1946-03-29

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE- KING (Prime Minister): Perhaps the house will allow me to table immediately copies in English of the third interim report of the royal commission established under order in council P.C. 411 of February 5, 1946. It is expected that copies of the report in French will be available for tabling shortly.
I may inform the house that appropriate action is being taken in accordance with the report in respect of such persons as are designated therein.
(On the orders of the day):
Mr. GRAYDON:: I believe the tabling of the royal commission's third interim report is a matter of sufficient public interest to warrant some further elucidation from the Prime Minister. I take it that the report contains certain names of persons who have been apprehended or who will be charged later as a result of the report. It would be of interest to the house if the names of those persons, and the charges against them, were made public now rather than at the time of publication of the report itself.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is my hon. friend asking for the names of those named in the report I have just tabled?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can give them to the house. The names are: Eric Adams,
Israel Halperin, Durnford Smith, J. S. Ben-ning, and Squadron Leader F. W. Poland. That is the list.



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messrs:
Baker
Benidickson
Brooks
Brunelle
Casselman
Coldwell
Cote (Verdun)
Cote (Matapedia-Ma-tane)
Cruickshank
Diefenbaker
Fair
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Graydon
Green
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Jaenicke
Knowles
MacNicoI
Manross
Marquis
Martin
Mutch
Parent
Pouliot
Raymond (Wright) Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (Gloucester) Smith (Calgary West) Winters-29
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson Archibald Ashby Aylesworth Beaudoin Beaudry Belzile Bentley
Irvine
J ohnston
Knight
Lesage
Little
Maybank
Mayhew
Mclvor
Bertrand (Terrebonne) McCulloch (Pictou)
Black (Cumberland)
Blair Bonnier Bourget Breithaupt Brooks Campbell Chevrier Church Cloutier Drope Emmerson Eudes Farquhar Gagnon
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gauthier (Nipissing)
Gourd Grant
Harris (Danforth)
Hatfield Herridge Hodgson
(Quorum 20)
McKay Michaud Mullins Mutch Pearkes Picard Pouliot
Robinson (Simcoe
East)
Robinson (Bruce)
Ross (Souris)
Ross (Hamilton East) Shaw
Smith (York North)
Stephenson
Viau
White (Hastings-Peter borough)
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman Winters-60
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Black (Yukon)
Bonnier
Boucher
Bowerman
Brooks
Brown
Charlton
Cleaver
Cloutier
Cote (Verdun)
Croll
Dechene
Dubois
Ferguson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gariepy
Gladstone
Grant
Halle
Hamel
Hazen
Healy
Hlynka
Laurendeau
Lennard
Little
Lockhart
Macdonald (Halifax) MacLean
Matthews (Brandon) Matthews (Kootenay East)
Maybank Mayhew McCuaig McGregor Murphy Nixon Parent Picard Probe Richard (Gloucester) Rose
Ross (St. Paul's) Sinclair (Ontario) Sinnott Stokes
Townley-Smith Webb Whitman Wylie-60.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Argue
Arsenault
Beaudry
Belzile
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Bradette
Breithaupt
Cleaver
Cote (St. Johns-
Iberville-Napierville)
Dechene
Dionne (Beauce)
Dorion Fleming
Fournier (Maison-n eu ve-R osemont) Fraser Fulton Gour Haekett Harkness
Harris (Danforth) Hazen Ilsley Irvine Isnor
Jackman
Jutras
Lesage
Low
Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario)
MacNaught
Manross
Marier
Marquis
Maybank
Mayhew
Mcllraith
Michaud
Murphy
Nixon
Picard
Pinard
Quelch
Rinfret
Ross (Souris)
Sinclair (Ontario) Stewart
(Winnipeg North) Strum (Mrs.)
Thatcher Tucker-50.
Ferguson Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Fraser
Gibson (Comox-Alberni) Gladstone Golding Grant Green Hamel
Harris (Danforth)
Homuth
Howe
Isnor
Jackman
Jaenicke
Johnston
Kirk
Marshall
Maybank
McCubbin
Picard
Pinard
Raymond (Wright) Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret Rowe
Smith (Calgary West) iStewart, (Winnipeg North)
Stuart (Charlotte) Thatcher Warren Winkler-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Argue
Arsenault
Barrett
Beaudoin
Belzile
Bentley
Bertrand (Prescott)
Black (Cumberland)
Black (Huntingdon)
Bryce
Burton
Cardiff
Charlton
Clark
Cloutier
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Coyle
Cruickshank
Dechene
Desmond
Diefenbaker
Douglas
Drope
Dubois
Fair
Farquhar
Fontaine
Gagnon Gardiner Gibson (Comox Alberni)
(Quor
Golding
Gour
Haekett	*
Halle
Harkness
Harris (Grey-Biruce)
Hatfield
Jutras
Kirk
Lapalme
Laurendeau
Leger
Lesage
Matthews (Brandon)
McCubbin
McGarry
McLure
Menary
Michaud
Quelch
Ross (Souris)
Senn
Sinnott
Townley-Smith
Tucker
Warren
W ebb
Whitman
Wright
Wylie-60
um 20)
(Quorum 15)
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:

[Stage Direction]
Argue
Arsenault
Beaudry
Black (Yukon)
Boucher
Bradette
Burton
Case
Cleaver
Messrs:
Cockeram Cote (Verdun)
Cote (St. Johns-I.ber-ville-NapierviUe) Cruickshank Dechene Denis
Diefenbaker
Dionne
tMr. Mackenzie.]
Bertrand (Prescott)
Bowerman
Brunelle
Cardiff
Daniel
Denis
Hamel
Jaques
Knowles
Lapalme
MaeLean
Marier
Murphy
Pinard
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Sinnott
Smith (York North)
Stokes
Stuart
Tustin-20
(Quorum 8)

Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Archibald
Arsenault
Ashby
Baker
Belzile
Benidickson
Blair
Bridges
Brooks
Bryce
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Farquhar Gibson (Comox-Alberni)
Gillis
Hazen
Kirk
Kuhl
Langlois
Lafontaine Leger Lennard Little Maclnnis MacNaught McDonald (Parry Sound)
McLure
Merritt
Pearkes
Reid
Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott
Stanfield
Stirling
Stuart (Charlotte) Winters-35
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson Black (Yukon) Blackmore Boivin Coekeram
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Gagnon
Gariepy
Gour
Gourd
Hodgson
Kuhl
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Lapalme
Little
MacNieol
Maloney
Matthews (Kootenay East)
McCann
McCulloch (Pictou) McCullough (Assini-boia)
McDonald (Parry Sound)
McGarry
McMaster
Moore
Raymond (Wright) Ross (Hamilton East) Ross (Souris)
Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott Vi au Webb
White (Hastings-Peterborough) Zaplitny-35
(Quorum 10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:
Archibald
Baker
Beaudry
Belzile
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Brown
Case
Cote (Verdun)
Croll
Daniels
Dechene
Ferguson
Gauthier (Nipissing)
Gillis
Gingues
Homuth
Johnston
Lalonde
Lapalme
Lockhart
MacNieol
Maloney
Maybank
Merritt
Maclnnis
Mclvor
Moore
Pouliot
Raymond
Reid
Ross (Hamilton East) Sinclair (V ancouver North)
Smith (Calgary West) Viau-35
(Quorum 10)
Messrs:
Matthews (Brandon) Pouliot
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret Rowe-12.
(Quorum 7)

[Stage Direction]
Beaudoin	Messrs: Knowles
Benidickson	Lapointe
Boucher	Leger
Bradette	Lowr
Claxton	Macdonald (Halifax)
Coldwell	Maclnnis
Cote (Matapedia-	MacLean
Matane)	Marquis
Croll	Mayhew
Diefenbaker	Mcllraith
Fleming	Mutch
Fraser	Picard
Graydon	Raymond (Beauliar-
Green	nois-Laprairie)
Hackett	Redd
J ackman	Sinclair (Ontario)
J aenicke	Tremblay
J aques	Winkler-35.
Kidd . Adamson	(Quorum 10) PRINTING Messrs: Kuhl
Arsenault	Laeombe
Aylesworth	Lalonde
Baker	Lapalme
Beaudry	Lapointe
Bertrand (Prescott) Lennard	
Bertrand (Terrebonne) MacLean	
Boivin	MacNaught
Bradette	Maloney
Bradshaw	McCuaig
Brunelle	McCullough
Campbell	(Assiniboia)
Castleden	McDonald
Church	(Parry Sound)
Clark	McGregor
Cote (St. Johns-	[DOT] McClure
Iberville-Napierville) McMaster	
Dubois	Nicholson
Emmerson	Robinson
Fontaine	(Simcoe East)
Fraser	Ross (St. Paul's)
Gauthier (Nipissing) Sinclair	
Gibson (Hamilton (Vancouver North)	
West)	Sinnott
Golding	Strum (Mrs.)
Halle	Tustin
Hansell	Viau
Healy	White (Hastings-
Henderson	Pt terborough)
Hlynka	Win ters-54.
Kidd	
Barrett
Brown
Desmond
Dubois
Hlynka
Knowles
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson Aylesworth Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Bruce
Cardiff
Castleden
Cloutier
Dion
Douglas
Eudes
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gauthier (Nipissing) Gourd Gingues Herridge Henderson Howe Tuques Kidd Knight Lapalme Leger
MacLean
Marier
Marshall
Matthews (Brandon)
McGarry
Mcllraith
McKay
Menary
Mitchell
Mullins
Nixon
Pearkes
Probe
Reid
Richard (Ottawa East) Ross (St. Paul's)
Skey
Smith (York North)
Stephenson
White
(Middlesex East) Winkler Zaplitny-44.
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Black (Yukon) Bradshaw Breithaupt Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Coyle G at-iepy Gladstone Jutras Kirk
Laurendeau
Leger
Lesage
Marshall
Mayhew
McGregor
Mclvor
Murphy
Richard (Ottawa East)
Rose
Strum (Mrs.)
Tustin Wright-22
Mr.. MACKENZIE KING moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the following be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library: Messrs. Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Cha-teauguay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Castleden, Cloutier, Dion, Douglas, Eudes, Fournier

(Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gauthier (Nipissing), Gourd, Gingues, Herridge, Henderson, Howe, Jaques. Kidd, Knight, Lapalme, Leger, MacLean, Marier, Marshall. Matthews (Brandon), McGarry, Mcllraith, McKay, Menary, Mitchell, Mullins, Nixon, Pearkes, Probe, Reid, Richard (Ottawa East), Ross (St. Paul's), Skey, Smith (YTork North), Stephenson, White (Middlesex East), Wiinkler, Zaplitny,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That Messrs. Black (YYikon), Bradshaw, Breithaupt, Cote, Coyle, Gariepy, Gladstone, Jutras, Kirk, Laurendeau, Leger, Lesage, Marshall, Mayhew, McGregor, Mclvor, Murphy, Richard, Rose, Strum (Mrs.), Tustin and Wright be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. McKay be substituted for that of Mr. Probe on the committee on veterans affairs.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax) moved that the first report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies, presented on Wednesday, March 27, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence) 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 amend the Militia Act whereby provision will be made for a permanent force of officers and men in number as may be authorized by the governor in council, and for the employment during the period of demobilization of such members of the military forces as may be deemed necessary for the orderly carrying out of such demobilization.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.

Atomic Energy Control
The bill to be founded upon the resolution will contain only two sections. One will amend section 22 of the Militia Act, to remove the present limitation of 10,000 placed upon the permanent force, and authorizing such number as may be authorized from time to time by the governor in council. The second section will amend section 63 of the act by adding a subsection to provide that members of the militia who are now on active service within the terms of the Militia Act, and who continue to be employed for a time in demobilization, may continue to receive the present rates of pay and allowances, including dependents' allowance, though they cease to be on active service within the terms of the Militia Act; and will be subject otherwise to the same provisions as though they were on active service, except for matters of discipline.
Motion agreed to. '


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when the house adjourns on Wednesday, April 17, it stand adjourned until Wednesday, April 24, 1946.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In looking at this motion one thing about it strikes me; that is, that we are to close on a half day and meet again on a half day. It seems to me the house would be pretty well depleted if we closed on one half day and opened on another. Perhaps it would have been better to close on Tuesday and resume the following Tuesday or to close on Thursday and resume the following Thursday, or the following Tuesday, as the case may be. The two half days would seem to make it inadvisable to pass the motion as it is now worded, and I bring that matter to the attention of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought that in drafting the resolution in these terms I should be meeting the convenience of the house. If, however, hon. members would prefer to have the house adjourn on Tuesday, April 16, and stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 23, I should be quite prepared to alter the motion accordingly.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The trouble is we have bought our railway tickets for the other dates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I really think it would be wiser to hold to the original motion. As a matter of fact it is a half day, but we can arrange the business of the house accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right 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 come into force in whole or in part on proclamation for the purpose of approving the financial agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom signed on March 6, 1946, and of granting authority, (a) to advance to the government of the United Kingdom before December 31, 1951, amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one thousand two hundred and fifty million dollars ('$1,250,000,000); (b) to continue until January 1, 1951, the interest-free provision of the loan to the government of the United Kingdom under The War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942; (e) to cancel the amount owing by the government of the United Kingdom to the government of Canada with respect to the British Commonwealth air training plan being the sum of four hundred and twenty-five million dollars ($425,000,000);	(d) to borrow' for the purpose of
paragraph (a) under -the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, sums not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifty million dollars ($1,250,000,000); and (e) to carry out the other provisions of the said agreement.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?
Mr. LaCROIX:	On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: With regard to the statement issued at Washington last evening that uranium and other material used in the production of atomic power, together with the scientific development of atomic energy, may be placed under international control and the manufacture of atomic bombs discontinued, I should like to ask if Canada gave prior consent to this statement being issued, which I think is a fairly satisfactory announcement if it means what it says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind
enough to send me notice of his question.

Interim Supply Bill

I understand the statement to which my hon. friend refers is a report which was presented to the Secretary of State of the United States, for his consideration, by an advisory committee on atomic energy. The proposals in this report, to judge from the summary which has appeared in the press, are of great interest and importance. So far as I am aware they have not been adopted, as the policy of the government of the United States, and the Canadian government wah not consulted by the committee which prepared the report. Until the full text of the report has been received and studied in Ottawa, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything more about the proposals contained in it.	*



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction concerning a matter which I believe still remains under his jurisdiction. Has a decision been reached with regard to the application made on January 28, 1946, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the transfer of radio station CHAB, Moose Jaw, to a crown company established by the province of Saskatchewan?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: The application referred to was duly received, and involves an important matter of government policy. It is now receiving the attention of the government, but no decision has been arrived at.


Major James William Coldwell: May we expect an early decision?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister considered the setting up of a senior advisory council for defence, similar to the one set up recently by the President of the United States?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: The minister will consider anything. However, I have not had notice of the question; I shall take the matter into consideration.
[Mr. Mackenzie King. I



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. At the last session he promised that before March 31 he would announce the rates of pay for members of the permanent force. Is he in a position to do that to-day?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for his question, and would say that a statement was issued to the press to-day. A special committee set up to inquire into rates of pay has completed its report. It has been under consideration by treasury board. It was found necessary to refer the matter back to the committee for clarification in certain respects, and it may be a few days before the report is available in its final form. I therefore can state, as I have in the press statement issued to-day, that it may not be possible for me to make that announcement before April 15. I should hope it might be sooner, but I have given myself just that little extra time.

Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Mr. ILSLEY moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $273,197,945.73, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1947, and $3,333,333.33 being an additional one-sixth of certain items of the said estimates, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1947.
He said: In this resolution' the government is asking for an amount equal to one-sixth of the estimates. It would be impossible of course for the estimates as a whole to be voted within two months. Meantime moneys will be required to meet obligations of the government, and it was thought reasonable to ask for two months' supply.
I am afraid that the seasonal character of some of these commitments makes it improbable that one-sixth will be sufficient for two

Interim Supply Bill
months. However, I have never asked for more than that, and I am not asking for more to-day.


Gordon Graydon: This is the usual resolution offered at this stage of the session. It provides for the financing of the government service for the period prior to the passing of the supply bill. If my memory serves me correctly, in previous sessions the amount granted to the government by way of interim supply has been an amount for two months, unless circumstances arose requiring a different procedure. In this case the official opposition is prepared to allow the government one-sixth of the total estimates for the fiscal year 1946-47.
I should like, however, to make the reservation which is always made by those in the opposition under similar circumstances; that is to require from the minister and from the government an undertaking in clear terms that by consenting to the passing of this interim supply we are in no way consenting to the general estimates being passed without criticism of government policy in cqnnection with the expenditures proposed. We should like to have a clear statement from the minister so that our position may be preserved and we may be assured that by making these grants we shall not be prevented from having a full and thorough and untramelled criticism of the estimates. -With that reservation, this party is prepared to accelerate and facilitate the business of the house by providing the funds necessary for the public sendee for this interim period.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have pleasure in giving the assurance that is given every year when interim supply is applied for. The voting of this interim supply does not prejudice the right that every member of the house has of opposing or criticizing any item in the estimates. It is not an admission that all the items of the estimates are justified or anything of the kind.


Mr. COLD WELL:: With that assurance we agree to it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: How soon does the minister expect to bring down the budget?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The date of the bringing down of the budget will be announced in due course. I am not in position to announce the date as yet. I should say with regard to the one-sixth that is being asked for that there are two items for which an additional one-sixth is being requested.


Gordon Graydon: A third is being
requested?
63260-25j}


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: What are the items?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is to provide, subject to
the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, $10,000,000. Then item 611 is to provide recoverable advances for working capital, et cetera, $10,000,000. It might be necessary to use more than one-sixth of those items in the early part of the year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the number of
the first item?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a Department of
Finance item which will be found on page 67 of the. estimates. It will be understood that we are moving from one system to another. The system prevailing for the present fiscal year was to have main estimates for non-war purposes, plus a large vote for war demobilization and reconversion purposes. That system was completely flexible. But we have taken, away all flexibility, with the exception of this item of $10,000,000. I am afraid that other contingencies we could not foresee will arise and it may be found that this item is too small. At any rate it is certainly small enough. This item is for only $10,000,000 and hon. members will remember that previously these items amounted to something like $3 billion and they could be applied to any purpose. This is the only item that could be applied to any purpose. The item reads:
To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses; for supplementing any of the appropriations in the demobilization and reconversion estimates; and for the temporary provision of recoverable advances for working capital purposes and for the re-advancing of any such advances repaid.
We cannot say that this item will be spent evenly over the next twelve months of the fiscal year. It may not be spent until the end, and it may be necessary to spend it nearly all at the beginning, but we must have a little more leeway than one-sixth.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister is
asking the house to go farther than the house is prepared to go. We are giving the government two months supply, or one-sixth. If at the end of that two months' period it is found that the $10,000,000 has been spent or that the proportion which we are now voting, that is one-sixth, has been spent, then the government can come back to the house and seek further interim supply, and parliament can decide whether or not the request should be granted.
Interim Supply Bill

It does seem to me that this is the thin end of the wedge. The government is asking for something that I have never seen in my ten years of parliament. I have never seen interim supply of one-third granted to any government. I suggest to the minister that he leave the matter as we originally agreed, which is the agreement normally made by the parties in the house to facilitate government business, that is, allow one-sixth of the estimates. I may point out to the minister that there has been a good deal of argument and a great deal of debate as to whether we should allow to the government even one-sixth, having fegard to the circumstances. I have argued on many occasions that even in war time perhaps only one-twelfth should be granted. We have been asked to agree to one-sixth, but in connection with one or two items the government seeks to increase that to a third. If it were a question of holding up the government on their expenditures it would be a different thing, but that is not involved. All it means is that it may be a little more inconvenient for the government, and that it provides perhaps another opportunity for the opposition to raise some questions on matters of public importance when these items are brought in again because the house is now in session.
The house will be in session for the next two months. If the government find that this appropriation is not enough to cover the exigencies of the circumstances, they can then come back and ask for more. I think on reflection the minister will not wish to change what has been a regularized -practice, the voting of one-sixth to cover all items. Personally I am not satisfied that we should go any further, because the next time-I am not suggesting that this is the sin of any government in particular-they may want more. When you give a government an inch, they want a mile. In this case we do not want to give them that inch.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Like the opposition.


Gordon Graydon: There are some oppositions that look like governments and I take that compliment as being well meant. I think on reflection the minister will understand that I am not attempting to place a stumbling block in his way. But I do not want to set a precedent which in the days to come we might have to overcome. The time to stop it is before it begins.


Thomas Miller Bell: I agree with what the acting leader of the opposition has said. Unless the Minister of Finance can advance some better reason than that which he has 
given, I do not think the vote should be increased. If the house were not sitting I could understand that we might be justified in doing what he suggests. The minister may have in his mind some very urgent reasons why we should do it, but unless he can give some reasons more urgent than the ones we have heard already I shall be in agreement with the acting leader of the opposition in saying that we should stick to the one-sixth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to spend too much time over this, f spoke to the leader of the opposition and told him that I would want more than one-sixth of two items, and I understood it would be all right. I made the mistake in not speaking to my hon. friend who has made such a powerful speech. I want to assure him that this is not something extraordinary. Nearly every year there are some items on which we ask for more than we are asking for generally. I have been held up several times just on that point. I have sought a twelfth or a sixth, as the case may be, and then there were certain supply items on which I would want more. It is all right, though. I may have to come back in a month's time-


Gordon Graydon: That will do you no harm.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Except that it will mean another afternoon and evening taken u<p.


Gordon Graydon: I think it is the proper thing to do,


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is to save time that I am asking for one-sixth instead of one-twelfth. As I said before, we have two $10,000,000 items here that are elastic. Last year the whole three billion dollars was elastic. But now we are moving from one system to another, which the house wanted us to do, and it would make it safer if we could have a little more than one-sixth of these two items to work on. It wo-uld obviate the necessity of coming back earlier than we otherwise would have to do. But it is just as the committee says.


Gordon Graydon: It would perhaps remove the minister's difficulties and ours if these two particular items were taken up early in c<^n-mittee of supply and adopted after due debate. This would obviate the necessity of asking for interim supply again so far as these particular items are concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: You would have to have a bill based on those two items.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am particularly interested in the second item No. 611.

Interim Supply Bill
May I point out that its purpose is to provide recoverable advances for working capital purposes. There are several enterprises that would be without sufficient working capital if we do not provide these recoverable advances. I suppose we could go to the chartered banks and make arrangements, but certainly we cannot operate without working capital.


Gordon Graydon: But you could come back to the "house and get it.
'Mr. HOWE: Working capital is something that we need right away.


Gordon Graydon: If that is so, these estimates have been wrongly compiled. Here are two ministers who say that they expect to use all this money now. Surely this is a twelvemonths year, and surely the minister has some idea of what he requires. If he is asking for only one-third of this particular item, how does he know that that will be enough? There is no guarantee in connection with it that I can see. If he wants to come back in two or three months' time and submits that he has used the money, parliament will grant him more, but I do not think we should give him a blank cheque.


Major James William Coldwell: I take it that this is a case of using money in a revolving fund, and if that is so tlie minister has put an entirely different complexion upon the item. If what the Minister of Reconstruction says is correct and I believe it is, I think the Minister of Finance is making a mistake in asking for only one-third. I think we should deal with these two particular items on an entirely different basis from the ordinary estimates, and, instead of authorizing only a relatively small proportion, vote the whole ten million dollars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The other item, No. 505, also provides, for recoverable advances, but it is not limited to that. It provides also for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses. We think it reasonable to ask for a little more latitude on these two items because we are moving from one system to another and we do not want these arguments too often. I do not think the house wants to see us back within two months asking for interim supply. I doubt if this will last for two months. We would have asked for more of these recoverable advances if we had dared, but we are asking for only one-third, which will give us more latitude than one-sixth. No precedent is being set here. Let me make myself clear. Very often parliament is asked to grant one-twelfth or one-sixth, and sometimes a greater proportion is asked because of the seasonal character of the demands under certain items.
Money may have to be spent early in the summer for some purpose, and so you pick out two or three items and in that way get quite a proportion of your expenditure by way of interim supply. But here we are asking for one-sixth of everything except of these two items, where we want more leeway.


Major James William Coldwell: The second item, No. 611, is of an entirely different nature from the other item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not an expenditure because the money is to be returned.


Major James William Coldwell: No, it is not an expenditure.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would one of the ministers explain the recoverable advances a little further? Am I to understand that the money so recovered passes into consolidated revenue and consequently is tied up and cannot be used1 for further expenditures? Is that the difficulty?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is that we require working capital. We have several businesses operated by crown companies-Polymer Corporation, for instance - which require working capital, temporary funds perhaps for inventory and purposes of the kind. This working capital is being advanced in the form of recoverable advances.
Previously the advances were made from the war appropriation. We have advanced at different times between two and three hundred million dollars, which has all been recovered except for a comparatively small sum. These items are not expenditures. They are simply accountable advances. Without them it would be necessary to operate through the banks.


Mr. FRASER:: The Minister of Finance said that it was not setting a precedent to ask for special items to go through, but I do not think that we have done it in the last five or six years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We will send out and get the books. We have done it within the last two or three years; we have done it nearly every year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not remember any such item going through last year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Gordon Graydon: I agree with the Minister of Finance on one point, that perhaps there is no necessity of having a lengthy debate over this matter, and I simply want to state
Interim Supply Bill

that the official opposition is not prepared to give consent to granting more than what We originally agreed to do, which I understand was one-sixth of the estimates; then if the government wants to come back for more we shall receive them with respect and with such leniency as the situation warrants. We are not holding anything up. We are just making our position clear, and I do not think anybody could ask us to do less than that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have to accept that, of course. It will mean that I shall have to come back earlier than I otherwise would, but I cannot help it. I ask that the resolution be amended accordingly, by striking out the words "and $3,333,333.33, being an additional one-sixth of certain items of the said estimates".


Thomas Miller Bell: What we are interested in is a thorough discussion of the expenditures which the government makes. The two items are not on the same footing. The first, No. 505, is an expenditure, and I agree with the leader of the opposition that we might limit that to one-sixth. The government is engaged in very important business operations. The minister mentioned the Polymer plant, and that organization and others like it come to this house and ask for what is in effect working capital, a revolving fund. It seems to me that this second item, which is not an expenditure if it is recoverable capital, is on a different footing, and we may be in effect making it very difficult for the minister to reconvert in some instances and carry on the important business operations involved in some of the institutions under his direction. I think the resolution might distinguish between the two, and we might treat each separately, dealing with 505, and then considering the other, 611, on an entirely different basis. I should be prepared to do that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thank my hon. friend, but 505 also provides for recoverable advances. It foes further, I will admit, and provides for expenditures and recoverable advances. But they should both be treated in the same way. However, I am in the hands of the hon. member for Peel in this matter.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad you are in my hands. We had better pass it with the amendment.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The resolution will now read:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $273,197,945.73, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal, year ending 31st March, 1947, laid before the House of Commons
	-
at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1947.


Mr. MacINNIS:: By how much is the
amount asked for reduced by the amendment that has been made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: By $3,333,333.33.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not get an answer to my question. We are voting money now for carrying on the business of Canada and every business man in the country has a real interest in knowing just how soon the budget is coming down and what it will mean when it does come down. I should like to have an answer to my question as to how soon it is coming down and what it will be all about. Will it be next September or December?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will announce the date of the budget as soon as I am able to do so, and I shall have to leave the announcement of its contents until the day I bring it down.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: There is precedent
for that.	.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear what is going on. This conversational tone between the minister and members directly opposite him is ail very well, but we do not know what is taking place. We are not clairvoyant, the minister is not clairvoyant, and we do not know what he is talking about.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways, and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, the sum of $273,197,945.73 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 11, for grant-

Supply-Agriculture
ing to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1947.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On the preamble:
Gordon Graydon: It would be helpful if
we had the bill.


William Henry Golding: Shall the preamble carry?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Where is the bill?


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
On section 1-Short title.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I object to the title passing until we know what is in the bill..


William Henry Golding: This act may be cited as the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1946.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the section that has been deleted. Renumber section 4; make it section 3.
New section 3 and section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.


Angus MacInnis: Before the bill is read a third time I should like to say a -word in connection with it. We have passed a bill giving the government authority to expend a certain sum of money. We had some debate on whether or not we would allow the government to have that privilege. I doubt whether there is a member in this chamber who knows exactly what is in the bill just passed-I am certain that I do not. I doubt whether there is anyone who knows anything about it except the Clerk. He directed the chairman and the chairman read the sections in a tone of voice that could not be heard more than a few seats from where he was sitting. We should be more businesslike in putting these bills through the house if we are going to put as much emphasis on what we are to give the government authority to do as was indicated when the resolution was before us. As a matter of
fact anything could have gone into the bill and I doubt whether any lion, member would have been any the wiser.	*
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Thomas John Bentley: On division; I do not
know what it is all about.


James Horace King: On division.

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


[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
6J/8. Departmental administration 

 further amount required, $14,795.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister tell
us what, this is all about?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have a word to say. I did not get an answer as to when the budget was to be brought down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Hon. members may laugh, but there are a lot of business men in this country who are not laughing. They want to know what is going on. What I want to know is when the budget is coming down. The business men of Canada want to know what they are going to have to provide for. Has the government any idea of what it is going to do, or is it still wandering along in the same foggy nebulous atmosphere? We want to know what is going to happen. Are 'we to have the budget early or not? How can business men carry on if they do not know what is to happen? How can you go on with your work if you are uncertain about what is to happen in the future? Unless a business man knows what is coming in regard to taxes, how is he to continue to carry on? We gave money to the government a little while ago; we are going to give it some more in a few months. As representatives of the people, before we vote this money we want to be assured that our rights will not be taken away from us so far as taxation is concerned.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: The Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat. I have a question to ask about an item which I understood was to be in the supplementary estimates. It has to do with a grant to the Canadian Seed Growers Association. I have had some correspondence with farmers in my riding who were
Supply

Agriculture

under the impression that an item of $6,100 was to be brought down in the supplementary estimates last fall, but for some reason or other it was overlooked. It was thought it would be included in the supplementary estimates before the end of the year. I have a letter which indicates that the association is entirely dependent on a grant from the dominion government. In 1928 the grant was $13,000. The number of varieties serviced was thirty-three. In 1932 the grant was raised to $18,900 and serviced 79 varieties and 1,400 individuals. On the same grant the management is endeavouring to furnish service to 295 varieties grown by 3,102 individuals.
Here the department is voting some additional money; in the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1947, I understand there is a new item of $5,000 for the Canadian Hunter, Saddle and Light Horse Improvement Society. I have no special quarrel with those who are interested in saddle and hunting horse development, but it would appear to me that money expended in promoting the work of th'e seed growers throughout the country would be much more usefully spent. I bonder if whoever is acting for the Minister of Agriculture can give some information as to whether this amount of $6,100 might be provided for the association next year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Agriculture is not here, but that increased grant is not provided for in the present fiscal year. It is, however, provided for in the coming year; that is, there is an additional $6,100 in the main estimates for the coming year, as I think the hon. gentleman will find if he looks at those estimates. This now is up to a fairly substantial amount. There was an application during the present fiscal year for that grant, which was denied last fall and again when these supplementary estimates were being prepared.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The item will be included for the coming year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How about making some provision for the expenses .they have incurred in the past on the understanding that these funds would be made available?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not provided for, and they could not have had any firm understanding. Perhaps they had an understanding from the Department of Agriculture that it would be recommended, but many grants are recommended that never find their way into these estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
	-
Marketing service-
650. Subsidies for cold .storage warehouses, under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates'-further amount required, $31,846.31.
Grote Stirling: Would the Minister of Finance explain the difference between a subsidy and a grant under the Cold Storage Act? We are accustomed to see the grants every year, but I do not understand what a subsidy is under that act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Subsidies are provided for, and I think under the name of subsidies, in the Cold Storage Act. The part of this item which relates to subsidies relates to those statutory subsidies paid under the act. There are cases which cannot quite qualify under the terms of the act, and frequently in those cases grants are made by specific items in the estimates. It is for that reason that the two [DOT]terms are used, subsidies and- grants. I may say that grants are never paid except on the same scale as the subsidies; there is the most complete uniformity of treatment of enterprises, whether they get grants or subsidies. In some cases they get subsidies and in other cases they get grants.


Grote Stirling: Year after year in these estimates, and the explanations which are given, we see a list such as we have here; and they are under the head of grants. Under the Cold Storage Act, if my memory serves me right, fifteen per cent is paid the first year and other proportions in subsequent years. Year after year they come under the head of grants.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Grote Stirling: If that is the normal way in which these amounts are paid, then in my opinion a subsidy must be something quite different. It looks as if it went back to the earlier days, when subsidies were paid.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. If my hon. friend followed me I think he will find that I stated the case with complete accuracy. If he will look at page 6 of the details of the supplementary estimates he will find, under the heading "Marketing Service":
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act and grants.
Subsidies
Owen Sound Cold Storage Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, $5,363.37.
That is a subsidy.


Grote Stirling: But the grants are ones that appear year after year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But there are subsidies which are payable under the act, and grants; and it is the grants, as I have always understood the

matter, which are frequently paid when the enterprise cannot qualify under the Cold Storage Act. Perhaps it was started before the plans were approved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mai'keting Service-
C51. Fruit, vegetable and maple products and honey-further amount required, $50,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not rising to oppose this item, which is fairly substantial, but can the minister give the house any idea why such an amount was required for temporary services?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The item for temporary
assistance amounts to $35,000. The explanation for that item is as follows. A carry-over of $6,837.51 of 1944-45 salaries paid out of the 1946-47 appropriation; unusually heavy shipments of potatoes from the maritimes and Quebec from April to June, 1945, necessitating the retention of inspectors in this area for longer than usual periods; pear psylla investigations -in British Columbia; the establishment of a maturity inspection service on all fniits entering British Columbia shipping warehouses, and the return of a number of inspectors from military service, all resulted in the amount provided for temporary salaries proving insufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
652. Passport office-administration-further amount required, $10,000.
Mr. FULTON:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with this item. I recall that I asked him a question , last session, when I first came down, and it is still unanswered. I hope the right hon. gentleman may find this one a little less controversial. It has to do with the granting of permits for travel to the United Kingdom. I think all hon. members are in receipt of numerous inquiries from people as to why they cannot be allowed to go there. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether there is any possibility of relaxation shortly in the restrictions on travel to the United Kingdom, or what is the present position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend doubtless knows, the question is largely one of transportation and of priorities in regard to certain classes that are necessarily given first consideration. From day to day the restrictions are being somewhat relaxed, but it has not been possible to remove them all thus far.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the item carries I do not think it is out of place to say a word 63260-26
Supply-External Affairs
by way of compliment to the passport office for the way it carried on during very trying times in the last few years. I doubt if any other office in the public service was so crushed with overwork as was the passport office. I had a great many contacts with that office, and always experienced the utmost civility. While sometimes I may have thought they were a little slow, when I would go down and see the enormous amount of work they had to do I knew I was being impatient in making an effort to rush them. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on the way this particular branch of his department carried on during very trying times.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that during past years the salaries paid to those employed in the passport office have been about as poor as those in any department of the government, if not poorer. Employees in the passport office are trained until they become efficient, and when they reach that stage they find jobs in some other departments, and obtain transfers. These changes of personnel in the passport office have made matters extremely difficult for those in charge. Is there any possibility of offering them some incentive to stay in the passport office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have been times when the passport office has been heavily pressed, and also times when other branches of the government service have been even more pressed to obtain the necessary assistance to carry on the work during the war. There was a time when matters eased up to some extent, so far as passports were concerned, with the result that some transfers were made from the passport office to other branches of the public service.
I agree with my hon. friend that salaries which have been paid for certain classes of work in the public service, and particularly in the passport office, have not been-well, to say the least, anything out of the way. However, the whole question of salaries is one that will have to be gone into more completely than has thus far been possible. This is being done at the present time by the government. It is related to the whole matter of the regulation of wages, during the period of the war, and in the present transition period. I believe the reason some salaries have not been changed lies in the relationship between salaries in the civil service and salaries in industry. However, the whole matter will come up for further review, now that the period of the war is over.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just one further point about the passport office. It certainly is a dismal looking place. One goes up those back stairs

Supply-External Affairs



I have been up and down many times. I have always received good service, but I realize that they are working under difficulties. Some change should be made, so far as their office space is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad the hon. member has raised this point. I wish the passport office were the only dismal place in the service. As hon. members know, practically all departments of government are overcrowded, and lacking adequate space. However, we hope that when we ask for some additional sums to construct necessary public buildings we may have the support of hon. members opposite.
Mr. BLAiCKMORE: I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Peterborough West in what he has said respecting the passport office. They have functioned well during these years, and deserve the commendation of hon. members.


Major James William Coldwell: What progress has been made in connection with the exchange of views regarding passage across the border between our two countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A committee of our officials has been meeting with officials of the United States. I cannot say, however, just what the present status of their negotiations is.


Major James William Coldwell: But the negotiations are proceeding, are they?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, they are.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Women proceeding to Great Britain have to have exit permits, on which they must state that they are going to reside in Great Britain either permanently, or for at least one or two years. However, in the event of something happening in Canada before the expiration of that time, those persons have to apply in Great Britain to the high commissioner for transportation back to Canada. On such occasions they are treated not as Canadians, but rather as immigrants, and must take their chances on the quota. What is the present situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Regulations
respecting admission to Great Britain are made by the British government, not by this government, but we require at present an exit permit before women are permitted to leave Canada. Persons coming to Canada fall under the general regulations. I am unable to say whether or not persons such as those described by the horn, member are covered by them. I should not think, however, that there have been any special requirements, other than, those having general application.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A Canadian woman may visit Great Britain to see relatives she may not have seen for ten years. While there, however, a close relative may die here in Canada, requiring her return. She has to apply for permission to come back to Canada, but upon her return is not treated as a Canadian. She is treated as an immigrant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand What the immigration regulations are. The minister might help on that point, but I shall try to secure the information for the hon. member.


Mr. REID:: I believe the passport office is the only important office in Ottawa in which the chief has not a telephone of his own.
' When one telephones the chief of the passport division he must wait for some time until that official is hunted down and brought to the telephone. I should hope that the chief of a branch as important as the passport branch should at least have a telephone of his own.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs-
654. To provide for expenses of the Canadian delegation to Bermuda for discussions with delegates from the United Kingdom and Newfoundland on civil aviation, $1,500.
Mr. JACKMAN:: Why is this item not
included in the supplementary estimates for the Department of Transport, or some department other than External Affairs? It seems to me it might more properly belong at some other point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is an
amount spent in connection with a delegation visiting another part of the world. The Department of External Affairs has had general supervision, over all delegations which have been travelling. I should think this would be the most appropriate place to have the item.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Will it be the policy of the government to charge to the Department of External Affairs the cost of all delegations visiting international conferences? It seems to me that this is a most exceptional circumstance, and that the estimate should be included among those of the Department of Transport Is it to be the policy of the government that all moneys spent abroad for the attendance of members of this government, or of its appointees, at international conferences, shall be charged to the Department of External Affairs?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe each case will have to be considered on its merits

Supply-External Affairs
or attendant circumstances. In some cases, expenses will be charged to a particular department of government, and in other cases it might be more appropriate to charge them against the Department of External Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's contributions to the maintenance of external organizations-
656. Contribution towards the operational expenses of the intergovernmental committee on refugees for the year 1945-further amount required, $215,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I rise to support the
item, because I believe the work of the organization is excellent. This is the first opportunity at this session I have had to speak about refugees, and on this occasion I shall be brief.
A few days ago a gentleman got in touch with me about his brother who is in Sweden. That brother is the last living relative of the family in Europe; all the rest are dead. Other members of the family are in Canada. I might point out that the person about whom I am speaking is of Jewish origin and, as the committee knows, no race in the world>'s history has endured the calamity endured by the Jewish race during the war. Is there to be any loosening of the regulations so that that brother, or others in similar positions-and undoubtedly there are numbers of them-may reunite with his family?
I have another case of a girl who is now in Munich who happens to be the only living relative of another family I have in mind. I was wondering if we could not open up our hearts as Christians should and allow that girl, and others like her, to come here to join her family. I know of many of these people, and I am sure all hon. members have similar knowledge. I have a great deal of sympathy for them in view of what they have gone through and what those here with single relatives still living in Europe are suffering in mind.
Yesterday I had lunch with a doctor and he told me he was going to inspect a Jewish hospital. He was loud in his praise of what the Jews in Canada have done for medicine. If these last living refugee relatives in Europe of families in Canada are permitted to come in they may bring something with them to help to build up this country. They will bring intelligence and ability and all those things that go to make a nation. Could the Prime Minister tell us if there will be any loosening up of the regulations?


Major James William Coldwell: Could not the government consider adopting the policy which was 63260-26J
recently adopted by Great Britain? Displaced persons or refugees who are relatives of persons living in Great Britain are permitted to enter upon request being made and certain assurances being given by those persons in Great Britain. It seems to me that if the British people with their many problems can open their hearts in this way, a country like Canada with its sparse population can give refuge at least to persons in the situation just referred to by the hon. member for Davenport.
I also have knowledge of cases of this description. From time to time I have brought them to the attention of the department of immigration, and I must say that the officers of the department have always given the most courteous consideration to those cases. However, it is difficult to get a decision favourable in all respects even though many representations have been made over a considerable length of time. Yesterday the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) brought a phase of this matter to the attention of the house, that having to do with refugee children. I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but we are most anxious to see our country give refuge to those who have suffered, regardless of race or religion, particularly when they are relatives of persons in Canada who can offer them a home and a new beginning in life.


Gordon Graydon: I rose originally to make an observation in connection with the inter- ' governmental committee on refugees. The present refugees commission was the subject of a great deal of controversy a.t the united nations preparatory commission and again at the general assembly. At that time discussion was had as to the advisability of setting up such a commission for the purpose of taking over the work of the old league of nations, and that would seem to be envisaged by this item having to do with the intergovernmental committee on refugees.
Perhaps the Prime Minister may desire to get further information in connection with the question I intend to ask, but I should like to know if he has any knowledge as to whether or not this is the last grant that will be made to this committee and if from now on this work will be covered by our contribution to the united nations organization. There must be some time when the work of the intergovernmental committee will cease and the work of the new refugees commission will commence under the economic and social council of the united nations. As I said a moment ago, the Prime Minister may want to reinforce his information from departmental sources, but it would be interesting to know just when the one ends and the other starts.
Supply-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's Contribution to the maintenance of external organizations-
C57. Contribution to the united nations organization working capital fund to provide working capital for the operations of the organization pending assessment and collection of regular contributions, $1,205, 102.50.

Supply-External Affairs
Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is just to meet the
requirements pending assessment? It will come off our regular contribution later?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The item makes it clear. It is a contribution to the united nations organization working capital fund to provide working capital for the operations of the organization pending assessment and collection of regular contributions. Once the regular contributions are agreed upon, this item of course will be dropped.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It will be taken off?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Can the Prime Minister inform the committee what is the likely amount which Canada will be obliged to contribute next year, for instance, toward the finances of the united nations organization?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That also is
a question that I expected might be asked and I have the information.
Under the working capital fund arrangement adopted at the first session of UNO Canada's contribution (advance) will be 4-362 per cent of the $25,000,000 (U.S.) total or $1,090,500 (U.S.)
Basis of allocation.-The basis of allocation of contributions to the working capital fund is the average between the scales for the first and second financial years of the food and agricultural organization. This basis was adopted as a pure matter of convenience, and is well and thoroughly understood to constitute no precedent for the regular UNO allocation of expenses amongst members. The latter will be determined by the general assembly of UNO at the session in September following report of a ten-member committee on contributions. The factors to be taken into account with reference to the regular allocation will include national income and per capita income.
Working capital fund.-The working capital fund was fixed at $25,000,000 (U.S.), notwithstanding that the provisional budget was eventually cut to $21,500,000 (U.S.). The purpose of the working capital fund at this stage is to finance the expenditures included in the provisional budget, that is, expenses of the preparatory commission and of the first meeting of the assembly up to January 31, 1946, and expenses of the united nations organization for the year 1946. These were estimated at $21,500,000 under the provisional budget, which will be superseded at the next session of the assembly in September by the first regular annual budget, which may be
more or less than the provisional figure of $21,500,000. The excess of the working capital fund total over the provisional estimate figure was considered desirable to allow for possible delays * in working capital fund advances on the part of some members. While, as noted hereunder, 1946 contributions will also be called in 1946 following approval of the 1946 regular budget in September, the amount of these contributions which will be received before the end of the calendar year is problematical.
Advances to the working capital fund are just that-advances, and will stand as credits to the respective members. Presentation of regular estimates to the next session will be followed by calls for contributions to finance the 1946 appropriations. Under the resolutions adopted the assembly will decide at the September session the amount at which the working capital fund will be established on a permanent basis. However, the only adjustments contemplated against 1946 contributions to the regular budget are those involved in readjustment of working capital fund advances into line with the regular scale of contributions adopted at that time. Estimates for 1947 will be approved at the same session (September 1946) and contributions will be assessed in accordance with the regular scale, payable, however, only after January 1, 1947. Any reduction of the level of the permanent working capital fund might operate at that stage as a set-off against 1947 contributions.
Capital expenditures.-It might be that if a capital construction programme involving purchase of lands and construction of buildings is inaugurated in late 1946 or in 1947, any major adjustments in working capital fund advances would operate against assessments for capital expenditure, and would not effect any appreciable reduction in contributions for current account expenditures. According to very tentative estimates such capital expenditures for land and buildings might reach some $40,000,000 over a three-year period. The actual plans are very undecided at the moment. Consideration was given at one stage to financing the capital items by a loan from one of the international financial agencies, the plan being that properties in the prospective 45-acre site would remain with former owners or others on a rental basis until required to assist with amortization of the loan.
On the credit side Canada will qualify for substantial book credit on the UNO books consequent upon transfer of the league's
Supply-Finance

material assets to UNO slated for August 1, 1946. It must be appreciated, however, that the amount of transferable or usable credit involved in this transaction will be limited to something less than the book credit. In the first place book credits will be established in respect not only of a few but of several of the UNO members, (i.e. internal adjustments between UNO members will be limited) and the credits will be covered off not by cash available for expenditure but by material assets assessable against all members, including Canada.


Mr. BROOKS:: Do we pay the expenses of our own delegates to meetings of united nations organization, or are' they paid out of the general fund raised by assessing each member nation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For expenses in general, the situation varies. I know of some cases where representatives of Canada have gone to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom has not only requested but insisted that she should meet the expenses of the delegates. On the other hand the expenses of our delegates to the united nations organization have been met by the government of Canada.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Does that mean that in addition to this contribution for which Canada will be assessed, we also pay the cost of sending our delegates to the united nations meetings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, we will pay the cost of sending our own delegation.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the Prime Minister give us some idea of what that would be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could not, at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
658. Bank inspection (inspector general of banks' office)-further amount required, $75,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister explain this item?	[DOT]


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is to pay the cost of the increased work in examining the records of banks and keeping closely in touch with the banks.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This amount of $75,000 is quite a jump from last year's estimate of $27,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, a lot of special work is being done in connection with examining the books and records of the banks.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that on account of the banks having to pass on to you information re interest? Has that any anything to do with it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not with regard to interest. A new inspector general of banks was appointed within the last year, and it was found that the banks were keeping their books in different ways, that' their practices were not uniform, so that the new inspector general instituted a thorough examination of the books and records of the banks mainly for the purpose of getting their accounting practices uniform so that we could compare the information we get about one bank with the information we get about another.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This $75,000 will be the same next year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I doubt it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will it be reduced?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not anticipate that this particular work will have to go on very long. As a matter of fact, a good deal of the work is being done by what are known as shareholders auditors who are reporting to the inspector general and working under his direction. That is not necessarily permanent and I do not think it will be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
660. To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office-further -amount required, $190,000.
Mr. PROBE:: Does the auditor general's department come under the comptroller of the treasury's office?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The auditor general
does not. He is an officer of parliament, appointed by parliament, and reports to parliament through the Minister of Finance, but he is not an officer of the, Department of Finance.


Gordon Graydon: It is pretty nearly the same thing. What is the difference between the government appointing him and parliament appointing him?


John Oliver Probe: Does the comptroller of the treasury exercise any control over cheques issued by the government of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Oliver Probe: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: The comptroller of the
treasury is responsible to the Minister of Finance. He is an officer of the Department of Finanoe. and he does not report to the auditor general. The auditor general exercises an independent position by virtue of the fact that he is an officer of parliament, and he reviews such practices and operations of the comptroller of the treasury as he wishes to do.


John Oliver Probe: In the auditor general's
report, at the end of the public accounts for the year 1945, I see quite a number of items that are queried. Does the comptroller of the treasury take steps to recover improper payments or anything of the sort when they are drawn to his attention,?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what my
hon. friend means by improper payments. If payments are legally recoverable, of course we would. I do not know whether it is the comptroller of the treasury or myself, but somebody goes right after them at once. I think the criticisms of the auditor general are criticisms, not of illegal expenditures-I do not think there are any illegal expenditures- but rather of the advisability of expenditures.


John Oliver Probe: It might have been better to say inadvisable or unauthorized expenditures.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What the auditor general
states in his report is naturally of much concern to the government. We do not want [DOT]to be criticized by the auditor general more than we can help, but sometimes the opinion of the auditor general differs from that of the government as to what is advisable.


John Oliver Probe: Does the minister as Minister of Finance, when a financial matter is called to "his attention, follow it through and get the action that is suggested? I wish to call attention particularly to an expenditure which has been given some publicity in the press and which appears on page 41 of the auditor general's report, section 157. I quote:
Mr. Justice G. B. O'Connor of Edmonton is chairman of the Wartime Labour Relations Board, and Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald of Halifax is chairman of the National War Labour Board. Ottawa is headquarters of the boards. Order in Council P.C. 80/5000 of June 29, 1944, accepts the following submission by the Minister of Labour:
The undersigned has the honour to refer to orders in council P.C. 1895 and 1896 of March 16, 1944, appointing Mr. Justice G. B. O-'Connor, Chairman of the Wartime Labour Relations Board and to P.C. 1986 and 1987 appointing Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald, Chairman of the National War Labour Board;
And to report that while authority has been granted to pay the travelling and living expenses of the chairmen above referred to
while absent from their places of residence, the undersigned arranged with Messrs. Justice O'Connor and Archibald that Mrs. O'Connor and Mrs. Archibald's necessary living and travelling expenses while absent from their places of residence, while accompanying their husbands in the discharge of their duties, would be paid by the department;
The undersigned, therefore, begs to recommend that authority be granted to pay the necessary living and travelling expenses of Mrs. O'Connor and Mrs. Archibald while away from their homes accompanying their husbands while they are discharging their duties as chairmen of the boards to which they have been appointed.
The order in council is silent as to the authority relied on for the making. Attention is drawn to the provision for payment of expenses of Mesdames O'Connor anil Archibald, as it is an exception from practice. In the fiscal year $8,658.33 was paid to Judge O'Connor and $6,150.01 to Judge Archibald by way o.f travelling and living expenses. These sums include claims paid with respect to travel and living expenses of Mrs. O'Connor and Mrs. Archibald when travelling from home to Ottawa, at Ottawa, and when travelling with their husbands to various points in Canada.
The point I wish to make is this. Does the comptroller of the treasury investigate any criticisms such as the one made here?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The comptroller of the treasury could not do anything in these cases except to comply with the order in council or the treasury board minute authorizing payment of these judges on that basis. The comptroller of the treasury would simply look at the order in council or the treasury minute and follow that. The criticism of the auditor general is not a criticism of the comptroller of the treasury but of the government in that case for making that arrangement for these two judges. I remember the expenditure well, and I recall the sequence of events. One of the departments of government made that arrangement with one of these judges. They had to make that arrangement in order to get him to come. As the auditor general says, it is out of line with the general practice, but, after all, there was authority to pay the judges-


John Oliver Probe: I am not querying the payment of the judges.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, but there was authority to pay them. Ordinarily, in time of peace, there is no authority to pay judges, but there was under the War Measures Act such authority to pay them for doing special war services. It did not seem to make very much difference whether a judge was paid 50 per cent more per diem for himself-or thereabouts-or whether his wife's expenses were paid. That arrangement was made in one case, and in another it was exactly similar. At a certain stage the treasury board made up its
Supply-Finance

mind that this type of remuneration should not be extended but should be cut out, and therefore when other cases started to come before us, where a similar arrangement was recommended by a department, we sent them back and said, "Either pay them more per day or do something, but do not pay the wife's expenses," There are two or three judges-I do not know whether it is confined to these, but there are two or three in exactly comparable circumstances, who were paid on that basis. There have been many other judges in respect of whom a similar matter came up when the treasury board decided not to extend the practice. We did many exceptional things under stress of circumstances in time of war. Sometimes one tries desperately to get some man to take hold of something or another the next day and he attaches importance to some peculiar arrangement like that. After all, it does not make much difference financially which method is followed. I agree with the auditor general that it is an unusual practice and one which should not be extended.


Angus MacInnis: It is amazing that a person in Judge Archibald's position, who every day turned down requests for increased wages by people who were barely getting enough on which to exist, insisting on his own travelling expenses; that he would not undertake a position of this kind when the nation needed a person to do this work, unless he received 'his expenses. I am not at all convinced that Judge Archibald was just the man to do it. As a matter of fact, the consensus of the two large labour bodies is that if the national war labour board is to continue with Judge Archibald as chairman it might as well be abolished. Every day he turned down requests for increased wages, and yet he made it a condition of his serving the government that his wife should receive her expenses while she was here, and that he should receive his. It is an astounding state of affairs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know Judge Archibald well; I have high respect for the quality of the sendee that he has rendered. I am not now talking about his decisions as head of the national war labour board, although I have no criticism of the decisions of Judge Archibald. During the war he put in a great deal of hard work and I certainly do not think that he has been overpaid in any particular.


Angus MacInnis: Neither were the workers whose requests for increased wages he turned down.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Here again I do not think the hon. member's criticism should be di-

rected to Mr. Justice Archibald or to the national war labour board. If it is valid criticism it should be directed to the persons who are responsible for framing the order, namely, the government. The national war labour board had to carry out the order. I do not want to take all the burdens and attract all the blame, but I not not think it is just to attack boards and officials who are administering orders in council. If there is anything wrong it is in the order in council itself. We think the orders in council were all right. We thought they were necessary as part of our anti-inflation policy. The national war labour board tried its best to carry out these orders according to the letter, spirit and intent. At any. rate I do not'think it shoud be criticized for what is in the orders in council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Department of Fisheries-
661. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and 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-further amount required, $100,361.34.
Mr. McLURE:: Year after year this committee goes on voting money and I do not believe one-half of the members in the committee know what it is for. This is money voted to a partnership which is doing business, and have possibilities of doing a large business. running anywhere from $6,000,000 to $25,000,000 annually. Canada is a one-fifth partner in this two-partner business. Can the minister tell us what Canada's net profit was in last year's business? There must be a record. If there is no net profit, why should we continue voting hundreds of thousands of dollars annually without knowing whether this business is on a paying basis. The item says that this amount is to provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins. Should we not have a breakdown of these different items? To whom are they paid? Are they all paid direct to the company or to the different companies that do the manufacturing and disposing of the skins? We were practically promised the information during last session. I should like to hear from the minister in regard to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have a small amount of information with reference to this item. Its purpose is to provide for a book-keeping entry. It bad been the practice where fur seal skins were processed and dyed and then

Supply-Fisheries
sold in the United States, for the department to receive the net proceeds with a statement showing the gross proceeds and expenses.
The treasury officers have ruled that the expenditures should really be shown as such in the record. The amount shown herein covers expenses on skins sold in the United States in 1944 and 1945. The gross revenue was $242,537.53 or a net gain to Canada of $142,176.19.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I take it the minister has given us a full report for 1945. On how many skins was that based? I understand that the take-off was very large last year and that this year it will be much larger, because a larger amount is being asked for, for this business. Ou.t of a business of over $7 or $8 million worth of raw material taken from the ocean it is strange that there should1 be a profit of only $142,000 to the one-fifth partner. There is Something radically wrong with that amount of net profit. If the minister had given $1,142,000 as the net profit I should say he would be nearer to being correct. In the interest of Canada I think this is one item that should be revenue producing. I believe that we should look into it more carefully. We sit here in the committee and pass items for hundreds of thousands of dollars and we do not know whether it is of benefit to us; yet it is the taxpayers' money that we are voting away. I shall not be satisfied until I see a break-down of items similar to this one, and this one in particular, showing whether the business is properly conducted by the authorities who are handling it and that we as the one-fifth partner in it are getting our rightful share of the profits.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall take careful
account of the hon. member's remarks and convey them to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, who is unavoidably absent to-day. I shall see that the information the hon. member has asked for is obtained as soon as possible.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: May the item be allowed
to stand?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; this is a further supplementary estimate. If items are to be allowed to stand we might as well let them all stand, because the whole purpose of going ahead now is to pass them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Continue with the remainder.


Mr. PEARKES:: This item refers to skins of the fur seals which are slaughtered on the islands of the Bering sea. Are they transported by Canadian or United States boats? Is all the processing done in the United States?
Is it not -possible for us to transport our share of the skins from the islands in Canadian *boats? Could not the processing be done in part in Canada instead of its all being done in Chicago?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As my hon. friend indicated, for many years an arrangement existed with the United States government whereby the Qanadian share of fur seal skins accruing to Canada -under treaty provisions, from the -take at the Pribilof islands, was processed and marketed with the United States government skins. Consequently, instead of receiving fifteen per cent of skins in kind, the Canadian government received the equivalent of fifteen per cent of the net proceeds.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Twenty per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fifteen per cent; this information comes from an official of the department. Under this arrangement no appropriation was necessary for expenses of processing, marketing and so on, of the skins, because all such expenses were taken care of by the United States government prior to division of the net proceeds.
Since 1933 Canada has been taking the annual share of skins in kind, and they have, with the exception of some skins during recent war years, all been sent to London for processing. Appropriations have been made available annually to provide processing and marketing costs. For 1945-46 the appropriation is $300,000.
As above indicated, arrangements were made during several of the war years for part of the Canadian share of skins to. be processed and marketed along with United States government skins and that Canada should receive the net proceeds. The treasury officer has ruled, notwithstanding that all expenses were handled by the United States government and that no accounts therefor have been received, there should be cognizance of them when the net proceeds come to hand. Expenses covering sales made in 1944 and 1945 amount to $100,361.34. The appropriation for the present year will be fully expended on current year accounts. The gross revenue for the sales of seal skins covered by the request herein was $242,537.53. During the present fiscal year to date, the gross revenue is $626,987.30.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was that $242,000 to Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, gross revenue; less expenses giving a net profit of $142,176.19.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to have this item stand over in order to get a little more information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Supply-Legisla tion


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We ought to know what our one-fifth share of the raw material amounts to; that is, the number of skins. In some years 100,000 skins are taken; I think last year something like 80,000 skins were obtained. Canada was supposed to get one-fifth of those as her proportion; and from the report we had last season part of those skins were processed in the United States and a small part in Great Britain. There is no processing plant for them in Canada; consequently they have to be processed elsewhere. When the ceiling was removed from these skins last season the selling price went up by more than fifty per cent, and I understand that those sold on the United States market averaged something like $72 gross per skin. Well, with a total of 75,000 or 80,000 skins, how does it come that we have such a small net profit?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-*
663. Estimates of the sergeant at arms- further amount required, $10,000.
,Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North): Again I am going to bring to the attention of the house a matter I have brought up on several occasions; that is, the case of the protective, cleaning and messenger staffs of this house. The basic wage of these employees is $4 a day in each category, though I should think that according to responsibility and the worth of the work done there might well be a distinction as between these three groups sufficiently great to merit some differentiation in the basic wage. I would go further and say that for the parliament of Canada to be employing men at $4 a day is rather absurd. Last year I urged the government to review the wages paid. At that time His Honour the Speaker said that the matter would be taken into consideration, and that if it should 'be possible to do something in order to be fair to these men it would be done with pleasure. I should like to know what has been done between last December and the present time in order to be fair to the employees of this house. Furthermore, the day this house rose last December I pointed out that ex-service men were to be laid off just before Christmas by a government which was supposed to be keenly desirous of aiding returned men. I said that it was callous and heartless. The Minister of Veterans Affairs got rather wrathy and said that the case of these men had been brought to his attention and that he had taken action instead of talking about it.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Those words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs were full of sound and fury but signified very little, because the action the government took was similar to its inaction in other respects. Fourteen ex-service men were laid off from their employment in this house last December. Their average Service overseas was almost four and a half years. Seven were married; * seven were single. The government promised it would do its best to look after these men, but it did not do so. Three of the fourteen obtained employment; I do not know what happened to the other eleven until they came back to the house. That is no way to look after the employees of this House of Commons, and I should like to know what is going to happen to these employees during the Easter recess. Are we to lay them off again in the same callous way, men who have given four and a half years of their lives to fighting for us? What plan does the government have for these men when this house prorogues later in the year? I think we are entitled to know now just what plans the government has in mind in order to see that employees of this house are given satisfactory employment when the house is not in session.


James Horace King: I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member. He and all other hon. members may be sure that the officers of the House of Commons are doing everything possible to be agreeable to the employees; and the Speaker of the House of Commons, in dealing with the employees, never forgets that he is the representative of members on both sides of the house. Whenever we have to take on a new employee the first question asked is, "Are you a returned soldier?" We do not take on any new employee who is not a veteran. No one likes to dismiss employees who have given good service. The Speaker of the house and the officials feel the same way; we do not like to dismiss anyone, veteran or not, who has served for many years. Unfortunately, however, some of our employees have advanced in years, and it has been suggested throughout Canada that on reaching a certain age men should withdraw from employment in order to provide work for younger men, veterans and so on.
In regard to the wages paid, particularly to the constables. I am informed that the salaries paid in the House of Commons are as good as, if not better than, those paid in the different departments of the government. I should not like to resume my seat without seeking to impress upon hon. members that their Speaker is doing everything possible to give the house the best possible service at the

Supply-Legisla lion
lowest possible cost, at the same time remembering that veterans should have the first opportunity to get jobs in this house.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to inform Your Honour that there has never been any complaint, at any time, as to the nature of the service. I think we are all agreed that the service we get from the employees of this house is excellent. To some extent I accept the assurance of Mr. Speaker, but I wish to remind the government that assurances of employment do not fill babies' milk bottles, and I should like to know from the Minister of Veterans Affairs specifically what plans he has in view to give work to these ex-service men who are to be laid off from the service of this house when it prorogues, or during the Easter recess.


Mr. McILRAITH:: I might add something on this subject which would be helpful to hon. members. It seems to me there is a little misapprehension about the pay being received. The actual pay of the cleaning staff in the House of Commons now works out at about $138 a month. The way it is computed is by taking $4 a day for each day of the week, for the year round, if they are on a yearly basis, or jiuring the whole of the session if they are on a sessional basis, plus a bonus. It works out at a more substantial item than would be indicated in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
There is one further point which in my view should be drawn to the attention of hon. members, namely, that it has been the practice, when there have been short recesses, such as we have at Easter, that these employees are kept on. They are not laid off for that short time.
One other point which ought fairly to be presented to hon. members is that it has been the practice that when sessional employees are hired, particular care has been taken to point out to them that they are hired only as sessional employees. I have not heard of any misunderstanding having arisen on the part of an employee, as far as that point is concerned.
I offer these observations in the hope that they may serve to give a better understanding of the problem.


Mrs. STRUM:: In this connection I should like to refer to the pay received by people working in the restaurant. Last year I served on a subcommittee on wages, of the committee dealing with the restaurant service. I tried hard to bring about an increase in the pay of the lower-salaried people. I found there were great numbers of people whom hon. members using the restaurant do not see and who, as a result, do not receive tips.
There are those who wash the dishes and the girls who carry the trays. AH these have been receiving less than $2 a day or $50 a month. They get some meals, it is true. But anyone who goes out and looks for a room in Ottawa these days knows one cannot begin to pay rent and buy clothing for that amount.
We have no right to expect the parents of these girls to subsidize the government of Canada. It is no excuse to say that they live at home, and that the old man pays the rent. We have no right to chisel on the parents of those girls, nor have we any right to take them on and force them to accept such low wages.
Some of the attitudes I discovered respecting this matter of wage scales came as a great surprise to me. I tried hard to get a $10 raise for those who were receiving only $50. I find that if one is getting $200 it is an insult to offer an increase of anything less than $25. However, if one is getting only $50 a month, he should be satisfied to get only $5 a month more. I say that $5 on $50 as compared with $25 on $200 does not make sense to me.
We must remember that these people, who are valuable to us, are providing an essential service. If you and I do not eat, we cannot work. Food is a basic essential, and those who are engaged in handling it are important. We should be more concerned with the lower-paid employees in the government service. People should not be expected to go through a ten-year period of service, during which time they have had to meet rising living costs, and to get no adjustment in their wages. I would hope, therefore, that this appropriation is broad enough to give increased pay to these lower-paid workers.	*


Mr. GLEN:: I should like to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. During my term as Speaker of the House of Commons we had occasion to revise the salaries of the constables in the house. A committee was appointed, and we saw the civil service commission. The Clerk of the House and I dealt with-the commission in the discussions respecting the salaries of the constables. I believe this was done in answer to a request by the then leader of the opposition, the present hon. member for Peel.
We gave increases to the staff, and I believe they were satisfied that they were being properly dealt with. However, many of the constables had left for service overseas, and their positions were being retained for them by some who were serving only on a temporary basis.
Supply-Le gisla tion

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has made a striking attack upon the administration of the house, and I suggest he must substantiate his charge by giving more particulars than he has done. I am sure the board of internal economy, as well as the officers of the house, including His Honour the Speaker, will be only too glad to rectify any errors which might have been made. I suggest, however, that the hon. member ought to give more detail.
Then, speaking to what has been said by the lady member of the house in connection with those who serve in the restaurant, let me say this. In the first place, they are asked to take the position, and at that time they are told definitely what the remuneration will be. I heard no complaints during my five years in office from any of the services in the house with regard to their remuneration-[DOT]


Alistair McLeod Stewart: They are scared.	-


James Allison Glen: -and it is true that soma meals are included while they serve here. I suggest that these complaints which have been made should be the matter of inquiry by the committee on the restaurant. They have been dealing with this matter; and they will deal with it in a way which will ensure justice being done to every person in the employ of the house. I am sure the committee on the restaurant would be very glad to listen to any complaints made.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am going to answer the minister, and in doing so I shall repeat the charge made last December, as it appears at page 3748 of Hansard:
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Labour to the fact that there are several messengers on this staff, men who were in the army for four or five years and who served overseas, who are going to be out of woTk when this house rises; and as far as I know no provision is being made by the government for their employment.	/
Mark you, that was just before Christmas.
That is a heartless and callous way to treat these men.
What the hon. member for Ottawa West said is correct. They do get $138 a month. But I do not know to whom that would appear to be a large sum.


George James McIlraith: That is a minimum.
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North); That minimum is to permanent help.
Mr. McILRAITH; No, it is to temporary help.
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North); Temporary, too. But there are 157 employees, thirty-three of whom are permanent. We are

giving people $138 a month as income, when the average wage-earner in that group is probably unemployed for many weeks. His average income falls far below $138 a month. I wish to repeat that there are only thirty-three permanent employees out of a total of 157, and they get a minimum of $138 a month.


James Allison Glen: Has ,the hon. member the
names?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I got this list from His Honour the Speaker. I can secure them from His Honour.


John Oliver Probe: May I, in as kindly a way
as possible, draw to the attention of the committee the fact that this figure of $138 a month does not apply right across the board.
I have before me the Labour Gazette for February, which discusses the case of an employee in one of the departments at Ottawa. It may or may not deal with a member of the protective staff, or anything of that sort. This deals with the claim of a widower, aged sixty-eight years, who was employed as a messenger by one of the government departments at a salary of $89,12 a month, for a period of about a year and a half. These are the facts relating to his claim:
The claimant is a military pensioner in receipt of a pension of $77.53 per month. On November 14, 1944, the claimant was advised that he could not receive -a salary from the dominion government and at the same time draw his military pension. He was also advised that his pension would be reduced to the extent of his salary. The claimant therefore resigned voluntarily on November 14, 1944, and made application for benefit.
He was refused immediate treatment by the unemployment insurance commission, but he ultimately got it. It appears that if this man had elected to work in private industry he would have been entitled to continue to receive his pension in full as well as his salary. Had he remained with the government, in effect he would have been working for $11.59 a month.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding); Order. The item we are considering is that dealing with the estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms and hon. members should confine their remarks to that item.


John Oliver Probe: This might well be an employee of the Sergeant-at-Arms.


William Henry Golding: That is the item we are dealing with.


John Oliver Probe: I think this case should be investigated by the house. If he is an employee of the Sergeant-at-Arms then I am

Sup-ply-Legislation
bringing it up in the proper place. No employee of the government or of anyone else should have to work for $11.59 a month.
I think it is scandalous.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: In reply to the minister I just wish to say that the people to whom I refer are employees who get less than $2 a day. They are not in a position to take tips and they have no agency through which they can channel complaints. They have no labour union to make representations on their behalf. Anyone working for less than $50 a month must be pretty much afraid of losing his job or else he would not be working for that. If these employees had a union then they would have available the proper mechanism through which to make representations. There is only one place in this Dominion of Canada where government employees have a proper trade union, and that is the province from which I come.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question relating to the statement just made by the hon. member for Regina City. He claims that an ex-serviceman of this war employed-


John Oliver Probe: I did not say of this war.


Clarence Gillis: Is he a war veteran?


John Oliver Probe: He is a military pensioner.


Clarence Gillis: He was drawing a pension, but in 1944 he was told that he would have to relinquish either the pension or the job. Is that not. a contravention of the Pension Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not the details of the case before me. What' was the total amount of the pension?


John Oliver Probe: It was $77.53 a month. The case is No. CU-B43 of June 27, 1945; that is the unemployment insurance commission investigation number.


Clarence Gillis: I consider that a flagrant violation of the Pension Act and I suggest that the Minister of Veterans Affairs should look into it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is why I got the number.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Let us get the record straight in connection, with this case. The hon. member does not even know the facts except what are set out in the Labour Gazette.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: They are supposed to be right.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just listen a moment. I am trying to be helpful. There are 2,300,000 people who come under the Unemployment
Insurance Act. To pick one case out of the blue and expect an answer from the minister is not, if I may put it in that way, being quite fair. I understand that is the decision of a board of referees made up of a representative of the employer, a representative of labour and an impartial chairman. I think my hon. friend should have secured all the facts before he raised the matter in this chamber, and he should have given the Minister of Veterans Affairs an opportunity of looking into the case, or given me that opportunity if it comes under my jurisdiction.
I think that is the best way to clean up those cases. What we all want is to be just to the people under our jurisdiction. There is no politics about it.


John Oliver Probe: This was brought to the attention of the minister.


William Henry Golding: We are dealing with the estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms and I do not think this discussion is relevant.


Mr. POUXIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one word to say and that is I regret very much that the jurisdiction under this roof is so scattered. For instance, the reporters who take down my speeches .come under the civil service commission; they are not under Mr. Speaker. The elevator men are not under the Sergeant-at-Arms; they are under the Department of Public Works. When we-want to do something for them we have to go all around. This is not the fault of the Minister of Public Works because it is a situation which has existed for a long time. I think all men who do this kind of work should be under the Sergeant-at-Arms.
In this building there is a veteran of the first war who had a bullet enter his cheek and go out through his neck. He lost four ribs; he has a wooden leg, and he suffers from cancer of the stomach. He is operating an elevator in the building. I think that is most inhuman and the department of pensions should give this man a full pension. He is only getting $15 a month and it is very hard for him to open the doors of the elevator. I take another elevator in order to give him a chance.
These things should not happen. I do not blame any minister; I do not blame Mr. Speaker; I do not blame the Sergeant-at-Arms, but I do blame the heartless bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs who do not look after their own men and who force civilians to come and fight for them. It is a shame. I brought this matter to the attention of the most able parliamentary assistant to the minister. He took
Supply-National Defence

the matter up with those concerned a few days ago, but it has not yet been settled. I want the minister concerned, whoever he is-I do not know; I cannot run after all the ministers at the same time-to see that this man is given a chance. He should be sent home with enough money on which to live until he feels better.
There is another man who works on the first floor of this building and who has won the Victoria Cross. That man should have some sort of honorary post, a soft job which carries a decent salary. He should be a doorman or messenger in uniform so that he could wear his decorations. He is a modest and humble man. One of the former members for Ottawa looked after him and I had to do the same. I have assured him that he has the sympathy of the whole house. While the position he now holds may not be humiliating in itself, it is not a position worthy of a man who has won the highest military distinction.


An hon. MEMBER:: Maybe he was not a brigadier.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is much better than the brigadiers we have in M.D. No. 5.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Earlier in the afternoon we decided that we would try to close at six o'clock and it is now about twenty minutes to sixi May I suggest that there is not a subject in these supplementary estimates which could not be discussed when the main estimates are before the committee. Perhaps it could be understood that in speaking to the remaining items we will confine ourselves as closely as possible to the item with a view to getting through all items by six o'clock, or if we do not, to sit on until we do finish.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
668. Miscellaneous maintenance and adjustments (war of 1914-18)-further amount required, $800.
George Randolph Pearkes: May we have an explanation how grants to McGill to cover the years from 1942 to 1945 have anything to do with the war of 1914-18?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is the annual grant of $200 to McGill for maintenance of the Canadian army museum. The curator of the museum died in September, 1940, and through an oversight the government was not billed for the $200 grant from 1942 to 1945. The amount was voted each year, but under our system of parliamentary appropriations it

lapsed at the end of the year. The situation was brought to the attention of the government by McGill early this year and this $800 covers the grant for the years I mentioned.


Mr. GREEN:: I should like to place before the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence a suggestion which is really a repetition of a suggestion made last year; that there should be set up a standing committee of the house on the defence forces. We are moving into a new era in the defence of this country and the defence problems are largely new. The policy is to raise a larger body of men for each of the three services than has ever been raised before. I think there will be some difficulty in raising the required number and it would be of great help if we had a standing committe of this house before whom the chiefs of staff could come and where the defence estimates could be discussed in a thorough manner. Not only would that be more efficient, but it would result in getting the members of the house back of the defence forces to a far greater degree than hitherto, and through tfyem be of help in getting the Canadian people as a whole behind our forces. I can see nothing but good from such a move. In the United States, as the Prime Minister knows, they have in the house of representatives and also in the senate a committee on naval affairs and a committee on military affairs, and I suggest that a committee of that kind should be set up right-away in this house. I think it would be of great benefit.


Major James William Coldwell: We supported the suggestion last year and we do so again this year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I assured my hon. friend last year that his suggestion would receive sympathetic consideration, but I pointed out that the time was too short to do anything about it last session. But I did promise consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is a very good one and, as the Minister of National Defence has just said, it is one that he is prepared to consider sympathetically. But once again the house will have to ask itself how many committees it can stand. We are enlarging the number and it will have a bearing on the attendance in the house. I think my hon. friend's suggestion of that particular committee is a very good one.


Major James William Coldwell: There might be a
reorganization of the committees. Some of them never sit at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means
[Stage Direction]
670. Post offices, including salaries and other expenses of headquarters and staff post offices and supplies and equipment for revenue post offices-further amount required, $1,234,720.
Mr. BURTON:: I do not wish to delay the passing of this item, but there is something I wish to say that I could not say on the regular estimates. It will be recalled that it was only a few months ago that we passed estimates for all the departments, and I would have thought that a department like the Post Office would have been able to get much closer to its requirements than it evidently did. This supplementary vote is for $1,234,720. This seems to show that they did not use good business judgment in preparing their estimates, and I would suggest that when their estimates come up they try to get a little closer to their requirements for the year.


Mr. MacKINNON:: The Postmaster General is unavoidably absent this afternoon, but one of his senior officials got in touch with me and furnished me with a very good explanation of the point just raised by the hon. member. I would suggest, however, that the explanation be deferred until the main estimates are before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Chief engineer's branch-
676. Dredging-British Columbia and Yukon 

further amount required, $62,000.
Mr. CRUICKSHAN£: What does this mean? I see that there is also an item for new' construction., Does that mean a new dredge? .
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: We have purchased from War Assets Corporation "gate vessel No. 5" for use as living quarters in connection with the double shift for dredge No. 305.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Buy another and put on three shifts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. *
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I move:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain
expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, the sum of $4,938,873.32 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 12, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1946.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I move that the house do now adjourn. My hon. friend who is leading the opposition will probably ask about the order of business on Monday. Monday is private members' day, and the order will be private bills, senate amendments to public bills, questions, notices of motions, public bills and orders, government notices of motions, government orders.
If the house will allow me a few minutes, I should like to say a word about private members' day. I do so in the expectation that what I am about to suggest may be taken exception to by some hon. members. I would call the attention of hon. members to the desire, already strongly expressed, that we should proceed rapidly with the business of the house so as not to have the session prolonged unduly. If hon. members will look through last year's proceedings they will find that one of the reasons why the business was so considerably delayed was the length of time taken in the discussion of private members' resolutions; a length of time wholly out of proportion to the importance of the resolutions in relation to government business. The British house has found it impossible to get through important public business and at the same time have any private members' resolutions.
I have before me the British Hansard of last session, and at page 133 of August 16, 1945, I find the following resolution:
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison):	I beg to move,
"That during the present session:
(1) Government business shall have precedence at every sitting;
Private Members' Resolutions

(2) The following provisions shall have effect as respects public bills:
(*a) no bills other than government bills shall be introduced;
The parliament in Great Britain found! it necessary to adopt that course in a post-war period because of the growing importance of public measures as distinguished from private members' resolutions and 'bills. I am told that it has been found necessary to follow the same course this year. An appeal has been made to, and accepted by the house that, the importance of public measures being so great, they should be considered to the exclusion of other matters.
This house has set up a committee for the revision of the rules. It is perhaps not for me to suggest how the rules should be revised, and hon. members may take strong exception to what I am going to suggest, but I Should hope that the question might be considered whether some arrangement could not be made either to bring on private members' resolutions near the end of the session rather than at the beginning, or to fix a limit of time to be devoted to any single resolution. I should think that private members might introduce their respective resolutions, have one or two speeches made upon them, and then allow the house to proceed with the consideration of other motions. To take up three or four days in discussing a private member's resolution does seem to me to be a waste of time when time is very precious in view of the urgency of public matters.	t
I throw' out that thought at the moment because it is something in which we are all interested. I do not wish to take away any rights from private members, but I think that the nature of public business in parliament to-day is such that if' the government has important measures that should be proceeded with expeditiously, and is prepared to proceed with those measures, some way ought, to be found of giving public business priority.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel) i If I may suggest it to the Prime Minister, in the British house the private member has an opportunity, limited no doubt, but an opportunity nevertheless, during the first hour of each session, from 2.15 to 3.15 p.m. of seeking information orally from the government across the floor of the house. I realize that it begins with written questions, but the supplementary debate that takes place afterwards gives the private member a wide opportunity to discuss a variety of issues which normally are present in the private member's mind, and in regard to which he can seek information from the government.
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
I intend at another stage of the proceedings to make some reference to this question having relation to the setting up of a committee on rules, because it seems to me that we are gradually departing from this practice in this house. I am not suggesting that anyone in particular is responsible for it, but I think the house ought to give consideration in the committee on rules to providing* some system whereby private members may be enabled to make oral inquiries of the government on a much wider range of subjects, urgent and otherwise, than are permitted in the discretion of the Speaker at the present time. One day in the British house I noticed that eighty-two questions were asked and answered and supplementary questions were asked at the same time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday we answered about sixty.


Gordon Graydon: They were not answered in the way in which they are answered in Britain, and that is my point. In addition to questions being permitted for a whole hour in Britain, there are hundreds of questions in the same position as the questions to which the Prime Minister has just referred, questions which do not reach the House of Commons at all in the ordinary verbal debate.
I suggest that more latitude should be given because I feel the restrictions at the moment are far too pressing with respect to those seeking information from the government. I do not wish to reflect upon Mr. Speaker who is courteous to us all, but I feel that we ought to have wider latitude on questions. Far too many questions are ruled out on the ground that they are not urgent, that there has not been notice given and that they are too long. I believe these are bases which will not always commend themselves to the members of the house. Now that the rules of the house are to be revised, I suggest that with reference to questions wider latitude be given, and I make that suggestion to the rules committee.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say one word? I think our rules need a thorough revision. In addition to what the hon. member for Peel has just said, the British house has the custom of giving notice of a question which may be raised for discussion at adjournment; therefore they are able to debate it in some manner.	.
I am in agreement that private members' days, as we have them in the rules, involve a greater amount of time than is warranted under the circumstances under which we meet here; nevertheless we feel the private members have so few opportunities in the house to

Official Secrets Act
discuss problems that are pressing to their constituents and to themselves, that we are loath to relinquish any of the rights of private members.	*
In this house there has been the custom of introducing two or three departments and going into supply thereon, and then have a number of departments go into supply at the end of the session. They could be spaced during the session to give private members an opportunity of raising certain matters that they think would be helpful. The point I have in mind is that if we are to conduct the business of this country as it must be conducted, with all the variety of business we have here, the rules must be revised. There is no question about that in my mind. I hope that the committee now set up will revise the rules.
It is perfectly true that in the British house the government plays a much greater part in deciding what shall be done in the house than does the government of this country; nevertheless the members there, as was said by the hon. member for Peel, have two wonderful opportunities, one at the question period and the other at the adjournment.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
Monday, April 1, 1946.