someone in our group with respect to that. May I suggest that one reason for the situation is that plans were not laid far enough ahead to obtain coats for the men. I think the minister had better start laying his plans now in order to get some decent summer outfits, even if this matter may be under the supervision of another minister next year.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. CARDIFF:: I do not think these men have been supplied with complete suits; it is only with coats. I think that is one of the complaints they have been making, that they are not furnished with a complete uniform.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Further to the question I asked, the minister was good enough to state that he had made a recommendation to the treasury board. I appreciate the willingness of the minister to make that statement, but could he tell us how long it is since the recommendation was made and whether there has been any reply?


Alphonse Fournier: I think I sent the first recommendation to treasury board about two weeks ago. On Monday or Tuesday I received a reply asking for details about the working conditions in Winnipeg and the hours worked, and I believe I sent a second recommendation to the treasury board yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reply the minister received was not a declination; it was simply asking for further information?


Alphonse Fournier: It was not a refusal; it was a request for further information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is following it through to the best of his ability?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-
San. Ottawa-maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $2,9X9,480.
Gordon Graydon: I am not sure whether the minister answered the question I propounded on a previous occasion with respect to the heating system of the east block being changed from coal to oil.


Alphonse Fournier: I believe I gave an answer before. If I recall rightly, we received orders from the oil controller to change the system because of the oil situation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that the east block is not heated by the central heating plant that heats the west block and this building?


Alphonse Fournier: This was only a
temporary arrangement for the summer. The east block is heated from the central heating plant during the fall and winter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the winter time the
east block is heated from the central heating plant?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-
2til. Maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $3,782,758.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Does this apply t-o the
grounds around the buildings in Ottawa?


Alphonse Fournier: To all the buildings in the country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the grounds around
all the public buildings throughout the country in as unsatisfactory a condition as the grounds around these buildings? All through the previous years we have had nice flower beds around the grounds. Where are they now?


Grote Stirling: There is a war on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The few dollars it would take to put in flower beds in the grounds around the main buildings is a small matter in comparison with some of the vast sums of money that are more or less recklessly spent, and I have seen much of that. There is no excuse for not having flower beds.


Alphonse Fournier: We should not
mix up two things. The grounds around the public buildings at Ottawa are under the jurisdiction of the federal district commission. One of the reasons given to 'me is that there has been a curtailment of expenditure owing to the difficulty of finding labour. The same question was brought up last year and that was the information I received.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The information I have
received is that unless the men who are working on the grounds around these buildings dig down in their own pockets to buy plants and seeds to beautify the landscape, the flowers and plants are not forthcoming.


Thomas Reid: For the information of the
hon. member, may I say that the special committee dealing with the city of Ottawa had this matter before them. I support the contention which the hon. member has made; I am with him. It was pointed out in the committee that the matter would be taken under advisement.


Mr. RICKARD:: It has been found impossible to get awnings for the windows of the public buildings in my riding. The sun shines in and it is very hot in many of these buildings. Would the minister look into this matter and see if anything can be done?
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: I am ready to look into the matter and see if we can get awnings, but I would remind the committee that since 1940 we have been cutting down, decreasing the estimates of my department, to bare necessities. I am getting only what is needed for maintenance.


Gordon Graydon: May I remind the minister of an inquiry w:hich I made about a month ago, and which has not yet produced the results I had hoped for. There has been a lot of complaint by members of the draughts circulating in this chamber. The matter has been brought up before, but apparently nothing has been done and complaints still come in to me from the members of our group. I should like to know if the minister really means to do anything about it. It is much more serious than appears on the surface, particularly for the members sitting in the second and third rows, where they feel a tremendous draught at times. I think every member of the house has had that experience. While we should not perhaps think of our own comfort before anyone else's, the chamber should be made reasonably comfortable if we are going to sit here such a large part of the year, as now seems to be the case


Alphonse Fournier: Following the inquiry from the leader of the opposition some time ago, the chief architect's branch did make a survey of the chamber, but the building is so high that, although they have closed everything off that they could close, there are still draughts for which they have not found a remedy. I shall try to make the chamber as comfortable as we can possibly make it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-
264-Ontario-
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $120,000.
Ottawa-hydrogenation laboratory for the Department of Mines and Resources, $250,000.
Ottawa-postal terminal-addition (revote), $75,000.
Ottawa-West block-renewal of heating system, $30,000.
Ottawa-central heating plant for Department of Mines and Resources on Booth street (revote $95,000), $145,000.
Toronto postal station "A"-painting, $25,000.
Total, $645,000.
Mr. MacNICOiL: I want to say a word about the item pertaining to the proposed hydrogenation laboratory and to support the item. First may I ask whether the amount pertains only to the building or as well to the equipment?
Alphonse Fournier: It is for the land that is to be purchased and for the building.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The land and the building?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was informed before that the building itself would cost up to $200,000. I suppose part of this amount would be for increased salaries, which are richly deserved.


Alphonse Fournier: This is only for the building and the site. It does not include the equipment that will go into the building.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the building under construction now?


Alphonse Fournier: No. We are now dealing for a site on Booth street.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister right in that? Is not the building to be on the same property where the experimental laboratories on Booth street are located?


Alphonse Fournier: This is in the block opposite on Booth street.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is not adjacent to the present building? There is a small hydrogenation plant there.


Alphonse Fournier: No. The site which we expect to acquire for the building in a day or two is on the other side of Booth street.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there another vote pertaining to the equipment?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes; that will be in the supplementaries.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the vote be under this department?


Alphonse Fournier: I think my hon. friend is familiar with the procedure. A request comes from the Minister of Mines and Resources giving the reasons why we should put up a building for a hydrogenation plant, and the Department of Mines and Resources provides an item in their estimates for the equipment and machinery 'required. We have not started the construction of the building because we shall receive the plans of the machinery there is to install in the building. That is why we have not yet started the construction of the building. As soon as we receive their plans as to machinery we shall prepare our plans for the building.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So that this vote does not apply in any way to equipment which is to go into the building?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I support the vote because I am going to support the programme.

Supply-Public Works


Stanley Howard Knowles: To make the record complete, would the minister relate the heating system of the west block to the central heating system here? A while ago he answered questions about the heating system in the east block.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that the heating system of the west block was put in there seventy-seven years ago, and it will have to be taken out. It is worn out and will have to be replaced.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister stating that the west block is not heated from the central plant?


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that the coils and radiators and so forth are used up, and that the piping will have to be renewed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the hot water that heats the building comes into the building from the main that is attached to the main which comes from the central heating plant to heat all these buildings?


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S askatchewan-
266. Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $35,000.
Gordon Graydon: Is the minister going to add anything to the Saskatchewan vote in view of the fact that there are now additional ministers in the provincial government?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-
Generally
272. Flags for dominion buildings, $8,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: I think that if that much money is to be spent on flags for and around these buildings they should be flown more of the time. One comes here time and time again and there is no flag flying at all. Surely if we have flags in Canada they should be flown.


Alphonse Fournier: There is always a flag on this building.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Not always.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Well, not at night.


Alphonse Fournier: It is flown from daylight to dark.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If we spend so much money on flags they should be flown.


Gordon Graydon: The government's fortunes have been at half-mast a good deal lately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch-
Generally
27',. Veterans' hospitals-repairs, improvements and alterations, $60,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Which hospitals are to be repaired this year?


Alphonse Fournier: General repairs and improvements to the various military hospital buildings throughout the dominion during the year 1944-45 as requested by the deputy minister of pensions and national health on January 11 of this year. The amount is made up as follows:
Halifax, Camp Hill hospital	 $ 6,800
Saint John, N.B., Lancaster hospital.. 7,060
Quebec-Savard Park hospital	 2,770
Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital	 14,000
Toronto, Ont., Christ Street hospital-	8,580
London, Ont., Westminster hospital

	7,200
Winnipeg, Man., Deer Lodge hospital.. 3,300
Calgary, Alta., Col. Belcher hospital-	2,500
Vancouver, B.C., Shaughnessy hospital.. 7,790
Total	 $60,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
276. Engineering, including salaries of engineers, clerks, et cetera, $485,600.
Gordon Graydon: Is provision being made in connection with this branch for rehabilitation, in the jobs they had before they enlisted, of those who have entered the armed forces?


Alphonse Fournier: Every enlisted man's job is kept open for him to fill the moment he comes back. There is no replacement of a permanent nature. When a man comes back he comes to the department and takes over his position, with the benefits which have accrued during his service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
Dredging
279. Ontario and Quebec, $282,215.
Gordon Graydon: I have had some correspondence and interviews with the minister
with respect to the dredging of the mouth of the harbour for fishing purposes at Port Credit; and I bring it to the attention of the minister again in the hope that his previous decision, perhaps reached rather hastily, might conceivably be reviewed in the interests of better fishing at that particular part of lake Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch

Dredging
280 Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $57,095.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Mr. .MacNICOL:	Where in Manitoba,
Alberta and Saskatchewan is it proposed to do dredging?
Alphonse Fournier: This amount is required to carry out dredging in the three provinces by departmental plant, day labour or by contract, and to provide for the repair and maintenance of this plant during the fiscal year 1944-45. This is a regular annual appropriation, and the expenditures chargeable to this are mainly for works which can be more economically performed by the departmental plant, and any larger works are required to be done by contract where no departmental plant is available and for which there is no special appropriation, as well as small items of hand dredging.
The expenditure of $57,095 is broken up as follows: permanent staff, $3,000; temporary assistance, $3,420; wages, $16,118; total salaries, $22,538; cost of living bonus, $4,500; maintenance and operation, $28,057; contract and day labour works, inspection and contingencies, $2,000; forming the amount of $57,095.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why does it include
Saskatchewan? Where is there any dredging there?


Alphonse Fournier: We are dredging at Selkirk marine railway-


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is in Manitoba.


Alphonse Fournier: -marine railway, $1,416.66; Red river mouth, $10,450.04-


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is also Manitoba.


Alphonse Fournier: -St. Andrew's lock and dam, Selkirk, $1,637.74; Selkirk slough, SI,201 02; Hnausa, $4,694.86; Winnipeg, Gimli, $1,382.98.	*


Gordon Graydon: That has a familiar ring.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the last one?


Alphonse Fournier: Gimli, Manitoba.
I am giving the list.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am aware of all those places.
Mr. I'OURNIER (Hull):	Brown and
Rutherford. Winnipeg. $3,821.40. That is a total of S12,73S. That is for dredge No. 205. The first item is for dredge Red River. Now taking dredge Winnipegosis, at Dauphin, we are spending $10,930.


Gordon Graydon: Nothing at Churchill?


Alphonse Fournier: No; that is transport. r'Mr. Gray don.]


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister has mentioned nothing for Saskatchewan and nothing for Alberta, so that apparently the item does not apply to either; but there is some dredging to be done in Alberta. I had a letter some days ago in regard to this matter. Ships sail north from Waterways on the Clearwater river and the Athabaska river, and they often have difficulty getting in to the dock at Waterways. I know that from personal observation. Nothing is being done there.


Alphonse Fournier: The only explanation is that at the time of the preparation of these estimates in December last we had no reports as to the necessity of dredging in Saskatchewan, but I am informed that in the last tw-o months we have had requests, and we find it necessary to do some dredging in the Athabaska river at Waterways and in the Clearwater river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that.


Alphonse Fournier: The amount to do this work will come out of our war appropriation, unless we have a supplementary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister any request from the Manitoba authorities in reference to improving the channel into Berens river?


Alphonse Fournier: No. This is the first time we have heard of that project.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suggest that the minister interest himself in improving the facilities for entering Berens river harbour on the east side of lake Winnipeg and the exit from that harbour. It is one of the finest trips in the world from the city of Winnipeg down the Red river, down lake Winnipeg, down to the mouth of the Saskatchewan and on down to Rossmore on the Nelson. But getting in and out of Berens river is quite a problem, and the captains that take boats in and bring them out deserve a great deal of credit. I would ask the minister to direct his engineers to study this problem of improving that channel so as to improve the shipping facilities on lake Winnipeg. There are a good many little docks there that could be greatly improved.
As regards Saskatchewan, seeing that the province has been mentioned, I would ask the minister to follow in the footsteps of one of his predecessors, the late Doctor Pugsley, who got his engineers to examine the possibilities of navigation on the North Saskatchewan river. He will find in the files of his department reports submitted by a former engineer, Voligny, and a study of these reports may give him a vision of what can be done in improving that river so that the navigation

Supply-Public Works
of former years can again be had. It would be a great tourist route. I will not go farther than that at the moment, because later on I am going to present the minister with a sound programme for improving the Saskatchewan river so that ships can sail from Winnipeg right up to the fine city of Edmonton carrying freight in the summer and particularly tourist traffic. There would be no finer tourist route in the world, and I could recommend very highly a round trip voyage from Winnipeg to Edmonton and back. Will the minister undertake to look into Voligny's report on navigation possibilities there?


Alphonse Fournier: We will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems odd that the appropriation for this kind of work should be the same each year. Does that mean that this kind of dredging is identical year in and year out?


Alphonse Fournier: 'We have dredges that make the rounds in the appropriate season to keep the channels open, and we have found in the past that this was the amount required for work of this kind. It is not always done at the same place, but we have our engineers making surveys to see where *work will be needed during the coming season, and generally the plans are laid before us, so that we know how many cubic feet we have to dredge and what the cost will be. But, as I have said. I am limited in my estimates for public works.	*


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the two items where increases are indicated, 279 and 281, does that mean that the cost of work being done has gone up or that the department has undertaken new work?


Alphonse Fournier: In certain
instances the cost of labour and the cost of coal may have gone up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.
385.	Selkirk, repair slip, $9,734.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask if this item refers to Selkirk, Manitoba, which is represented by the hon. member who has such a delightful Scotch brogue?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes; that is in the hon. gentleman's riding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.
386.	Locks and dams, $64,689.
Gordon Graydon: Could the minister give the particulars of the annual cost, and the number of vessels of all descriptions that go through the locks on the Rideau canal at the rear of these buildings? That might be of interest to some hon. members.


Alphonse Fournier: That is under the Department of Transport; it does not come under this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.
387.	Snagboats, $49,745.
John Ritchie MacNicol: A year or two ago I asked the minister if he had a programme for removing the snags from the Athabaska river.


Alphonse Fournier: After the hon. gentleman made his representations in the house I made inquiries and found that we had no complaints of any obstacles there at the time, and I did not know exactly where the work suggested was required. We were ready to do the work, but no one made any complaints.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would suggest that the minister write the Hudson's Bay company either at Waterways or at Edmonton, because the captains of the ships told me that frequently the bottoms of the barges that go down the river are torn off by the snags. On my own journey down the river I saw many snags; that is, butts of trees. I am sure that if the minister will communicate with the Hudson's Bay company he will get the information.


Alphonse Fournier: We will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
Maintenance and operation of roads and bridges.
390. New Westminster bridge, $49,635.
Thomas Reid: The committee probably is not aware of the actual situation in connection with this bridge, for it is one of the bridges that return revenue to the dominion government. It was built by the provincial government some forty-three years ago as a passenger, vehicle and railway bridge. A few years ago the provincial government decided to construct a new bridge, and since it was to be over a navigable stream they had to come to the dominion government for permission. Since the new bridge was to be just a few feet from the old bridge the question arose as to whether the old bridge would be a hindrance to navigation in the event that the new bridge was built. Following the controversy, the
Supply-Public Works

provincial government handed over this railway bridge to the dominion without cost. Three railways operate over the bridge, and pay tolls. My understanding of the matter is that the surplus accruing from the operation of the bridge each year was to be placed in a fund, and that if within ten years the dominion government did not take steps to put in a lift span to replace the centre span of the bridge, thereby removing the menace to navigation, the funds accruing over the ten-year period would revert to the provincial government. Time is getting along, and I should like to see some steps taken to remove this centre span and replace it with a lift span, thereby removing the menace to navigation and complying with the understanding or agreement entered into between the provincial and federal governments. Can the minister tell us the position of the fund now, and whether any steps have been taken to carry out the agreement?


Alphonse Fournier: We took over this bridge, I believe, on October 4, 1939. The agreement has ten years to run, and under it we are required to keep account of the revenues and expenses in connection with the operation of the bridge. Every year we make a report to the provincial government. We have ten years in which to decide whether we are going to instal this lift span. If we decide against doing so we are to return to the province the difference between the revenue and the expenses. We have five more years to go, and as yet we have not come to a decision in connection with this lift span.


Thomas Reid: Will the minister take steps shortly to have an investigation made into the matter? Some doubt was expressed at the time as to whether this centre span should be removed. Can the minister tell the committee the amount of money now in the fund?


Alphonse Fournier: I have not the details as to the amount of money we have in that trust fund. We will investigate the possibility of constructing this lift span, but our work is limited by the number of people we have out on the coast.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-
Maintenance and operation of roads and bridges
291. Generally, $24,025.
* Mr. GRAYDON: Since this is a sort of omnibus item the minister might give us the general details, because "generally" takes in a lot of territory.
Alphonse Fournier: They are all small amounts to provide for repairs, renewal-, painting and so on. The list is as follows:
[Mr. Reid.l
Calumet-Bryson bridge, Quebec	 $	150
Chapeau bridge, Quebec	 100
Clair, N.B.-International bridge....	700
Des Joachims, Quebec-bridge	 300
Edmonton-maintenance of bridge		400
Edmundston, N.B.-Madawaska, Maine
international bridge	 840
Great Bear river, N.W.T.-repairs to
portage road	 1,500
North Timiskaming, Quebec - interprovincial bridge	 150
Ottawa-bridges and approaches	 3,500
Perley bridge-Hawkesbury, Ontariointerprovincial bridge	 11,390
Portage du Fort, Quebec-interprovincial bridge	  150
St. Leonard, N.B.-Van Buren, Maine- .
international bridge	 540
Shellmouth, Manitoba	 300
Unforeseen	   1,235
Cost of living bonus and other pay list
items	 2,050
Wages	 720


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. Telegraph branch-
SOI. Telephone Service at Ottawa, $100,000.
Gordon Graydon: Does this amount refer only to the Department of Public Works?


Alphonse Fournier: No; it applies to all the departments.


Gordon Graydon: "From time to time one hears criticism in respect of telephone service. I am not saying that I have heard criticism particularly respecting the Department of Public Works, but there is a feeling that there is some laxity so far as expenditures in wartime departments and departments generally in Ottawa are concerned, and in connection with long-distance calls in particular. Last year I raised the question of telephone tolls and charges, and I desire to do so again.
Would the minister give a break-down of the $100,000? I fancy this amount does not take in some of the items to which I have referred, namely war items. Those items would no doubt come under the war appropriation estimates.


Alphonse Fournier: This item covers all installations of telephones in all departments, except for war purposes in war departments. We may divide the amount into three main headings: (a) telephone services, which include rentals of telephone instruments and mileage; (b) private branch exchange equipment, including automatic switching devices, switch board sections and so on, and (c) salaries of private exchange operators.

Supply-Public Works
Under contract, I believe with the Bell Telephone company, we pay the following monthly rates:	residence telephone, $3.38; private
branch exchange, $2.22; direct office, $4.84.
Mr. STIRLING' It is treated as one system. It is not a case of having isolated pieces of telephone line here and there; it is treated as one system


Gordon Graydon: Is that a considerable Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):	Yes; it is one
reduction from the regular rates?	system, under the samp superintendent.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand it
is quite a reduction, because the regular rates to ordinary private parties would be about $5. The break-down is as follows:
Number of
installations Expenditure
Residence telephones. .
Direct office	
Private branch	
Private	branch	exchange equipment. . . Private	branch	exchange operators... House of Commons sessional service.... Contingencies	61	$ 2,473	4029	1,683	001,971	52,458	2027,154	7113,200	002,800	00230	69


Olof Hanson: What was the
amount in 1938, before the war?


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed
by my officials that it was practically the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch-
Telegraph and telephone services, operation and maintenance
305. Telegraph and telephone services, operation and maintenance:	British Columbia,
Northern and Yukon districts, $135,000.
Grote Stirling: How much of this is for Yukon, and how much for northern British Columbia?


Alphonse Fournier: The whole amount of $135,000 is to provide for working expenses of the British Columbia, Northern and Yukon telegraph and telephone lines during the fiscal year. We have a staff of fifty-seven people, and we are paying total salaries of $100,323, with a cost-of-living bonus of $13,000, repairs amounting to $5,000. and supplies and sundries to $16,677.


Grote Stirling: Is this not the telephone system which has been picked up and collected over the years, and kept in existence by the dominion government-built in some cases by telephone companies, and acquired? This is what is left of a much larger system, portions of which were sold off from year to year to telephone companies. Is that not so?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes; the hon.
*member is right. But we are now the owners of the whole system there. We have our own operators, and the whole system is under oui control.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As I understand it, the leader of the opposition was complaining about the excessive use of the long distance telephone. My objection is that the Department of Public Works is doing the direct opposite so far as British Columbia is concerned. I may not be in order in discussing this matter under this item, but the fact is that if the chief engineer in British Columbia wants to discuss the making of a $100 award or something like that, he gets "hail Columbia" from the department if he uses even airmail stamps. I am not exaggerating. I think the matter of curtailing the use of long distance telephone or the air mail is overdone in British Columbia. I admire the urge for economy on the part of the leader of the opposition, but I do not think it should be enforced so far as the west is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: It may be that I did not make myself clear or perhaps my hon. friend was not in the chamber just as I made my statement. I qualified my remarks by saying that I had heard no complaints of the excessive use of the long distance telephone by the Department of Public Works. What I was complaining about was the general overhead of telephones in the war departments. The criticism in this connection has been quite heavy. I raised this matter last year but the minister indicated that it was a matter for the civil estimates. I have no criticism to make of the Department of Public Works in that regard. I rather fancy the hon. member for Fraser Valley is correct in what he says and I would be glad to join with him. I think such a matter ought to be straightened out. '


Alphonse Fournier: I have had no complaint that our officials were not permitted to make long distance telephone calls when necessary. They have instructions to use the telephone when it is urgent, and head office does use the long distance telephone for this purpose. On the other hand, we do not want this to be a free-for-all and have calls made on any occasion when the matter can be dealt with by mail or otherwise.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not a lawyer, but if I can get the protection of the court for my clients I would be glad to give the circumstances to the minister which substantiate what I have just said.
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member will give me the circumstances I shall have them investigated.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be glad to give them on that understanding.


Gordon Graydon: You never need any protection.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is the officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegi'aph branch-
Telegraph and telephone services, operation and maintenance
306. British Columbia-Vancouver island district, $114,500.
William Scottie Bryce: May I revert to item 297, harbours and rivers generally?


Alphonse Fournier: I have no objection.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the condition of the breakwater at Gimli. I have taken this matter up before with the minister, and he assured me that the engineer was up there last year looking it over. The level of lake Winnipeg is higher this year than it was last year. There is an old folks' home kept up by voluntary contributions of the Icelandic community and these high waters are destroying its foundation. I am not suggesting that any new work should be done, but I would like to have some piles put in there to check the inroads of this high water. This would, be a patch-up job until better times come along. I am continually receiving letters from the people in the old folks home at Gimli saying that the foundation is being destroyed. I would like the minister to have the Winnipeg engineer go up there to see if some piles cannot be put in to remedy this trouble.


Alphonse Fournier: This matter -Id not be dealt with under item 297. because that is to cover small repairs under $1,000. I have not the file here, but the hon. memben wrote me about this Gimli project and the report I received indicates that it would cost a large sum to undertake that work at the present time. If I recall. I answered that we would consider this as a post-war project. The second project was to patch up the breakwater, to put piles in, but this' also entailed a large amount of money. If only a small amount were involved I would make a study of it, but I am in the hands of parliament. I am not asking for the large amounts in my civil estimates, because it is the policy of the government to pospone these works during the war. At all events I will look into the matter.


William Scottie Bryce: There are fifty-five old ladies and gentlemen in that home and it will be a

serious thing if their building is damaged. A few' piles would check the damage until such time as a real job can be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
312. National Gallery of Canada, $65,630.
Gordon Graydon: I rise at this time, not to discuss the matter of - the national gallery of Canada but to bring to the attention of the minister another matter which has gained considerable impetus and thought throughout Canada during the last while. At numerous teachers' conventions, educational organizational meetings and wherever people who are interested in literary and cultural pursuits have gathered together, resolutions have been passed and expressions of opinion offered in connection with the establishment of a Canadian national library.
I wish in a word or two to add my support to those expressions of thought. I have no desire to press the point at the moment. After all, we are in a war. Despite how encouraging the news may seem to appear at times, in all these things we must always keen our eye on the ball to the very last. What I am really advocating is that at the appropriate time-and there is always a right time and place for everything-there should be established a national library of Canada. I think it would be an indication that we have not in a new country forgotten the educational and cultural and literary side of life in our concern for things strictly material. I am quite sure that the government and those w'ho are kindly disposed to a suggestion of this kind would find a cordial response in the country generally. There is a widespread desire among the people for better facilities, better equipment and better opportunities to gain knowledge of the various subjects on which a library would be able to afford information. Undoubtedly our parliamentary library fills a great need; and when I speak of our library I think I voice the opinion of all in the house when I say that not only is it a great library in itself, but the services which are rendered by those in charge, including the parliamentary librarian, often make us w"rr! how they are able to accomplish the miracles of producing so promptly information that is urgently required.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear. '


Gordon Graydon: I was going on to say that the parliamentary library fills a great need for those of us in parliamentary circles and for those who are identified with parliamentary life. It is a reference library, of course, and has its limitations by virtue of certain- neces-

Supply-Public Works
sities. I hope that when the appropriate time comes the minister's department, or whatever department may have this matter under its jurisdiction, will be able to proceed with plans which we should formulate now to have in Canada a national library which will be a credit and a tribute to a great nation. In Canada I think we are sometimes apt to be too modest about our achievements and in our outlook for the future, but I am hopeful that in the days which lie ahead, now that we are progressing so rapidly in material developments, we shall not put aside all thought of educational and cultural attainments and those other things which mean so much to a people if they are going to be a well balanced1 part of our civilization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rose at the same time as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to speak in part on the very same subject on which he has made his very appropriate observations. I think, too, that one might recall, in his absence, that some strong representations on this subject have been made by the hon. member for Essex East, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour.
I mention him at this time along with the leader of the opposition and my own remarks to underline the fact that this is by no means a partisan issue, but rather something in which a great deal of interest is taken by many sections of the Canadian public. I earnestly hope that the day is not far distant when it will be possible to set up in Canada a national library, and I hope that it will be set up in such a way as to serve as many of our people as possible from coast to coast.
I think it would be in order if the minister would make some comment at the same time as to the work of the national gallery. Under the auspices of the gallery, even under war conditions and with war-time restrictions, some worth-while projects have been carried on, and perhaps the minister would make some reference to them. At the same time I wonder if he would also say a word about the national museum, which I believe also comes under this item.


Alphonse Fournier: No; it does not come under this item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This item on page 38 of the estimates, with which we are now dealing, refers one for a break-down of the vote to page 177, and in that break-down I find mentioned a senior museum asssitant, other museum assistants, and a museum helper. It was because of those items in the break-down that I thought the museum was included in this item. At any rate it perhaps will be no
more out of order to make reference to the national museum than to a national library, and the minister might speak on that subject when he rises in a moment or two.
I think we all share the views expressed by the leader of the opposition that in these days, when we have found what we can do in the way of raising huge sums of money for the things that have to be done in the time of war, we should not forget to raise similarly large sums of money for the good things of life and for the cultural development of this country.
This is still one other activity I should like to mention which might be included along with this kind of work. It is strange that this item should come under the Department of Public Works, but that of course is no reflection on the minister; it is just a comment on the administrative set-up. Along with the national gallery, the national museum and the national library I would suggest that there is room in this country for the development of handicrafts. The suggestion has been made in some quarters that if a lead is to be given in this kind of work, it might come under this same division of the minister's department.
I should be glad if the minister would make some comment on the status of these things and at the same time state whether the government have any plans for enlarging the work of the national gallery and the national museum, and for setting up a national library, and instituting work in handicrafts.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister also give some information with regard to the purchase of pictures? I see that $15,000 of this sum is allocated to purchase the works of Canadian artists. From time to time the opportunity arises to become possessed of a work of considerable value, which would be a great addition to the national gallery, an opportunity which in the past has been considered one that should not be lost. I w'onder how the money is made available for such purposes.
Another thing I would ask the minister to go into is the extent to which the loan exhibitions have been made use of across Canada and where they have been shown.


Alphonse Fournier: In years gone by, the estimate for the national gallery was about double what it is this year. In 1928-29 the expenditure wTas $134,988.79. At the outset of the war the vote was cut down to $44,246.82. The estimate for 1942-43 was $43,082.44. This year it is increased to around $65,630. The increase comes about by the addition of two employees and the funds for the cost of living bonus. Since the beginning of the war a scheme was devised by the national gallery,
Supply-Public Works

and with the approval of the Minister of National Defence nearly ten thousand reproductions of the work of leading Canadian artists have been supplied to the Canadian forces at home and overseas for the decoration of recreation rooms and other quarters. At the request of the British war office two thousand prints have been distributed to the British forces. Two hundred prints have been sent to Canadian prisoners of war in Germany. The same prints have been supplied to United States units in Canada and Newfoundland, and are being furnished through the Department of External Affairs to all Canadian legations and government offices abroad.
We have held war-time exhibitions in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada. The national gallery as a war service has made special efforts to hold exhibitions having relation to the war and the part of Canada and the united nations in it, beginning with the great "Britain at War" exhibition in 1941. The series has been continued with marked success, and has included Australian, Polish, Russian, Mexican, Czech, Chinese and United States collections, which have been shown first in Ottawa and subsequently circulated through Canada. A number of exhibitions of Canadian art have been held abroad and others are in process of formation or projected. The national gallery has placed its facilities at the service of the army and the Royal Canadian Air Force for the purpose of developing art exhibitions within the services. These exhibitions, which the military authorities regard as of the highest importance, involve a substantial amount of extra work on the part of the national gallery. The gallery also cooperates with the Y.M.C.A. in circulating art exhibitions to all camps in Canada.
As to educational work, the gallery has made special efforts to sustain public morale by increasing educational work in Ottawa and elsewhere in the dominion. Loan exhibitions have been improved and extended, and the musical programmes on Sunday afternoons have been made a regular feature of the gallery programme with good results.
As to the sale of reproductions by the national gallery, these sales increased to 14,8S6 in 1942-43 and to 26,000 for the first eight months of 1943-44, and probably reached a total of 30,000 before its conclusion.
I have an item here, "plans for future developments." A grant of S24.000 from the Carnegie corporation has been made available to the national gallery for the purpose of encouraging art interest throughout Canada, provided that the national gallery itself is able to make a fair contribution in this direc-

tion. Plans are now being made so that constructive action can be taken immediately peace is established.
There are two schools of thought. Many want us to increase this amount to a very high level, and I believe that in the next budget something will be done with that in view. As to the present time, the government is directing its efforts toward the conduct of the war, and it has not yet decided to increase our civil estimates in this direction. But I personally believe, with the leader of the opposition, that as a post-war project a national library would be a great memorial in a country of our size and population. I am not speaking for the government; I am giving only my personal opinion on this matter, but I think it would be one of the most useful ways in which we could spend the people's money so that they would have a return by being given the privilege and the opportunity of developing their knowledge and their culture. I would be prepared to second a proposition of this kind by the leader of the opposition if ever it came up for discussion.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am not going to oppose a post-war effort for a national library, but to me there is something far more important than that. This war is being fought by all Canada. A national library placed in the city of Toronto or Montreal or Ottawa or Halifax or Vancouver or-


Gordon Graydon: Fort William.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -Fort William, would help only one city. I think we should have a recreational centre in every community, with a reading room, with all the athletic endeavours of the community centred in that place. If you had that you could make it a memorial to our boys, and the government could very well give a donation. I am giving notice to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works that we shall count on the government of Canada for a donation of that kind, because they took our rink, and now it is one of the finest armouries in Canada, but we have no hockey rink. One of the outstanding agencies for the obliteration of juvenile crime is a recreational centre with a good reading room, with good, clean, Christian supervisors. It would far outshine any national gallery which could be put up in any centre in Canada.


Alphonse Fournier: Just to complete the record and be fair to the national gallery I should like to add this statement. In 1942 the director was made chairman of the Canadian war artists committee, established under the authority of the defence council to develop

Supply-Public Works
a record of Canada's part in the war, using Canadian artists. Fifteen of the foremost Canadian artists have been selected and commissioned-six in the army, six in the Royal Canadian Air Force and1 three in the navy. Some are in England, Africa, Italy and elsewhere as well as in Canada. The organization of their work, the supply of materials, the care of the paintings produced and the arrangement of exhibitions is largely the responsibility of the national gallery. An exhibition of Canadian war art will shortly be opened in the national gallery at London. As many qualified civilian artists as possible have been employed in Canada outside the defence council scheme under the direction of the national gallery. These artists have been assigned to work on the Pacific coast, the Alaska highway, the east coast, on the Atlantic convoys, and elsewhere to record important phases of Canada's war effort. In most cases the artists have contributed their time except for payments to cover expenses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister indicate where the museum comes in the estimates?


Alphonse Fournier: These probably are the ones which take care of the paintings we have in the gallery. If the hon. member has reference to the museum, that does not come under my department at all. I believe it comes under-


Grote Stirling: Mines and resources.


Mr. BRUCE:: I think it is an excellent idea to have these artists commissioned and securing for Canada some wonderful portraits and pictures of war scenes during the war. Has any thought been given to the method of housing these when they return? A suitable building will be necessary, and I suggest it might be well to think about that now. I remember that after the last war a great many important pictures were sent to Canada, and I am not sure that there is yet a suitable place provided in which to display them.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand we are giving thought to a project of that kind; but it is considered as a post-war project. We are not contemplating the immediate erection of a building in the midst of a war.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should not think that
would be done now, but it will take some time to get ready for the post-war reconstruction period.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I support what my leader has said in connection with the national library. I would refer the committee to resolution which was passed in the other place not long ago with reference to a uniform school history bouk for Canada. In conjunction with a national library for Canada we could teach history on a basis that would be acceptable to all the provinces, and in that way we would do a great deal for the unity of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
313. Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $3,000 to be expended upon any one work, $25,000.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Is preference being given to disabled veterans in every elevator operated under the control of this department? I would suggest particularly that those which are automatic should certainly be so treated and that an absolute preference should be given to disabled veterans. I do not know whether that is the rule now.


Alphonse Fournier: These elevator
operators are civil servants, and they come under the scope of the civil service act and receive preference under that act over all other applicants. There is a special section in the act- giving them that preference.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not particularly concerned about civil servants; my concern is with the veterans. If I were allowed to do so I could tell the minister what I would do with the civil service commission. Certainly I do not think they should have any say in the matter. I understand that all government buildings come under the Department of Public Works, and 1 contend, therefore, that the minister's department should have control of this matter and that the disabled veterans should have an absolute preference in all elevators.
There is another point I would touch upon. There is an excellent engineering staff in our province. I have never heard any complaints about their work, and the only fault I have to find is that they are not paid enough. They should be getting more money than is being paid them; they should be better off in comparison with the work that others do, because they have a greater responsibility. I do not think the department is paying either British Columbia or Yukon the salaries that should be paid considering the responsibilities that are placed on engineers and senior officials in that part of the country.
Another complaint I have,is that sufficient authority is not given to the departmental representative in that province. If I as a member of parliament suggested that certain wharves were falling to pieces and endangering the lives of the people in my riding, action would have to be referred to Ottawa and, I presume, to that other place, and then forwarded to Geneva; the report would come
Supply-Public Works

back here and eventually the government would give the engineer authority to spend a few dollars. There are district engineers in British Columbia and other provinces, and surely they are competent to administer the expenditure of a small sum of money on their own when they are supervising the expenditure of many millions of public money in the construction of projects of one kind and another. In small matters they should have authority, without reference to Ottawa, to make a reasonable expenditure. I do not suggest for a moment that they should have authority to spend $100,009 or so. I do not know what the amount is that they can spend now on their own, and I would be glad if the minister would inform me as to (hat. Up to what amount can the engineer spend without reference to the department? Whatever it is, I am sure it is not enough. If the minister has sufficient confidence in his district engineer to allow him to supervise the expenditure of millions, then I suggest that the engineer should be allowed to act on his own in the expenditure of a few thousands. The matter has always to be referred back to the department, and if any expenditure is improperly made it will not be sanctioned. The privilege I have suggested should be given the engineer. May I ask exactly what his privilege is in this connection?


Alphonse Fournier: It is a matter of opinion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I have given my opinion.


Alphonse Fournier: I respect the hon. gentleman's opinion, but I do not know that what he suggests is justified right now. He tells us that resident engineers and architects spend millions. That is more than the minister has at his disposal.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do not put words into my mouth. I say that they supervise large expenditures and the department O.-K.'s them.


Alphonse Fournier: Not in these years, because the total estimates of my department are thirteen millions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How many millions did you say?


Alphonse Fournier: Thirteen.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is quite a few millions.


Alphonse Fournier: But that is spread over the dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and we have resident engineers in each district so that they do not supervise large expenditures. The hon. member would

not want us to give authority to employees to spend large amounts without sanction from Ottawa. That would not be a good policy. The minister himself, with all his technical advisers, cannot spend very large sums. They have to be submitted to council after approval by parliament.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not asking for large sums. I could give specific cases where the department did not authorize the engineer to make only a nominal expenditure of a few hundred dollars, and the consequence was that it cost the people of Canada several thousand dollars. I do not say that the engineer should be allowed to spend large sums, but take an expenditure of $500. I do not know what the limit is, but that is not a large amount of money for public works. The trouble is that the department does not realize that there is such a place as the west, such a province as British Columbia. That province is three thousand miles away and we have a very long coast. After all, there are only two coastlines in Canada, one in the maritimes, that other forgotten part of Canada, and the other in- British Columbia, and there are hundreds of wharves to be attended to. I contend1 that the engineer should have authority to spend a reasonable amount. No one expects him to be given authority to spend thousands of dollars, but certainly he should be allowed to spend a reasonable amount. The Minister of Finance and1 the wartime prices and trade board would agree that, in order to keep down inflation, it would be better to spend a reasonable amount instead of having to spend enormous sums afterwards. The department cannot deny that, simply because its engineer had not been given the authority to make a reasonable expenditure when equipment was available to do the work, but was obliged instead to refer the matter back to Ottawa, it cost thousands of dollars later on to bring in that equipment.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not want to start an argument on the best way in which to spend public moneys, but I do think we could give authority to individuals to spend money without authorization after due consideration of what they want to do with that money. I should not like to say that we would give a blank cheque to an architect or an engineer to spend $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000 without first having the approval of the governor in council. I am convinced that our system is certainly the best way of protecting public money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Can the district
engineer in British Columbia spend any amount without referring it to the department?

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: In urgent cases up to $200.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Last year I asked the minister if repairs would' be made to docks at the Pas in northern Manitoba, and as the member for that district is not present I should like to ask a question.


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot recall that the question was put, but perhaps my memory fails me. At any rate, this item is to cover unforeseen construction of miscellaneous works which cannot be taken from the general votes and which otherwise have not been provided for, the amount to be expended on any work not to exceed $3 thousand. This amount of $25,000 is generally expended in small sums of perhaps one hundred, two hundred or three hundred dollars, to cover unforeseen contingencies, small repairs and emergencies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have any repairs been made to the docks at the Pas?


Alphonse Fournier: No, I do not
recall that we have made any repairs there. I can give the hon. member a list of the works which were authorized under this item last year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am only concerned with that one.


Alphonse Fournier: There was no work done at the Pas last year under this item.
' Mr. MacNICOL: A few years ago the government spent a large sum of money on the construction of docks at the Pas, but during the last few years those docks have become badly dislocated and dangerous. I should think the resident engineer there ought to be ordered to send in a report as to what can be done. It is beyond my comprehension why any department would allow a situation to remain such as exists at the Pas. The least- we can do is to put the docks in a safe condition. If children are drowned or fall through the broken boards and get hurt at these docks the government will be responsible.


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot recall having received any request for repairs there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes; I brought up the matter myself.


Alphonse Fournier: I will have the officials and the engineers investigate and make a report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who is in charge of maintenance and repairs for the docks on lake Winnipeg?


Alphonse Fournier: It is our engineer in Winnipeg.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to know why the pioneers in the riding of the hon. member for Selkirk should be compelled to endure the present conditions in connection with those docks. I was down the west side of the lake last summer, and the ship came alongside one dock in particular. I have forgotten the name of it; I took a picture at the time, and a moment ago I went upstairs to look for the picture, but in my hurry to get back to the chamber I did not find it. I have forgotten the name of this small place where the dock was, a very nice little place, but apparently on some previous trip the log dock had been knocked helter-skelter, so that the ship I was on had great difficulty in coming alongside a crib that had been constructed. The passengers had to hop from one crib to another, across narrow planks. The departmental engineer at Winnipeg, or wherever he is located, certainly should go up and down the lake every year, to see that the docks are kept in proper shape.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that the engineer is actually touring that part of the country now, and later on I shall receive a report from him. As a general policy I would have no objection to sending my engineers to every riding to look over the public works and see what repairs they require, but I am doubtful if I would be able to get an estimate through the house for four or five million dollars to do the work. I do not think at this time the house would be prepared to approve the expenditure that would be required to repair all these wharves, docks and public buildings. Hundreds of requests have come in during the last few years, and we have had to resist them as far as possible. I should be only too pleased to have the money with which to have all this work done, but I do not believe I should request an increase in my estimates this session.


William Scottie Bryce: For the information of the hon. member for Davenport I can say that the island to which he is referring is Matheson island, where the dock was in very bad shape. The local residents went to a woodlot there, belonging to one of the large companies, and took some piles for the purpose of repairing it. For their labours they were fined $5 for each stick they took in order to keep that dock in place. I have been up through those islands and have seen those docks since my hon. friend was there, and they are badly in need of patching.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. HAZEN:: I do not know how the
amount voted under this item will be expended, but not having been in the house this afternoon-I had to attend the banking and commerce committee-I should like to take this opportunity of calling the minister's attention to the condition of the breakwater and wharf at Chance Harbour, Saint John county, New Brunswick. I brought this matter to the attention of the Department of Public Works before the present minister occupied his position. The last time I was in that vicinity I found that nothing had been done. The amount required to make the repairs would not be very large, but the longer the work is delayed the more these repairs will cost, and I believe this is work that should be done. I noted that last year some very necessary repairs were made to the wharf at Lorneville, in the county of Saint John, but nothing has been done at Chance Harbour. I hope the minister will look into that situation and endeavour to have that wharf and breakwater repaired1.
Then I should like to ask if last year the total amount of $30,000 under this item was expended; whether any portion of that amount was spent in the province of New Brunswick and, if so, where and how much?


Alphonse Fournier: The estimate last year amounted to $30,000 and the expenditure authorized was $29,928.37. Of that total, $824.48 was spent at Wilson's Beach, New Brunswick. That was the only amount spent in New Brunswick under this item last year.


Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister be good enough to look into the matter at Chance Harbour?


Alphonse Fournier: I certainly will; I will have the engineer make a report on it.


Mr. McGARRY:: I do not rise to compliment the minister on his generosity in spending money on public works in my constituency, but I wish to congratulate him upon the promptness with which he responds to any appeal I make in regard to necessary repairs to public wharves and so on in my district. We have heard the suggestion that district engineers should have the right to spend money promiscuously. I do not think that would be a good thing. I find that the practice in connection with public wmrks in my constituency is this. I bring the matter to the attention of the minister, who promptly asks his district engineer to look over the work and recommend what in his opinion is required in the way of repairs. As hon. members know, under war-time conditions, civil construction is pretty well off the map. I must say that I have every confidence in our district engineers,

and I believe the minister and the department have the same confidence. I say that because it has been my experience that after the district engineers make an investigation, their recommendation to the department is in most cases carried out. That is the way the work is done in my constituency, and it has worked out very satisfactorily. I must also congratulate the minister upon his promptness in bringing these matters to the attention of our district engineers who, after all, are the men best qualified to make recommendations.
I believe the minister is inclined to be ultragenerous, but it so happens that in war time we have to put up with minor repairs. However, after the war is over I pity the minister, and his district engineers as well.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: As the minister probably knows, the city of Edmonton is divided by the Saskatchewan river, which passes through it. We have some bridges which have been built partly from federal help. There is one of them, however, which needs to be repaired and changed considerably. The low-level bridge is very narrow. It is used by one of the railways, and also by the street cars of the city. It is old and, while I do not think it is dangerous yet, it is approaching that point.
I have spoken to the minister about building a new bridge at that point in Edmonton, and I thought perhaps it might be wise to remind him again of that suggestion I do not believe it should be undertaken right away, but as a post-war project I should like to put in a claim for a new low-level bridge in Edmonton.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The minister said a
moment ago that he hesitated to bring before parliament any request for the expenditure of money on breakwaters and public works. I believe the time has come when there must be a change in the present policy of maintaining wharves and breakwaters. It is reaching the point where the money expended is no longer maintaining those wharves and breakwaters; they are breaking away, and going to pieces. The emergency repairs are not extensive enough to maintain the structures. In the very near future I believe the government is going to have to ask parliament for more money; otherwise these public wharves and breakwaters will go out of existence, and they will be no longer available for the public service they are supposed to render. I urge upon the minister that in connection with next year's estimates some thought be given to this point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
General-
SI7. War risk insurance-subject to allocation by the treasury board, $215,000.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would the minister give an explanation of this item? I notice that last year the amount was $270,000.


Alphonse Fournier: This amount of
$215,000 is to provide for the payment of war risk insurance on property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. These properties are evaluated at approximately $199,067,189, and are insurable for ninety per cent of their value, or $179,160,470. The premium is at the rate of twelve cents per $100, thereby making a total of $214,993, or approximately $215 000 in round figures.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Have they had
losses?


Alphonse Fournier: No. The hon.
member will recall when this law was put on the statute books.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is this risk carried by the dominion government?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, it is; but
I would have to read over the Act to Provide for Insurance of Property Against War Risks and the Payment of Compensation for War Damage, assented to on August 1, 1942. I do not recall the specific sections in that act, but I know that government properties come under that scheme of insurance. The premium is paid into a fund, and I cannot recall what is to take place with regard to that fund after the war. However, it is not only government property that is insured under this act; private property is included as well.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is a premium paid to the dominion government, is it not, for insurance by the dominion government?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is no outside agency which insures it?


Alphonse Fournier: Correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is the object of paying a premium of $215,000 to the dominion government for this?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know
if this is the proper time to discuss the statute passed in 1942. There was a lengthy discussion at that time. It was understood that we would come under that act and insure the property. Since the Department of Public Works is the custodian of most government properties in the country, we have them insured at twelve cents per $100, and pay the premiums yearly.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Was this insurance placed- through any agent?


Alphonse Fournier: This is a government insurance; we do not have agencies.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understand that it is government insurance; what I cannot understand is why. It belongs to the government, and it would seem that the government is just taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Is that not correct? I should like to know how this insurance was' placed.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is dealing only with the government feature of the act. It will be remembered, however, that the act was passed so as to apply not only to government property, but to other property as well. A good many have come under this act, and are paying premiums.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: This is not only government property, then? I understand it is property leased by the government as well.


Alphonse Fournier: This is the amount of the premium for properties owned by the federal government. I could read the minute of the meeting, if you wish.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Does the minister say that the act requires that the government insure this building?


Alphonse Fournier: Here is the section under which we operate, section 3 of the War Risk Insurance Act:
(1)	The minister may, on behalf of His Majesty, enter into a contract of insurance with any person to insure against the risk of war damage, any property in which such person has an insurable interest.
(2)	The minister may, subject to the provisions of this act or any regulation, determine the terms and conditions upon which he will enter into any contract of insurance, including therein, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing,
(a)	the rate or rates of premium;
(b)	the amount or amounts of the indemnity which may be payable under the contract;
(c)	the maximum amount payable in respect of any insured property or part thereof irrespective of the sum insured;
(d)	the terms of co-insurance, if any.
(3)	The minister may, in his absolute discretion, refuse to enter into a contract of insurance with any person.
We come under that by a minute of treasury board dated September 30, 1942, reading:
The board had under consideration a submission from the Honourable the Minister of Finance reporting:
1.	That under the War Risk Insurance Act, 1942, being chapter 35 of the statutes of Canada 1942, the Minister of Finance is required and empowered to institute a national scheme of war risk insurance to protect buildings, machinery,
Supply-Public Works

fixtures or other structures, erected or placed upon, in, over or affixed to land, and all movable corporeal property in Canada against war damage;
2.	That pursuant to the said act, the national scheme of war risk insurance has been established with the cooperation and assistance on a non-profit basis of the fire insurance companies and their agents in Canada;
3.	That policies are now being sold to property holders in Canada insuring them against the risk of war damage as from twelve o'clock noon E.D.S.T. of September 15, 1942. The rates and terms of coverage are to be as determined by the Minister of Finance;
4.	That every effort will be made to secure as wide a coverage in Canada as possible so as to spread the risk and enable the coverage to be sold at the lowest possible uniform rates of premium;
5.	That in order to secure such wide coverage, provision is made in section 31 of the said act for agreements between the government of Canada and the government of any province to insure the property of His Majesty in the right of such province;
6.	That the same considerations make it feasible for the dominion government to insure all property of His Majesty in the right of Canada under the national scheme of war risk insurance;
7.	That the adoption of the policy of insuring all government property against war risk would constitute a sound budgetary procedure against a possible destruction of large and valuable public assets.
The board accordingly recommended that we insure these properties.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is any of that risk carried by the fire insurance companies?


Alphonse Fournier: All -we know is that we are insured under the act which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. I did not study the act before coming into the chamber and I am trying to recall what took place in 1942. I believe it was understood at that time that the government of Canada would insure its own buildings under that scheme, as it was open to the provinces and the public at large to do.


George Russell Boucher: As I read the act there is no requirement that the dominion government shall insure against war risk, but there is permission that they may. The government have seen fit to reduce this premium from $270,000 to $215,000. Air raid precautions have been reduced, and I think the argument which caused the government to reduce this vote from $270,000 to $215,000 should cause them to discontinue it altogether. So far as I can see there is no obligation whatsoever to insure against war risk; so why pay $215,000 to carry war risk insurance, either by placing it through an agent or some other company?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: To whom is the $215,000 paid?


Alphonse Fournier: I am under the impression it is paid to the Department of Finance out of our estimates. The Minister of Finance administers the war risk insurance.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Your department pays $215,000 to the Minister of Finance? You give him a cheque for it?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. I suppose after the war, if there is no damage, this fund will be distributed in some way or be put into the consolidated revenue fund.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That really does not answer my question. I should like to know to whom the money is paid.


Alphonse Fournier: To the Minister of Finance.


Mr. KINLEY:: I think the War Risk Insurance Act which was passed some years ago by this parliament is a splendid piece of legislation. There was an element in it that proved advantageous to the general public, especially the people on the Atlantic coast, bach property home owned was given $4,000 insurance without premium. Unless you had a pool into which the industries of Canada ' and the public generally came, you would have a position which would not be sound from an economic point of view.
Since the government passed this legislation it seems to me that they should be the first to come into the scheme and protect their property. There is a provision in the act whereby premiums will be returned in a large measure if there is no loss by enemy action. We are thankful to know that we have passed through the crisis so far without much loss, and there will probably be an amount of premiums returned to those who paid them into the fund. I think this scheme was very helpful to the Canadian people.
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull); The hon. member for St. Paul's wanted to know where the money went. Section 21 of the act reads:
There shall be a special account in the consolidated revenue fund called "the war damage insurance special account" herein called the special account, to which the minister shall from time to time credit all moneys received under the provisions of this act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
S8. Departmental administration, $165,975.
Mn REID:: There is one suggestion I should like to make to the Minister of Justice, and I do not know whether representations in this connection have been made to him by the city officials of New Westminster. They have asked that an investigation be made into the

Supply-Justice
change which was made in the criminal code, I believe last year. Under that amendment reckless driving was made a.criminal offence. Formerly a section of the motor vehicle act dealt with driving to the common danger and cases of this kind were disposed of under that section. When reckless driving was made an offence under the criminal code the motor vehicle act was superseded. Since then, innumerable motorists have been convicted of reckless driving and have been penalized, but the experience of the appeals appears to show that none of those decisions would have stood up had it been carried farther.
The section of the code in question is to all intents and purposes inoperative because, no matter how recklessly a car may be driven, it is impossible to establish criminal intent. According to the authorities the effect of the wording seems to be that unless there is excessive speed, which is an offence under both the motor vehicle act and the dominion law, a motorist may be as reckless as he pleases without penalty. A case came to the fore in May of this year where a police constable was injured and a charge of reckless driving was laid. This charge had to be withdrawn because it could not be proved. Previously there was a section in the motor vehicles act of British Columbia which made that an offence. The information given me is that no case will stand up on appeal. Has the minister had any representations on this [DOT] subject and will he have his officials look into this aspect of the criminal code?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): No representations in that regard have been made to the department since I became Minister of Justice. I do not think I should undertake to investigate a matter which is primarily of provincial jurisdiction unless invited to do so by the authorities of the province. If there are provisions in the criminal code which, instead of being helpful, appear to be embarrassing in any section of Canada, I would1 expect the attorney general of the province concerned1 to bring it to our attention. I do not think it would be appreciated by the attorneys general of the provinces if I were to undertake to investigate the ordinary administration of justice in their provinces without invitation from them.


Douglas King Hazen: I would ask the minister if he has had an investigation made into the alleged failure of a certain Toronto firm to have certain tins of methyl alcohol labelled poison which were being shipped from the port of Saint John. If so, would he tell us what the results of the investigation were? In explanation of my question I might say
that a coroner's jury which investigated the death of one of the persons who were so unfortunate as to drink some of this alcohol made a recommendation to the effect that in view of the fact that thirteen deaths occurred as a result of drinking this methyl alcohol the attorney general's department should be invited to make further investigation of an apparent violation of the Excise Act by the shippers, and the recommendation went on to name the shippers. Has this matter been brought to the minister's attention?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This matter has not been brought to the attention of the Department of Justice.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would ask the minister if he has yet had a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in connection with the correctness of the reported statement by Jacques Sauriol.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not yet had a report. I got a preliminary report of the interview which the police had with the lawyer who generally acts as counsel, but so far they have not supplied him with what he would consider satisfactory evidence. They are still proceeding with their investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
96. Payments of gratuities to the widows or to any dependent children of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
Mr. BENCE:: Just ahead of this item it says:
Other courts-
Judges' salaries and travelling allowances.
But I do not see any item here under which I might ask a question with respect to judges.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Judges' salaries and travelling allowances are not required to be voted. That is statutory. The statutes provide what are the salaries and what are the travelling allowances, and this is the estimated amount according to the provisions of the statutes in that regard.


Alfred Henry Bence: I wanted to ask some questions about judges' salaries and travelling allowances, and I thought there would be an item under which I could ask them.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no item to be voted because the salaries are fixed by statute and are a charge on the consolidated revenue fund. It is the same with respect to travelling allowances. But if there is a matter of information that I can supply, I shall be glad to do so.
Supply-Justice


Alfred Henry Bence: First of all I wanted to ask about the absence of the Hon. Mr. Justice Davis from the court of appeal of Saskatchewan. Is it contemplated that he will return to the court of appeal shortly? In view of the fact that he is absent on diplomatic duties, will his rights with respect to superannuation continue in his absence? If so, would the minister give us an indication of whether Mr. Justice Davis could retire on superannuation at the present time if he wished to do so? That is my first question. The other question I wish to ask is whether we may expect in the near future an appointment to the vacancy on the court of king's bench of Saskatchewan, which vacancy has existed now for just about a year.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to the first question, an answer would be an expression of opinion on a matter of law. Mr. Justice Davis is absent on leave without pay while serving in the Department of External Affairs, and I should not like to express here an opinion as to whether the time he is on leave with the other department could be reckoned for pension purposes; but I do not see that it has any practical bearing, because the pensions which are awarded under the Judges Act do not, in the case of the high court judges, depend upon the length of service; they are the same whether the service has been one year or five or twenty-five or thirty years. I do not think any practical effect could be attached to any opinion I might give as to whether the number of years in another department would count as years served on the bench.
With respect to the second question, there are several high court vacancies the filling of which is under consideration at the present time. There are two in the Supreme Court of Canada; there is one each in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick; and I have a list-quite a long one-of gentlemen who have been recommended and some of whom have been communicated with in connection with the supreme court. At least three gentlemen whom we considered would be desirable on the bench of the supreme court have explained to us that for personal reasons it was not possible for them to accept the honour we were disposed to recommend for them. But I can assure the hon. gentleman that I appreciate as keenly as any practising lawyer the desirability of disposing of these matters with as much dispatch as is possible.


Alfred Henry Bence: Just one more question. I believe I asked it before but I imagine the
[Mr. St.
minister missed it. Is it contemplated that Mr. Justice Davis shall continue to be absent from his post as a member of the court of appeal of Saskatchewan?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am unable to make any positive statement as to that. Mr. Justice Davis undertook this work for the Department of External Affairs as a war job, and at the time it was for not more than the duration of the war. There has been no arrangement made since that -time, and I know of no change in the intentions in that regard of Mr. Justice Davis or of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: This item affords an opportunity for the minister to give the committee and the country his ideas with respect to a question which is being widely discussed to-day, namely the matter of judicial reform. The problem arises by reason of the fact that a very considerable number of judges in the superior courts of this country are over the age of seventy-five years. The Canadian Bar association on several occasions has discussed the question of the need of legislation being introduced which would provide for compulsory retirement of superior court judges at that age. Only recently, at the midwinter meeting of the Canadian Bar association for the province of Ontario, a resolution was passed, I believe unanimously, by the members of the council of the association, as follows:
That each judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario-i-
And I think it is equally applicable to the other provinces.
-whether heretofore appointed or hereafter to be appointed, shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of seventy-five years, or immediately if he has already attained that age; provided that the tenure of office of any judge who has attained the age of seventy-five years may be extended beyond that age by the governor in council.
There have been striking examples of members of the judiciary of over this age who have made outstanding contributions, but generally speaking, and I think properly so, the attitude taken by the bar association and also by the public at large is that in the interests of the administration of justice provision should be made for compulsory retirement at that age. I realize the difficulties inherent in the problem, in that it is necessary in order to effectuate compulsory retirement that an amendment to the British North America Act be brought into effect, and in the resolution to which I have made reference it was recommended that an amendment should be asked for to the end that the resolution might be carried into effect. There is no more im-

Supply-J ustice
portant matter before parliament than to ensure that the administration of justice shall be maintained at the highest level. It can be so maintained only by assuring that the appointments made shall be of outstanding men, men of great ability, learned in the law, and also that age or other infirmity of any members of the judiciary shall not be permitted1 to stand in the way of a sound and judicial system.
I w.ould appreciate it, and I know the country at large would, if the minister would place before this committee his attitude with regard to this problem, to the end that the administration of justice may be maintained on the highest possible plane


Alfred Henry Bence: I endorse the remarks of
the hon. member for Lake Centre. I discussed this subject at considerable length when the amendments to the Judges Act were before the house, and I do not propose to repeat the arguments I advanced at that time. As the minister put it then, this matter was, I believe, on the agenda for the next dominion-provincial conference. I am a little worried about the fact that the holding of that conference seems to be very indefinite, in any event as to date, and I suggest that this type of matter might easily be handled direct with the provinces without the necessity of waiting until they all come to Ottawa or some central point to discuss problems which are of interest to them all.
It is an insidious position in which the judiciary finds itself, as well as the bar of this country, when members of the county and district courts are retired compulsorily at the age of seventy-five years, when members of the supreme court and of the exchequer court are retired compulsorily at the same age; yet in the intermediate courts, the king's bench and the courts of appeal of the various provinces, the judges hold their positions during their lifetime.


Thomas Reid: How did it arise that they are different from the others?


Alfred Henry Bence: It all arose because of the
British North America Act, which provided that in those courts the judges should hold their positions for life, whereas it gave the power to the dominion government to set up other courts and did not restrict them in any way in their setting up. That is why it is necessary to amend the British North America Act, because the dominion government and the administration say that by virtue of the language of that act, they have not the right to compulsorily retire such judges at seventy-five. On the other hand, with respect to these other courts, power was merely given to set them up
and the dominion government had all the necessary jurisdiction to handle them in connection with matters of salary, retirement, and that kind of thing. The suggestion has, I believe, the unanimous support of the bar; I feel sure that it has the sympathetic attention of the minister; and I suggest - to him that action might be expedited and that we need not necessarily wait until the holding of the dominion-provincial conference to deal with it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I agree heartily with what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Saskatoon City as to the desirability of there being provision for the superior courts, that is to say the high trial courts and the courts of appeal, to retire judges therefrom at a stated age. As the hon. member for Saskatoon City has pointed out, the reason why that cannot be done without an amendment of the British North America Act is that, under section 99 of that act, the judges of these courts hold office during good behaviour, and it has been held that the legal effect of the grant of an office during good behaviour is the creation of an estate for life in the office. Such an estate is terminable only by the grantee's incapacity on account of mental or bodily infirmity or by his breach of good behaviour.
As I stated on a former occasion, that is an item which is on the agenda for consideration at the dominion-provincial conference. The hon. gentleman expresses regret, which I share, that it has not been possible to have that conference prior to this time. He will realize that it would not be possible now, while the governments of three of the provinces are seeking a renewal of their mandate, to bring them here to discuss important matters which will have a long-time effect on their respective provinces. As the hon. member recognizes, the matter is something which is of concern both to the dominion and to the provincial governments because, though we appoint the judges, the administration of justice is a matter of provincial concern. At present there are in Ontario two high court judges who have passed the age of seventy-five; in Quebec, three; in Nova Scotia, one; in New Brunswick, two; in Manitoba, one; in Alberta, one; in Saskatchewan, none; in British Columbia, none; in Prince Edward Island, none. There are several gentlemen who have passed the age of seventy-five and who are still, as hon. members know, quite alert and competent and who are doing valuable work. I do not want to give any further indications, and I have said that because I would not like all these ten gentlemen who are on the
Supply-Justice

bench at the present time and over the age of seventy-five to feel that everyone looked upon them as being incompetent to perform the work they are still doing. With respect to several of them I know that is not the case; but I think there should be a rule, which would be substantially in the form of the resolution read a few moments ago, that upon attainment of a certain age there should be retirement unless in certain cases and in a special manner the gentleman who had passed the age was invited to continue in office.
Possibly the suggestion of the hon. member for Saskatoon City, that this could be dealt with by correspondence with the attorneys general of the nine provinces, instead of waiting until we could have a provincial conference, which we have been so hopeful of getting, might seem to be almost a defeatist attitude. To say that there were some things we dealt with otherwise would, I think, be looked upon in some quarters as a confession that we were not going to have, in any reasonable time, a bringing together of those who should sit in such conference." I do not think there is anything more I can say at the moment. I do not believe that there should be an application to have the British North America Act amended in that respect without the concurrence of the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Has consideration been given to the passing of legislation by parliament that, upon a judge attaining the age of seventy-five, if he chooses to continue to hold and exercise the prerogatives of his office, his salary thereafter shall not exceed the amount he would be entitled to should he retire on pension?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Consideration has been given that, and I understand that at one time this house passed in those terms a bill which did not become law. I looked over the files that had been used at that time and, after examining them and the debates which took place, both where the bill was adopted and in another place where it did not meet with approval, I did not pursue the idea of reintroducing it. I thought the situation had reached the point where it would not be difficult to get the concurrence of the provinces to do the thing in the direct way, and I think that is the way in which it would be best to have it done.


John George Diefenbaker: Have any representations been received by the minister from any of the attorneys general suggesting their willingness to cooperate, or have the various provinces been consulted by correspondence or otherwise as to their willingness to consent to that being carried into effect?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think I could assert that anything of an official nature that could be acted upon has taken place, but I have reason to believe, not from correspondence, but from contacts with attorneys general, that it is generally felt it would be a wise provision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9S. Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and live stock; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $2,997,385.
Douglas King Hazen: How many penitentiaries are there in the dominion, and what is the approximate number of inmates in each?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are seven penitentiaries, and at the end of June the total number of inmates was 3.015.


Douglas King Hazen: Is that the total in the seven penitentiaries?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the total in the seven penitentiaries including the penitentiary for women at Kingston.


Douglas King Hazen: Are the numbers in the different penitentiaries about the same, or is there any wide difference?
Mr. ST. LAURENT; There are wide differences. In Kingston there are 619 male prisoners and fifty-one female; St. Vincent de Paul, Quebec, 891 prisoners, all male; Dorchester, the penitentiary for the maritimes, 356 prisoners, all male; Manitoba, 266 male prisoners; British Columbia, 324 male prisoners; Saskatchewan, 317 male prisoners; Collins Bay, which is alongside Kingston penitentiary, 194. I gave the total as 3,015; that was the previous month. At the end of June it was 3,018.


Douglas King Hazen: Under the heading, "operation and maintenance of penitentiaries," on pages 90 and 91 of the estimates, looking through the different items I notice that there are employed two dentists, three physical training instructors, four physicians and so on. If you have six or seven penitentiaries do you maintain different staffs in the different penitentiaries? Why should there be a physical instructor engaged in one or two penitentiaries and not in all the penitentiaries? Wrhy should dentists be employed in one or two of the penitentiaries and not in the others? The same thing applies to physicians; why should there not be one in each penitentiary, rather than only four physicians employed altogether? There are some other items which show that the same classes of people are not employed in all the penitentiaries.

Supply-Justice
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The establishment for each penitentiary of course is different. That establishment has been determined according to what was felt to be the needs of each penitentiary individually. There are physical instructors in all the penitentiaries. In some they are guards who are acting as physical instructors but who are classified as guards. In two of the penitentiaries the special position of physical instructor was established and the persons performing those duties are described as such on the payrolls With respect to the dentists, there are only two penitentiaries having full-time dentists; in the others there are part-time dentists. The same situation exists with respect to medical attendants; there are full-time physicians in, I believe, only four penitentiaries. In the others satisfactory medical service is attained from practitioners who do not devote their full time to the prisoners.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say how many men sentenced to imprisonment for life on commutation of sentence of death for murder have been released in each of the last three years after serving for various periods of time? In asking that question I do not desire to criticize the policy in any way. I have seen in the press some condemnation of the policy adopted by the department of permitting men who have had their sentences commuted from death to life imprisonment to be released after serving twelve, fourteen, fifteen or more years. While no doubt there have been isolated cases in which this has been a dangerous course to follow, as has been proven by experience, in a recent case, I trust that the department will continue to follow the practice of allowing these men to look forward to the day when they will be released from incarceration.
Recently a man was released from one of our penitentiaries after serving some fourteen years following his conviction for murder. When that man entered the penitentiary upon his sentence being commuted he was illiterate and purposeless, and would have never amounted to anything but for the opportunities in the way of education that were afforded him in the penitentiary, which I am not going to identify in order to not bring home the identity of this man. After fourteen years of imprisonment in which he displayed exemplary conduct, during which time he passed through all grades from grade 3 to the equivalent of grade 11, or matriculation standing, he was given ticket of leave. That man is now serving or will shortly be serving overseas with the Canadian army. He has made good, and intends to keep on making g0od-the result of the opportunities he was
given and the helpful consideration he received from the warden and guards in the penitentiary.
I trust that the minister will continue the policy of granting ticket of leave in worthy cases, circumscribed as it must be by the peculiarities of each individual case; for if the penitentiaries of this country can show even a few cases such as the one to which I have referred, the system now in effect of holding out the hope of eventual parole will have been successful and worth while. I repeat that in asking the question I did ask I had no thought of criticizing what is being done, for in my opinion the system of parole has worked out well. While a few men, after having been given the opportunity of reestablishing themselves in civil life, have been returned to the penitentiary, many men have been rehabilitated under the care and kindly attention they received while incarcerated for the crimes they have committed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry I cannot give the figures for the last three years. To the best >of my recollection, from December 10, 1941, to date four tickets-of-leave have been granted to persons who have had capital punishment commuted to life imprisonment. One case is that to which the hon. member has referred to and about which I also have received very encouraging reports. In the second the result has been most unfortunate. The third is the case of a man who had reached the age of seventy-eight or seventy-nine,, who obtained a tieket-of-leave and was restored to his family. He is not able to get about; he is being cared for by his family and will remain with them. The fourth case was that of a man who was suffering from cancer to a degree which was looked upon by the medical attendants of the penitentiary as hopeless. He wanted to be given radium treatment; his family was able to provide it for him, and he was told that there was some prospect that it would be beneficial. He also had become an old man, and in view of the fact that the attendants at the penitentiary would not recommend the treatment he wanted to have, and that his family could obtain it for him, it was felt that it would be only humane to allow him to obtain that treatment. In all these cases we had strong recommendations from the respective wardens and chaplains, and it was felt that they were cases which could be sympathetically considered. In addition to everything else, the fact that there is some hope even for those serving life sentences is most beneficial for the discipline it is possible to maintain in penitentiaries.

523S
Supply-Justice

In the administration of the ticket-of-leave or clemency provisions the principle in respect of those who have time sentences and who are not looked upon as hardened criminals is that even if they receive only a very small degree of clemency they leave the penitentiary in. a grateful mood rather than feeling resentful against society. Even in cases where the balance is pretty fine, in view of all the reports we get, my own desire is, when it seems possible, to recommend some degree of clemency so that a man leaves an institution feeling that something was done for him for which he should be thankful. The degree to which this system has worked properly is, I suggest, shown bjr the fact that there are only between two per cent and three per cent of those who have obtained tickets-of-leave who have fallen by the wayside again during the periods covered by those tickets-of-leave. I think the fact that well over ninety-five per cent of those who have obtained tickets-of-leave do not again fall by the wayside during the period of their release is a full justification of the wisdom of that system. I think it is worth something to society to have them leave the institutions in a grateful, rather than in a resentful mood.


Alfred Henry Bence: When these men are let out on ticket-of-leave, are they examined by a psychiatrist to determine the type of men they are, and their possible tendencies, in order that no man may be allowed at large who, we will say, would be of a type who might commit a similar crime?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; there is no special psychiatric examination. The reports we get are written reports from the wardens of the penitentiaries who, in order to make those reports, get information from the medical attendants of the institutions. Then we usually have a pretty accurate life history of the persons concerned. Whenever there is any doubt, or whenever a file seems to raise a doubt in that regard, the practice has been adopted of consulting a reliable psychiatrist in the Department of Pensions and National Health, and to get an. opinion from him. But for the purposes of tickets-of-leave, I have not had any case in which I found it necessary to have a personal examination made by a psychiatrist. If there seemed to be so much doubt that one would have to employ a psychiatrist to make a personal examination, that would not look like a very good case to recommend to His Excellency for the exercise of clemency.


Alfred Henry Bence: What I had in mind was this, that there are certain tendencies which are not apparent to laymen. I had in mind particularly a man who was allowed out on 
ticket-of-leave in Manitoba recently, and who committed the same crime upon getting out. I was going to suggest to the minister that more attention possibly should be paid to examinations by psychiatrists when it comes to releasing men who have demonstrated tendencies of that kind.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the case to which the hon. member refers there was not the slightest suggestion of any mental derangement, even at the second trial. No question arose as to responsibility. I repeat, no suggestion of mental derangement was raised and, as the hon. member knows, that unfortunate man was ably defended.


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am glad to have heard the attitude of the minister toward those who are committed for crime. I think it is right that a man who receives a ticket-of-leave comes out in a better frame of mind than if he had had to serve his full time.
I know something about this, from experience. When the minister was not in the [DOT]house I said, when speaking on the budget, that in thirty or thirty-five years I had known of over one hundred cases out on tickets-of-leave or parole, and that there had not been one repeater. In fact, there are two men now in Stony Mountain penitentiary, who, in my view, should be out. I shall not give their names, but I know that one man has only seven more months to serve of a four-year sentence for bigamy. Had he not gone through the rite of marriage he would not have been there at all. That man has learned a trade. He is fit to ply his trade and wants to do so in war work, in an effort to make good, and to show his friends that he can make good.
The other man is in the penitentiary because of an accident. The accident was possibly a crude affair, but he is not a criminal. I pay my tribute to the citizens in the churches at Winnipeg who banded themselves together to take care of men when they came out- because we know that when a man comes out of the penitentiary and is branded as a gaolbird nobody wants him. Perhaps someone would give him a meal at the back door, but who wants to employ him? It is only a Christian service to treat these men properly who have broken the law and are caught, especially when there are hundreds out through the country who have broken laws, but who are never caught.
I again ask the minister to apply his best judgment in having these two men released as soon as possible. I am sure the Christian attitude and the common sense of the Minister of Justice will back me up, to the hilt.

Supply-Justice


Stanley Howard Knowles: I fear there are a number of matters which unfortunately we are laying over, because of the pressure of war. One of those matters is the whole question of penal reform, both with respect to adults and in connection with juvenile delinquency.
I believe that just prior to the last general election there was an intention on the part of the government, as a result of earlier study, to set up a special commission to go into this whole question. While I may not have all the facts in my possession, I believe that plan has been left in abeyance, because of the pressure of war, and I can well understand that situation. Yet it seems to me that the problems being created in this field by the strenuous conditions under which people are living in war time make it important to grapple with this whole question now.
I should like to hear from the Minister of Justice as to whether any plans are under way either for a commission or for any other form of study of the whole set-up of our penal institutions, with particular reference to the question of juvenile delinquency. It is only natural under war-time conditions that many young chaps will do things they might not have done, had the war not broken out. It is unfortunate that in many cases they are treated as criminals. Apparently there is no other course to follow under our penal system as it now stands. But these same young chaps who, through misfortune may become regarded as criminals, at the present time are heroes who are offering their lives in defence of democracy. I feel that in deference to them, despite the pressure under which all government departments are working in war time, consideration should be given to the whole question of penal reform.
The minister knows there are many people in Canada interested in this subject. Newspapers and magazines editorialize on it from time to time. There are many social workers who are interested in this problem. The previous speaker has referred to the interest of the church. Despite the pressure under which the government and all of us are now labouring, I urge that there should be no delay in attempting to study our whole penal set-up in order that we may develop the means by which we can best grapple with this kind of problem in the post-war period, so that we may be in a position to rehabilitate those young people who have made mistakes which in bygone days would be regarded as criminal. I urge the government to reconsider this matter, which I believe they were considering at the outbreak of the present war.
100-329i


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister can answer at the same time the question I am going to ask. I was in the house six years ago when the minister's predecessor, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, told us that it would be difficult for him to carry on his programme of penal reform unless he were granted the vote for which he was asking. Between the two sessions in which the matter was brought up in the house I made a trip to the old country to study the system of penal reform the minister had referred to, namely the Borstal system. I visited many prisons in Great Britain, particularly the one at Leeds where the system was first put in operation and where splendid results had been achieved. I agree with what the hen. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said and, if the programme contemplated by the former minister has not been put into operation, I hope it will be as rapidly as possible.
I should1 like the committee to know of the splendid assistance rendered in connection with the reform of criminals by such a man as Brigadier General D. C. Draper, chief of police of Toronto, and there are many others like him. I believe Chief Draper has associated with him a committee of outstanding men. When a prisoner is released the chief and his committee meet together and endeavour to obtain a position for the man. Such people should be complimented, and I believe they are by the minister when the opportunity presents itself, because they are doing a fine work. This is only one of the many organizations doing this work.
Can the minister tell the committee just how far the programme of penal reform brought before the house some five or six years ago by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe has been instituted in connection with our penitentiaries?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Mr. Chairman, it
would take me some time to recite all the recommendations of the Archambault commission which have been implemented up to the present time. A return was made to the order moved by the hon. member for Broadview on April 18, 1944, and this listed 101 reforms or improvements which had been made in the penitentiaries in conformity with the recommendations of the Archambault commission. In a general way all the recommendations that could be implemented without the provision of new structure! or new buildings have been implemented.
The system recommended by the Archam->
bault commission has not been established, because it would have entailed large capital
524C
Supply-Justice

expenditures in the construction of new premises for the detention, training or rehabilitation of prisoners. It was not felt proper to make these capital expenditures during the war. There was such a dearth of materials and man-power that it was felt that such matters should foe postponed until after the war requirements had been met. So much for the recommendations of the royal commission which investigated the penal system.
Many years have passed1 since that royal commission made its report, and it may be, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that a review of the findings of that commission should be made in order to bring them up to date. I think that would be desirable before proceeding with the report which was made in 1938, six years ago. I believe it might be desirable to consider the recommendations before going ahead with these recommendations as a blueprint that will be entirely satisfactory. It may be found that there are further improvements that might be made. All these things certainly will be given consideration.
I have been thinking along lines that would not require considerable capital expenditures. We have all been concerned1 with the fact that there has been some increase in juvenile criminality during the war years. It has seemed to me that the high regard in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is held by the whole of Canada might be used in some manner to keep young boys in cities and towns out of criminal ways. During the war, units of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Voluntary Reserves, made up of prominent men, have been established in many cities in Canada.
The commissioner has been conferring with them, asking them if they would continue and set up some sort of big brother organization that would be helpful. We have also given some thought to the possibility of creating cadet corps of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The youth of Canada together with our adult population hold that force in high regard, and it may be that if we could have Royal Canadian Mounted Police cadets, who would have to be well behaved to remain members of the corps, we would give to the boys of the cities and towns an interest that would keep them out of mischief and would develop in them a desire not only not to break good order, but to contribute to the maintenance of good order in their respective communities. These are matters that are being given consideration, and probably something along these lines can be devised and set up with the cooperation of the Canadian
[Mr. St. Laurent.J
people without involving large capital expenditures. I am hoping that it will be possible to make us older persons realize that we are to a certain extent the keepers of our younger brothers, and that we should provide them with things that would interest them sufficiently to keep them out of mischief.
With respect to the treatment of those who have fallen by the wayside, we are doing the best we can with the physical institutions that we have. We cannot undertake to modify and develop those institutions during the war period. But everyone, I think, not only in my department and in this house but all the social workers throughout the country, recognize the problem and are desirous of cooperating with the authorities to find a hopeful solution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister able to give a detailed statement of the benefits obtained from the scheme followed by General Draper and his committee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I cannot give details because that would involve specific cases. But General Draper's committee and like committees throughout Canada are giving very great assistance in the rehabilitation of those who are released from penal institutions. It is frequently a condition of ticket-of-leave that the man obtaining leave shall place himself under the supervision of so-and-so for the period of his ticket-of-leave in addition to reporting to the police. There are throughout Canada everywhere public-spirited citizens who accept the opportunity of exercising some superintendence over the men thus released on ticket-of-leave. It frequently happens that we are not content with the provisions of the Ticket-Of-Leave Act, which makes it necessary for the man to report periodically to the police, so that we make it a condition that he will be under the special supervision of a responsible man who agrees with us to keep us informed and to bring to our attention any tendency which might be displayed by the holder of the ticket-of-leave to resort to his former ways.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express appreciation of the interest shown by the minister in the subject of revamping our methods of taking care of criminality and especially of his interest in juvenile delinquency. I particularly appreciate his suggestion that it might be desirable now to review the findings of the Archambault commission, in view of the fact that they were made about six years ago. The significance of what the minister said on that point should be underlined, namely, that we have lived through far more than six years since 1938, if I may put it in that way. A great

Supply-Justice
deal has happened to our civilization in those years, and it is highly important that we grapple with the problems that have arisen in the light of what we have gone through.
The minister referred to the fact that some recommendations of the Archambault commission. either in their original form or revised, would call for large capital outlay, and he indicated that because of that it had not been possible to consider them during the war years. I grant that in a sense the minister and the government have a case on that point; yet it seems to me that it might well be pointed out that any expenses involved1 in grappling with a problem like this which has been accentuated by the war might be regarded as war expenditure. When I think of the tremendous sums of money that we have been prepared to spend out of necessity to take young fellows who had no jobs and to train and equip them for their war tasks, frankly I do not feel that we should baulk at any huge expenditure that may be necessary to grapple with the problem of keeping our youth straight and rehabilitating them, if necessary, in the post-war period'.
We are impressed in these days with the tasks of the war. I feel that we must warm up to the tasks of peace that lie ahead of us with some of the same vigour and determina^ tion. I urge the importance of our doing the equal of what we are doing now in making the lives of the people of this country the very best that they can be in the post-war period and in re-making them where necessary. I hope that we can think of these people who may go wrong, to use the old terminology, not as a group apart from our citizenry as a whole, whom we segregate and punish, but rather as an essential part of our own citizenry, and we are not really tackling the problem of crime seriously until we devise ways and means of properly rehabilitating these young people. I urge that we keep this thought before us, that many of those who may find themselves in the clutches of the law in the post-war period are to-day our heroes. They are our young men who are to-day offering life itself for the defence of a better Canada, and I urge that we owe it to them to do the best we can for them in every sphere. I am not in any way suggesting that any very large percentage of our young men are going to be problems for the administration of justice in the post-war period. What I am suggesting is that even a very small percentage, if it is only a very few, are, after all, human beings, Canadians, and we owe it to them to do the best we can for them If the government cannot see its way clear to make any capital outlay at the present time, I hope that the
question of money will not stand in the way of the wisest possible reforms just as soon as the war ends, but preferably now.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like it to go out that it was only a question of capital outlay which has prevented us from going ahead, because the Archambault commission recommended a penal system that would require constitutional amendments. As hon. members know, we receive in the penitentiaries those who have been condemned to serve not less than two years of detention. All the others-and they are a large number, and from the viewpoint of the sociologist, probably the most interesting group-receive sentences for much shorter periods than two years and go into the county gaols or into the common gaols. The system for Canada would have to be a general system applicable to all those condemned to detention either as punishment or for purposes of rehabilitation. That is one serious matter which will have to be considered1 and dealt with before real penal reform is possible in this country. The second is not only the expenditure of capital sums, but the work that had to be done with the capital sums which would be thus expended, and which would have required large quantities of material and large amounts of labour to .perform. Then perhaps an even more important feature was that during the war period it was not possible to obtain the services of specially qualified personnel that would be necessary to make a system of that kind work. We had a war on our hands, and we could not go out and recruit the kind of personnel which it would be necessary to have to make a proper, enlightened system of penal repression operate. So that I should not like the impression to go forward that it was merely because we would not spend the money that it has not yet been done.
There are the three main features. First, there is the requirement of some arrangement with the provinces whereby the reforms will extend not only to those who commit such serious crimes as deserve not less than two years in prison, but to all those who fall foul of the law. Then, there is the establishment of a staff of qualified personnel; and ^the hon. member will agree with me that that is perhaps the most important feature of the whole scheme. In addition, there is the provision of the buildings which would be suitable to the operation of a scheme designed not only to take the man who has been called a criminal and condemned as such out of circulation, but to reform him when it is possible that he be reformed.
Supply-Justice


Stanley Howard Knowles: One other short question. Is this subject, at least as far as the minister can place it there, on the agenda for the dominion-provincial conference?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is.


Mr. GILLIS:: There are two questions I wish to ask the minister. If it requires very much digging to answer them I can let them go. First, can the minister give any indication of the number of inmates of penal institutions who were released or paroled for the purpose of entering the armed services? Second, can he indicate the number of service personnel who were incarcerated in penal institutions since the outbreak of war?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I cannot give the hon. member precise figures as to that. With respect to the first question I can make this statement. It was not the policy of the army to recruit its personnel from penal institutions. It was only when the person was recommended as qualified to form part of the armed services in spite of the fact that he had had one lapse, and when he was found otherwise suitable, that he was accepted in the army. There are quite a large number of such exceptions, but I could not give any precise figures. There has been no general policy of saying to men, "Look here, you can get out of gaol if you will go into the army." That is not the attitude at all.


Clarence Gillis: No. I understand that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it so happened that a man physically and mentally fit had fallen by the wayside but was looked upon by those who had been in contact with him as having sufficient stability to make a good soldier, he was interviewed by a personnel officer and in a great many cases was inducted in the armed forces.
The number of persons in the armed forces who have be.en condemned and admitted to the penitentiaries for the year ended March 31, 1941, was 101; for the year ended March 31, 1942, 166; for the year ended March 31, 1943, 190. I have not the figures for the year ended March 31, 1944, nor have I the number admitted to the common gaols.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the policy of the Department of Justice as regards enlistment in the armed services of guards and warders in the penitentiaries? The reason I ask is that in one case of which I know definitely, and the details of which I have before me, a guard in the Saskatchewan penitentiary joined the navy and received after a period of time '* his call to report. He had been in the penitentiary service for several

years and bore a good reputation. At the expiry of one month's notice given by him that he intended to join the navy he received a notice from the warden advising him that he was suspended from the service.
I realize the need of the penitentiary services having a trained and available personnel, but I feel, too, that where a man desirous of serving in the armed forces has gone ahead as did this man, he should not be penalized as regards either his superannuation rights or his reinstatement when he returns after service. I do not wish to refer to the person by name, but I will send the minister the file. The facts in detail are that on October 20, 1943, he gave notice to the warden advising that he had made application and had been accepted for active service with the Royal Canadian Navy on November 23, 1943, and that it would be necessary that he be relieved of his duty at the close of prison on November 20, 1943. On that date he ceased to serve. Thereafter he received the notice that he was suspended from duty.
I believe, regardless of the considerations which impel the department to retain these men, that when in fact they patriotically join up they ought not to be penalized, either in so far as the fund is concerned and their right to the return of their contributions, or as to their right to reinstatement when the war is over.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are 135 officers from the custodial staff of the penitentiaries who obtained leave of absence without pay to join the armed forces up to the 1st of February, 1944, and we had reduced the operating staffs to the fullest possible extent. The man to whom the hon. member refers was an engineer.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Efforts were made to find someone competent to take his place, and he had been told that up to that time we had been unable to find anyone fitted for the position and that much as we regretted it we could not give him leave to join the forces without pay. He went ahead and did so notwithstanding, and since then has been released from the navy and has returned to our service. He was taken back into the service because we had not in the meantime been able to find anyone to do his work for him. But it was necessary to have a rule of that kind, and I hope we are near enough to the end of the war for me to be able to say so now. I had said that these cases would be all reviewed after the necessity for maintaining a rule of that kind should have ceased; but that we had to have the rule,

Supply

Justice
because we have a responsibility to the Canadian people to maintain these penitentiaries in a satisfactory condition, and1 there had to be that rule, which existed throughout the civil service. Anyone in the civil service who wanted leave without pay to join the forces had to get permission from the head of his department. Wherever it was possible to replace a man leave was granted, and I believe that in the administration of the penitentiaries we -went the extreme limit. As a matter of fact, there were 135 who did get leave. As the hon. member realizes, we are in a particularly difficult position when leave is granted, because we have to hold the job for the man whenever he is discharged. We cannot offer anyone else a permanent position. We have therefore to get someone to take the position temporarily, because an officer who obtains leave of absence to join the forces has by virtue of the law the right to get his job back the very moment he gets out of the army. That created a situation which we tried to deal with in the spirit in which the hon. member would have dealt with it. There are some cases where there has been disobedience, abandonment of our service, and they will all be reviewed; but the personnel of the penitentiaries, we felt, had to be under the impression that they could not leave us without permission.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the method now of recruiting men for service as guards in the penitentiaries? They have to be physically fit. What is the system followed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The system is to invoke the assistance of the Minister of Labour and have him direct to us those persons who are willing to come to us and who seem to have the qualifications required. But it is really difficult because we are not able to offer them permanent positions. We have these 135 vacancies which we cannot fill, because we intend1 to take back these persons just as soon as they are discharged from the armed services.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The recruiting is done through the national selective service?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is done by ourselves with the assistance of selective service. We notify our requirements to them and we do our best, but we cannot take anyone on without a licence from the selective service offices. If we find a proper candidate we arrange with selective service that he gets a permit to come to us.


Gordon Graydon: According to my recollection, that would be directly contrary to the law.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We cannot and do not take men who are physically fit and of the age group for service in. the armed forces, but when we have a position to fill and know of someone who would be apt to fill it we ask him to go to the selective service office and we have a relatively high priority for the relatively small number' of men we require.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
S18. General administration, $234,751.
Alfred Henry Bence: I have an inquiry to make of the minister with respect to the method by which men within the force are advanced in rank, the method adopted by the administration with respect to recognition of men, the question as to whether senority is taken into consideration, the question as to whether or not any special courses are made available for men in order that they may qualify as officers, and whether or not that opportunity is given all men in the force who are non-commissioned officers, or whether the commissioner or officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pick out those whom they believe to be best adapted for advancement.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Op. that I shall have to get information from the deputy commissioner, because I have made it a rule not to interfere in any way whatsoever with the promotion of men in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. I have considered that to be the responsibility of the commissioner and that there should be no interference by me in any way with promotions in the force. I know there is a college in Ottawa where courses are given regularly, and candidates are trained in addition to the initial training which they receive in the first years of their service. I have no doubt that all the elements mentioned by the hon. member are taken into account. The rule of seniority is not applied in an absolute way. The purpose of the commissioner is to maintain the high standard of the force and it is not always by seniority that such a result can be achieved. This college is open to constables from all over Canada, not only those of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but also those of provincial and municipal forces throughout the country. The selection of those who are to attend is finally passed upon by the commissioner, on the reports obtained from the inspectors of the various divisions, who are given quotas and make recommendations. The commissioner or deputy commissioner here in Ottawa passes upon those recommendations and determines who shall form each class.
With respect to promotions in the service, since I have been minister the commissioner
Supply-Justice

has pointed out to me on several occasions that he regretted promotions were not being made with the regularity that prevailed heretofore, because it had some effect upon the morale of the whole force. The man-power situation was such that he was releasing only those who were no longer fit to serve, and he admitted that this slowed up promotions and was affecting the morale of the men, although he had pointed out to them that they were only waiting because as soon as the situation improved there would be a period during which promotions would be much more rapid, until the force attained the status it would have reached had there not been this period of war.


Alfred Henry Bence: I appreciate the necessity of obtaining the brightest and best trained men possible for promotion to the rank of officers, but at the same time I am a little concerned about the possibility that in looking for the right men to bring into the force those in charge might overlook many well qualified, well trained men who have been with the force for many years. I was wondering whether or not the matter of experience and seniority in the force was given first consideration in regard to this matter of promotions. I understood that in a number of instances men were brought in from outside, given special courses and trained as officers, while many well trained and experienced noncommissioned officers were overlooked. I should like to point out to the administration that in a great force like this it is essential to ensure that there be general satisfaction throughout the organization, and that nothing should be done and no course of conduct followed which would cause any feeling of discontent among the men and non-commissioned officers who might be led to believe that their years of training and experience were not being given consideration when promotions were made.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member is under a misapprehension if he thinks men are brought in from the outside as officers. Everyone comes in at the bottom and moves up, but there is not and cannot be a rigid rule of seniority having regard to the efficiency of the force. However, we do not bring in men over the heads of those already in the force. When promotions are made, they are from the inside, and they are made by raising a man from one rank to a higher rank.


Alfred Henry Bence: I want to make myself clear on that point. I had understood that the administration looked around for men who might possibly be of the calibre of officers;

that they went outside the force to bring in these men, gave them special training, allowed them to go to law school and that sort of thing, and then appointed them as officers over the heads of men who had been in the force for quite a number of years.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is quite possible; men may have come in and leapfrogged over others who had been in previously, but I think that is inevitable if we are to have an efficient force. The commissioner and his principal aides should not be interfered with in their selections for promotions, unless they depart from the traditions that have -been maintained in the force.


Alfred Henry Bence: I quite realize that; I merely wanted to point out to the administration that this factor does exist and that it should be considered very carefully in connection with bringing in too many men from outside in the manner I have indicated, so that men who have given years of service, if they have the ability, will have the work they have rendered fully recognized.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: From my experience with the commissioner and his principal aides I am quite satisfied that he does not overlook seniority when it is coupled with ability.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S19. Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $6,170,200.90.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister explain the procedure with respect to the laying of informations and proceedings under the defence of Canada regulations? Does the Department of Justice expect that proceedings under the defence of Canada regulations shall be initiated by the departments of the attorney general in the various provinces, or are such prosecutions commenced on the instructions of the Department of Justice?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In some instances informations have been laid at the instigation of the attorney general of the province. Other cases have been brought to the attention of the Department of Justice, and instructions have been given to the local office of the mounted police to get in touch with the crown prosecutor and ascertain if the provincial attorney general would authorize them to proceed. In some cases where that authorization has not been given, they were directed to proceed on the responsibility of the Department of Justice. Whenever the Department of Justice feels that there should be a prosecution it tries to have it taken up by the

The Royal Assent
provincial authorities, and only when the provincial authorities are unwilling to proceed are instructions given to proceed on the responsibility of the department. It frequently happens that these matters are handled without reference to the Department of Justice.	They are not handled without
reference to the commissioner of the Royal . Canadian Mounted Police; but when what appears to be a proper case comes to the notice of the local members of the mounted police and it is reported to their superior officers, who authorize them to proceed, they get in touch with the representatives of the attorney general of the province. If the attorney general is agreeable to proceedings being instituted on his behalf the matter does not come to the Minister of Justice at all.
Sometimes matters are brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and the initiative comes from that source. One such case was referred to in the house quite recently.
I saw a newspaper report of what seemed to me to be a very disturbing speech. I at once got in touch with the deputy commissioner, the commissioner being absent, and asked to have investigations made to find out if proper evidence of that kind of a speech could be adduced. If proper evidence is found, then the procedure will be for the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that locality to get in touch with the representative of the attorney general of the province, put the result of the investigation before him, and find out if he will proceed. If he will not proceed other methods will be adopted, if it is felt that there should be proceedings.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister referring to the Dumoulin case?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I saw no report of what the leader of the opposition refers to as the Dumoulin case, that I asked to have investigated. I was referring to the case to which the hon. member for Parkdale referred, that of Jacques Sauriol, whose speech was reported as having been made on July 9.


Gordon Graydon: The reason why I asked is that Mr. Dumoulin is a member of the government of Quebec-at least, a supporter of the government of that province. To put the attorney general, who is also of the same political faith and belongs to the same party, on that case, I should think would add complications which would be very serious. I am hopeful that the attorney general's advice will
not be accepted too readily by the Minister of Justice, and I am also hopeful that the investigation will not take too long.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa,
Sir:
July 20, 1944.
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the senate chamber on Monday, July 24, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 24, 1944