1946-06-05

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) :. moved for leave to introduce bill No. 193, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
He said: This bill arises from the report "Canada and International Cartels" which was tabled during the course of the last session and which was prepared by the special committee under the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act. Hon. members will recall that the report illustrated the undesirable effects on the Canadian economy of the operations of private international trade combinations known as cartels, and generally the obstacle to full employment in either the international or the domestic sphere, which might result from undue restraints of trade. It recommended consideration by the government of certain lines of approach with reference to the forthcoming international discussions respecting international trade. It also recommended that steps be taken both legisla-

Questions
tively and administratively to make the Combines Investigation Act more effective in preventing and removing undesirable domestic restraints of trade and in obtaining and making available for the determining of government policy information respecting the effects of international cartels on the Canadian economy.
The principal steps to implement the report require no legislation but merely larger staff and appropriations for the commission, and that will be dealt with when the estimates of the department are being considered by the house. Legislation is necessary, however, to remove certain anomalies from the present act and to provide the necessary tools for the revived activities of the commission.
The bill proposes no changes in the definitions of offences or in the basic scheme of the act. It provides for greater flexibility in the administration of the act and removes or modifies some of the restrictions on the operations of the act which were added in 1935 and 1937 when the dominion trade and industry commission was set up, and it proposes to restore to the commission some of the activities that were entrusted to the dominion trade and industry commission, under the original set-up of that body which was to control the Combines Investigation Act administration. That was removed in 1937 and the amendments proposed in this bill are with respect to procedure and not with respect to the substance of the offences aimed at by the legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Did War Assets Corporation or any government department since September 30, 1945, sell or dispose of any buildings, machinery or equipment formerly used by Polymer Corporation Limited, or any of its associated operating companies?
2.	If so, what are the particulars including prices and the names of the purchasers?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The following buildings have been sold by War Assets Corporation:
Description-Purchaser-Price
Old purchasing building, Polymer Corporation Ltd., $2,200.
Post office building, W. Eric Harris, $80.
Bunk house, Miss Myrtle Jacques, $1,900.
Commissary building and bake shop, S. Jackson, $3,600.
Bowling alley and equipment, Byron W. Neal, $3,500.
In addition to the above prices, the purchasers had to remove the buildings from the sites and restore the land to its original condition at their own expense.
A considerable amount of machinery, equipment, supplies, furniture, etc., has been declared surplus. This surplus material has been disposed of in accordance with the policies of War Assets Corporation. In order to provide the detailed information requested, it would be necessary to examine the very large number of invoices covering the sales of the material and equipment which _ar.e listed in more than 200 declarations of surplus.
(b) The following articles have been sold by Polymer Corporation Limited:
Description-Purchaser-Price
Six typewriters, Ellenors typewriter service, $300.
One Ford station wagon, Lambton Motors, Sarnia, $263.
One Ford pick-up truck, \ ton, 1939, Lamb-ton Motors, Sarnia, $113.
Polymer Corporation Limited has been authorized to dispose directly of machinery, equipment, etc. which becomes surplus in the course of their operations as distinguished from buildings, machinery or equipment which became surplus to their requirements at the completion of their construction programme.


WAR ASSETS-PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How many public auctions for the sale of surplus war assets have been held under the direction of War Assets Corporation or War Assets Limited?
2.	At what places were these held?
3.	What materials, equipment or supplies were sold at each?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	10.
2.	Aurora, Ontario, at the army depot; St. Catharines, Ontario, at the R.C.A.F. station; St. Johns, Que., at the R.C.A.F. station; Lake-burn, N.B., at "War Assets Corporation warehouse No. 1; Maitland, N.S., at the R.C.A.F. station; Mount Pleasant, P.E.I., at the R.C.A.F. station; Charlottetown. P.E.I., at the R.C.A.F. station; Dauphin, Manitoba, at the R.C.A.F. station; Pictou, Nova Scotia, at the foundation maritime; London, Ontario, at the central mechanization depot.
3.	At the first eight of the above noted sales, materials disposed of consisted of a
Questions

general line of consumer goods such as beds, tables, chairs, pots and pans, et cetera. The sales were open to the general public.
The sale at Pictou, N.S., held at the plant of Foundation Maritime was for licensed dealers only and the equipment sold consisted of ship components only.
The sale at London, Ontario, held at the central mechanization depot was confined to bona fide farmers certified by the Canadian federation of agricultural workers and the equipment consisted of army pattern trucks.


DEPARTMENT OP LABOUR-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of Labour?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The total cost of publicity personnel in the Department of Labour is $34,820 per annum.
2 and 3.
Salaries
Persons Employed	Paid
Phelan, V. C	 $5,100
Anderson, Gordon	 3,800
Blackburn, G. G	 2,820
Cross, K. C	 2,820
Young, D. M	 2,520
D'Aoust, J. C	 2,400
McVea, J. F	 2,400
Nagle, V. A	 2,400
Ullock, J. F	 2,040

Eight clerks, stenographers and typists whose aggregate salary per annum is	 8,520.
Total	 $34,820.
4.	No.


ANSWERS OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
I.	The total cost of publicity personnel in the unemployment insurance commission is $9,600 per annum.
2 and 3.
Persons Employed	Salaries Paid
Maritimes-
J.	C. MacNeill	 $2,400
Quebec-
J. G. R. Parent	 2,100*
Ontario-
C. Lukey (performing duties of assistant public relations officer)	 2,100

Prairies-
Leslie C. Morrison	 l,680t
Pacific-No one.
Plus $900 war duties supplement.
tPlus $420 war duties supplement.
4.	No.

Mr. McKAY:: Have the manufacturers of farm implements been permitted to mark up prices 12J per cent on stocks of implements manufactured prior to April 13, 1946?


Mr. MAYHEW:: The increase in the maximum prices authorized effective April 13, 1946. for farm machinery produced in whole or in part in Canada applies to all sales of such farm machinery on or after that date. In any case where a buyer and a seller had a firm contract as of April 13 for future delivery of farm machinery at prices lower than the new maximum prices, the buyer has the ordinary protection of law against any variation in the contract prices.


ISSUE OF POSTAGE STAMPS COMMEMORATING PEACE
Mr. REID:: What action, if any, has been taken by the Postmaster General regarding a new issue of postage stamps commemorating peace?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Officials of the department have been working on designs and models for a new issue of postage stamps dealing with peace-time subjects for some months past. It is hoped that it will be possible to have the new stamps ready for issue in the near future.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Post Office Department?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	$12,300.
2 and 3. D. Adamson, $3,900; E. D. H. Boyd, $3,000; H. Ghaume, $1,800; H. Kells, $1,680; Miss C. M. Troy, $1,920.
4. No.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?

Motion for Papers
Mr. McCAiNN:
1, 2 and 3. Nil.
4. No.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of Fisheries?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. BRIDGES:: 1. $4,980.
2 and 3. H. F. S. Paisley,, ($3,780); F. Rossiter, ($1,140).
4. Yes; the Fisheries News Bulletin, issued monthly at an approximate cost of $75.


CANADIAN ARMY PACIFIC FORCE
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	How many men of all ranks comprised the Canadian Army Pacific force?
2.	What units or branches of the army did they represent?
3.	How many in each branch or unit?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. 24,055.
2.	3.
Headquarters Formations	 639
Royal Canadian	Armoured	Corps	
2588Royal Canadian	Artillery	
3258Royal Canadian	Engineers	
1101Royal Canadian	Corps Signals	
791Canadian Infantry Corps	
8018
Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. 1833 Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps. 1070
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps	 412
Royal Canadian Electrical and
Mechanical Engineers	 1161
Canadian Postal Corps	 28
Canadian Provost Corps	 333
Instructional Cadre and Reserve troops 2823
Project	No. of family units
Women's staff house, Malton ...	80
Men's staff house, Malton		80
Deaconess home	 40
General engineering plant, Scarborough	 65
Staff house, Long Branch		80
Total	 345
Wartime Housing Limited has constructed 150 houses on property supplied by the city of Toronto. In addition, 100 houses were constructed on the edges of park land. All of the 250 houses are occupied.
There is under construction at the present time, 600, in Etobicoke (205), North York (198), and East York (197). Of the total of 600, 412 are occupied and 188 under construction as of June 1.
Some months ago, the city of Toronto asked Wartime Housing Limited to erect 48 prefabricated houses on Ryding avenue, but the city so far has been unable to secure title to the property.
2. The most recent is that of the city dated May 29 requesting Wartime Housing Limited to construct 1,000 houses.


DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES- PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of Mines and Resources?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	$13,308.12 (annual).
2.	R. J. C. Stead; J. G. Perdue; W. F. Lothian; R. M. Watt.
3.	$4,740; $2,820; $2,820; $2,928.12.
4.	No; nil.
24,055


HOUSING-VETERAN S-TORONTO
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been done by the government to provide wartime houses for soldiers in the city of Toronto for the coming fall and winter?
2.	Has a recent request been received from the civic authorities herein? If so, for how many of such houses?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1. During the past five months the emergency shelter administration of Central Mortgage and Housing corporation has agreed to participate with the city of Toronto in the cost of converting the following buildings into temporary shelters:


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all minutes or memoranda of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since the 1st of July, 1945, touching on or in connection with the cancellation of the wavelength or frequency presently occupied by CFRB Toronto, *and/or the taking over of the said wavelength or frequency by the corporation.


Mr. McCANN:: Mr. Speaker, the .special committee on radio broadcasting is now sitting, and at its meeting yesterday this question, or a similar one, was brought up. In view of that I suggest that this motion might be dropped, since the matter is already under review. I
Motion jor Papers

am sorry that the hon. member for Lake Centre was not at the meeting yesterday, or he might have brought up the question there himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was at the meeting yesterday, but not at the time in question. I do not believe this motion should be dropped, because yesterday the Canadian Broadcasting corporation refused to produce the minutes; therefore I have no other course than to ask that this order be proceeded with.


James Joseph McCann: If the hon. member insists on having his motion put, I shall have to oppose it on the ground that memoranda between different officials of the corporation are privileged documents and should not be produced.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Surely this is not a private corporation.


Mr. CHURCH:: It is the most mischievous corporation that ever saw the light of day in Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As hon. members know,
these motions are not debatable. If I have not	
unanimous consent	I shall have to put the
question to the house. The house divided on the motion (Mr. Die-fenbaker) which was negatived on the follow-	
ing division:	YEAS Messrs:
Adamson	Jackman
Aylesworth	Kidd
Barrett	' Lockhart
Black (Yukon)	McGregor
Blair	McMaster
Boucher	MacNicol
Bradshaw	Manross
Charlton	Men-ary
Church	Merritt
Cockeiram	Murphy
Daniel	Pearkes _
Diefenbaker	Raymond (Beauhamois-
Dorion	Laprairie)
Drope	Ross (St. Paul's)
Fleming	Sen-n
Fraser	Stephenson
Green Hackett Harkne-ss	Stirling Tustin
Hatfield	Webb
Hazen	White (Hastings-
Henderson	Peterborough) -i 1.
	NAYS Messrs:
Abbott	Bertrand (Prescott)
Archibald	Blaekmore
Argue	Bourget
Arsenault	Rradette
Baker	Bridges
Beaudoin	Brown
Belziie	Brunelle
Bentley	Bryce
Bertrand (Laurier)	Burton

Campbell	McCann
Castleden	MeCuaig
Claxton	McCulloch (Pictou)
Cleaver	Macdonald
Cloutier	(Brantford City)
Coldwell	McDonald
Cote (Matapedia-	(Parry Sound)
Matane)	Mcllraith
Cote (Verdun)	Maclnnis
Croll	Mclvor
Cruickshank	Mackenzie
Deehene	MaoLean
Dion (Lake St. John-	Maloney
Roberval)	Marier
Dionne (Beauce)	Marquis
Dubois	Matthews
Emmerson	(Kootenay East)
Eudes	Mayhew
Fair	Michaud
Farquhar	Mitchell
Fontaine	Moore
Fournier (Hull) Fournier [Maison-	Mullins
	Nicholson
neuve-Rosemont)	Nixon
Gariepy	Picard
Gauthier (Nipissing) Gauthier (Portneuf)	Probe Quelch
.-Gibson	Raymond (Wright)
(Comox-Alberni)	Reid
Gillis	Richard (Gloucester)
Gingues	Richard (Ottawa East)
Gladstone	Robinson (Simcoe East)
Golding	Ross (Hamilton-East)
Gour (Russell)	St. Laurent
Grant	Sinclair (Ontario)
Halle	Sinclair
Harris (Grey-Bruce)	(Vancouver North)
Healy	Sinnott
Howe	Stewart
Irvine	(Winnipeg North)
Jaenicke	Stuart (Charlotte)
Johnston *	Strum, Mrs.
J utras	Thatcher
Knowles	Townley-Smith
Kuhl	Tremblay
LaCroix	Viau
Lafontaine	Weir .
Langlois	Whitman
Lapointe	Winkler
Laurendeau	Winters
Leger	Wright
Lesage	Wylie
Little	Zaplitny-115.
PAIRS	
(The list of pairs whips.)	is furnished by the chief
Black (Chateauguay-Huntimgdon)	Cardiff
Breithaupt	Harris (Danforth)
Clark	Desmond
Jean	Homu-th
Pinard	Stokes
Pouliot	Ashby
Isnor	Stanfield


Mr. BLANCHETTE:: I was paired with the	
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard).	
Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for	Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.	

Labour Conditions


Mr. LALONDE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. MoCUBBIN: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HODGSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for York North (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for the dual constituency of Queens (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I was paired with the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FULTON:: I was paired with the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SKEY:: I was paired with the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Gibson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I was paired with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LACOMBE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BONNIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HAMEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Gourd). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
seamen's STRIKE-DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC ON INLAND WATERWAYS
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Perhaps I might explain that I gave notice of this question, and he advised me before leaving the house that in his absence it would be answered either by the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour, or perhaps both. The question has to do with the present disruption of traffic on some of the inland waterways of Canada.
I am receiving many manifestations of concern, from people who have no direct connection with either side of the dispute, with respect to the interruption of this traffic and certain untoward events in connection therewith. My question is: Will the Acting Prime Minister state, for the information of the house and of the public, what steps the government is taking to bring this issue to a satisfactory end, in order that civil strife may cease and the food products of Canada be dispatched overseas with as little delay as possible?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting the operators this afternoon. I do not know what the results of the deliberations will be, but I live in hopes.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Will the minister get an assurance from the operators that there will be no recurrence of what happened in Cornwall the other day?


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to get an assurance from both sides.


Major James William Coldwell: The other fellows started it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope there will be no recurrence of the incident, because I do not think it is necessary in industrial disputes.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not, either.
Government Companies


SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY-PRISONER OF WAR LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Will the Minister of Labour say what portion of the 850 additional prisoners of war required to plant, till and harvest the increased sugar beet crop in southwestern Ontario, advocated by the government, has been made available to the farmers in that area?
Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I made a statement on that question a few days ago. The employment of men changes from hour to hour. However, I hope to have the answer completed to-morrow, and to give it to the member tomorrow afternoon.


OPERATION OF FISH CREEK MINE, ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, of which I have not yet given notice. My question has to do with the coal situation in Alberta. Has the minister taken steps to open the Fish Creek coal mine, southwest of Calgary, Alberta?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I shall accept what the hon. member has said as notice of question, and give an answer to-morrow.


John Horne Blackmore: If the government is not working the-mine, will the minister at the same time give the reason why?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do that.


REMOVAL OF PRICE CEILINGS FROM RED AND BLUE BRAND BEEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if it is true that the recent order removing the price ceiling from red and blue brand beef applies only to government-inspected beef shipped from abattoirs?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I believe I am Acting Minister of Finance, but I am not in a position to answer the hon. member's question to-day. I shall be glad to take it as notice of question, make inquiries from the wartime prices and trade board, and give the answer to-morrow.


William Earl Rowe: If it is true that the order applies only to government-inspected beef, will the government take into consideration making the same provision in respect of prime carcasses of beef produced from other sources?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will see that the hon. member's question is brought to the attention of the responsible officers.


GOVERNMENT COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 4, consideration in committee of bill No. 155, respecting the operation of government companies-Mr. Howe-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 8-Employment and remuneration of officers and servants.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last night we were discussing security checks in respect of employees of crown corporations. I had referred to a reply given by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to a similar question I had put to him when we were discussing the atomic energy bill. At page 2123 the minister's reply is reported in this way:
For several years every man or woman who has been employed by the National Research Council has been screened by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In the interval since last night I have checked the records of the employees of the public service and others who are now accused of espionage and are undergoing trial. I find nearly all of them were employed after the beginning of the war. It seems to me that since two of them were employed by crown companies, this is a point which the house ought not to overlook; the government must have some control over appointments made by directors of crown companies and should check their security categories. I think that contention is also supported by what occurs in other realms of government employment. An item appeared in the press to-day with reference to the remarks made in a committee by that "able and tireless civil servant, Mr. Hume Wrong. When asked whether the Department of External Affairs had any check on the security or political affiliations of its employees, Mr. Wrong stated he thought it would be unfair to investigate the political affiliations of any applicant. That had to do with the civil service, this has to do with people who will be engaged to work for crown companies.

Go vern ment Companies
I would not want to be misunderstood on this issue, because I have in mind the unfortunate circumstances that have developed since last February when this whole business of espionage broke upon the Canadian people. Just to keep the record straight I should like to quote two items from the first interim report of the royal commission. In the first interim report issued on March 2, 1946, the justices report:
The evidence establishes that a network of under-cover agents has been organized and developed for the purpose of obtaining secret and confidential information particularly from employees of departments and agencies of the dominion government.
I should like to quote from the second interim report, issued on March 14, as follows:
In a case of this nature where the evidence has revealed the existence of an organization constituting at least a threat to the safety and interests of the state, as evidenced by the fact that some witnesses holding strategic positions have made the significant statement under oath that they had a loyalty which took priority over the loyalty owed by them to their own country, and for that reason they acted as they did, and would unquestionably have continued so to act had they not been detected.
In to-day's paper there is an editorial dealing with a speech made by the national leader of the Labour Progressive party. In that speech the leader of that party tore away the veil which previously covered the motives of the party when he said:
We want 10,000 new members this year. We want a mass marxist party-a party of communists.
That is what was said in Toronto at a meeting held on June 2. The fact is that both in government departments and in crown companies there have been people employed who have professed a greater loyalty to another ideology than toward their own country. The minister has said that they have been checking on the affiliations and beliefs of these people for several years, but that answer is inadequate, because nearly all these people who have been reported as haying engaged in espionage work were employed by the government since the beginning of the war. We are dealing with Eldorado and Dominion Arsenals; in both these companies employees will have access to official information and secret processes which might be turned against this country, against the empire, or against the United States. Therefore there should be a greater check on all empolyees of crown companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To reply first to the question *as to what precautions were taken, all direct employees of the department of Munitions and Supply and all direct employees of the national
research council were finger-printed and their records explored by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Reports were rendered to the department in all doubtful cases, and certain men left the employ of the department on that account. So far as employees of crown companies are concerned, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were in charge of that work. The record of each employee was checked if he had access to any information of importance. However, with all the precautions that can be taken. I know of no way in which the government can assure itself that a man who enters the service of a department with a stainless reputation cannot be seduced by communism or some other allegiance. When a man is hired, there is no way in which we can predict with certainty what his course will be in the yearn to follow.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Under section 8 of the bill wide powers are being given to the company and its officials in the employment of servants, agents and officers. With an ordinary company that would only be proper. Last night I suggested to the minister that he should consider putting under the Civil Service Act all employees who render services similar to those rendered by civil servants. I would except expert and specially skilled personnel, scientists, et cetera, so far as salaries and wages are concerned. Antogonism will'be created among our regularly emploj'ed civil servants if government employees in crown companies are employed under different conditions or circumstances. There will be a large number of employees in these crown companies with qualifications and abilities similar to those in the regular civil service, and there should be no great differentiation between the treatment given to these people and that given to the members of the government service who are appointed through the civil service commission.
This point is particularly emphasized by the powers that are given to the governor in council to advance moneys to crown corporations for operating expenses and capital investments, to the tune of one-half million dollars as a maximum at any one time, and an additional total of one-half million dollars in any one fiscal year-and I believe that can be done in every fiscal year-for the extension and improvement of plant, the purchase of capital stock, et cetera. A thorough study of the bill will disclose that the governor in council can take out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund any amounts within those limitations that they see fit to take without submitting them to parliament, the minister has stated that they will be sub-
Government Companies

mitted to parliament, but I think a perusal of this bill will show that it is an appropriation act.


The CHAIRMAN:: The subject being discussed by the hon. member is covered by sections 4 and 5, which have been passed by the committee. The hon. member should make his remarks at this time relevant to section 8, employment and remuneration of officers and servants.


George Russell Boucher: I would draw your attention to the fact that section 8 provides that the remuneration of these employees shall be paid by the company. The money that a company would have would be obtained partly from earnings and partly from money that the government may have advanced. If this bill is passed in its present form the directors of these companies will be able, without reference to parliament, to expend what is really government money and to hire whom they see fit and pay them what salaries or wage scales they see fit. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am in order in discussing the way in which this money is to be used under the broad powers which the directors and officers are being given to pay any remuneration they see fit and determine the conditions of employment of their employees.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member
should relate his remarks to the section dealing with remuneration.


George Russell Boucher: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I do not see how I can relate my remarks to remuneration unless I also relate them to where the money is to come from and how that money is secured.


William Ross Macdonald: How the money is secured has been settled by sections 4 and 5. Section 8 has to do only with the spending of the money.


Gordon Graydon: Money does not grow on trees.


George Russell Boucher: If this money were not coming out of the public treasury but were being paid by some private enterprise, it would be no concern of mine. But I am objecting to the wide powers of expenditure of public money which these directors have. That is the whole basis of my argument. The directors and officers of the companies can hire anybody, from low-paid clerks and stenographers to highly-paid scientists, engineers, experts and managers, and can fix the rates of compensation without reference to parliament and without any regard to the scale of salaries paid to similar employees in the civil service, whose salaries and con-
ditions of emplojmient are determined by the Civil Service Act and regulations. Here we have the public treasury contributing a substantial portion of the working capital of these companies, and the directors being given almost unlimited powers to hire their employees at whatever salaries they see fit, without parliament having any say in the matter. This is definitely blank cheque legislation and uncontrolled expenditure. It is therefore ail the more important that the employees of the crown companies should have their terms of employment and compensation governed by the Civil Service Act.
I am not so sure that the minister himself has appreciated what is involved, because in answer to a question of mine he stated yesterday, at page 2182 of Hansard:
They can be appropriated only by vote of parliament. My hon. friend is right. They must be appropriated by vote of parliament or otherwise refunded.
With that I agree, if we look upon the passing of this bill as a voting by parliament. But I submit that if we pass the bill in its present form the directors and officers have the right to hire anybody they like and pay them what salaries they like, and get the money required by order in council or upon recommendation of the minister from unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund. All that is to be done without the sanction of parliament, other than what is given in the bill itself. Therefore if we pass this section and other sections in their present form parliament will be divesting itself of any authority or power over the hiring of the employees of these companies and the terms and conditions of their employment, even though they are all being paid substantially at the public expense. Parliament should not divest itself of the power of scrutinizing appropriations and of passing estimates for this purpose; we should retain control from year to year of the expenditure of public moneys by the directors or management of these crown companies. If we pass the bill in its present form we are breaking all custom in that we shall be, first of all, establishing a separate set of government employees who will not be working under the same terms and conditions as those in the regular civil service who have proven themselves loyal, efficient and competent; and secondly we are allowing the directors of these crown companies-perhaps scientists, engineers, businessmen-to expend moneys out of consolidated revenue without parliament having the right to scrutinize the expenditures before they are made. The minister was technically right when- he said last night that appropria-

Government Companies
tions made to these crown companies appear in the estimates; nevertheless they appear as statutory enactments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I see my hon. friend does not undestand these things. They will not appear as statutory votes.


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps I do not understand it, and anyone who read the answers the minister gave to several questions last night will see that he does not understand it either, because his answers are in direct conflict with each other. I shall be glad to read them now if he so desires. His answers to questions on sections 4 and 5 show gross inconsistency. I felt when I was raising the point last night that possibly I was not as sure of my ground as I should be, but I found great consolation when I saw from the minister's answers that he was just as uncertain as I was. Will the minister stand up and say now that the appropriations for these government companies will be passed as ordinary estimates are passed before the expenditures are made? Parliament has no check on expenditures if it is allowed to review them only after they are made. That is not business. That is not the way government should be carried on. Parliament should have the right to scrutinize particulars of the proposed expenditures and have a full discussion just as we do on the ordinary estimates. I would therefore like the minister to give a full explanation, and in a different way from his explanation of last night, of just what the situation is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure the situation is clear to everyone except my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hardly think that anyone who reads the sections can be in doubt as to their meaning. There is nothing new in this. I jotted down others acts which have the same provisions: the National Housing Act, the Central Mortgage Act, the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, which were all agreed to by the opposition without question. I mention these because they are very recent, and I have no doubt that if you go back over the records you will find any number of similar instances of expenditures made in this way from unappropriated moneys.


Mr. HACKETT:: Are they not all specific cases and of very recent origin?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ones I have mentioned are recent. That is why I mentioned them. I mentioned them because my hon. friends voted for them and I thought the matter would be fresh in their minds. The practice
of government companies employing people outside the Civil Service Act is not new. It was done in the dim and distant past, when my hon. friends were in power. It was done in the case Sf the Canadian National railways. Every employee of the Canadian National railways is employed by the management, and his salary is paid by the management. My hon. friends voted for it. Hon. gentlemen are trying to suggest that we are breaking new ground. This is not so in any particular. We are following established practice in connection with government-owned companies. There is no government company that employs its men through the civil service commission, nor has there been one over the years. As a matter, of fact, in the employment of tradesmen, for instance, the practice in government companies is exactly the same as that followed by the civil service commission. Tradesmen employed by the government through the civil service commission receive prevailing rates; the prevailing rate in the district is established by the Minister of Labour, and the employees are paid that rate. The practice is exactly the same as in crown companies. There is the additional protection, however, that almost all the employees of crown companies are organized and have contracts with one of the international unions, and they have the right to bargain between management and labour.
I cannot think of any reason why we should argue the matter at greater length. I repeat, we have followed the established practice, and it seems to me that every safeguard is provided in the crown companies referred to. The same provision is made in this act as in those establishing other crown companies, and I would point out that the employees in crown companies outnumber all civil servants by at least two to one and perhaps three to one. I think that explanation should be sufficient.


Thomas Langton Church: Involved in section 8 is an important principle to which I would direct the attention of the minister. We had an experience with two other corporations in connection with the questions of employment control and wages, and there we saw the House of Commons divesting itself of control over these two corporations. The minister is himself an able engineer. I can remember when he was a younger man practising his profession, and he is fully aware of conditions governing the employment of men in his profession. As far as possible I would like to see him give a preference to the graduates of our Canadian universities when it comes to employing technical men under this bill. This
Government Companies

is the golden month of commencement in the universities of Canada, and there is no part of science that is more the child of science, the bright-eyed creature of science, than the engineering profession.
As the minister knows, between the two great wars we lost thousands of our young graduates to the United States-graduates in medicine, physics, chemistry and in other branches of science, who went south and contributed to the development of that country. After the first great war, 1,250,(XX) Canadians went to the United States, as was indicated in a survey that was tabled in this house. Many of those men fought for this country at the risk of their lives. I hope therefore the minister will see to it that as far as possible graduates from our Canadian universities are given the preference in employment with crown companies.
I know it will be said that this corporation will make its annual report to the directors and that the facts will be submitted to parliament. Well, we had great hopes in that regard from the Canadian National, and we were also promised great things in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I remember the stand which my former leader took, quite properly, in regard to that corporation. He insisted that they should report to the house. But what do we find to-day? If you want to find anything about employment or control or salaries, for instance, they will tell you nothing.
The Chippewa canal, developing 550,000 horsepower, was built by graduates of Canadian universities. Sir Adam Beck insisted that the engineers engaged in that great undertaking should be Canadians, from Canadian universities. Canadians were employed and they built that magnificent system. As I said before, the minister was engaged in his profession as a young man at the time I was chairman of the harbour board, and he knows the record of Canadian graduates in discoveries in the northwest territories and the development of mining and other engineering projects in Canada. Only the other day I was making inquiries as to where the graduates in engineering of the university of Toronto and other universities will go to make a living, and I was told about what they had done in the great mining development in new Ontario-gold, silver, zinc, platinum, copper, lead, in fact, thirty-six minerals. Survey parties from Toronto, McGill, Queen's and other universities across Canada went out as students, and later as engineers, exploring these fields, and at times they had with them high school students. These people did not 
ask for any easy job in the summer time; they did not work forty hours a week, because you can never develop the resources of the country in that way. They left as students an easy time in the city and worked hard in the holidays to do something for this country.
I hope that the directors of these crown companies will consider this question of employment in the light of what I have said, because we are removing the corporation from the control of parliament and of the civil service commission. I hope it may work out all right; no one knows. I can say that I never got a job for anyone through the civil service commission from the time they were appointed. You cannot even get a branch subpost office where it is badly needed.
Coming back to section 8, I am not one of those who believe that public ownership should develop everything. The only branch of public ownership that has made a great success is the one I referred to a few minutes ago.
From our experience with the other crown corporations, we know that once the house has divested itself of any control over them parliament will get no information concerning them. Kecently a list was given by one of the universities of young graduates who went to the United States. There were doctors of medicine and other professions. There were able graduates in the various branches of the great engineering profession, civil, electrical, chemical, mining, geological and other branches. They have gone to the United States to develop the resources of that country, the sea, the soil, the mines, the forests and so forth. They have gone there after this country has spent millions of dollars on their education. The provinces spend large amounts of money in grants to universities and public and separate schools to educate these young people, and when they graduate the only position they can expect in Canada, except for the odd man, is one which gives them a few dollars, not enough to keep body and soul together.
In connection with this venture I do feel that veterans should be given a chance to show what they can do in this work. Geological parties have been made up to go on surveys, and I hope that our young veterans are included. Our young Canadian university and high and technical school graduates have done much for the advancement of science, and they should be given an opportunity. The future development of the northwest territories will be somewhat under the control of the minister's department. This development may turn out to be one of the most promising that

Government Companies
we have ever had. While I have confidence in this venture and believe that it will work, still there is the question of security with regard to those who shall be employed. What check is there on these people?
Under section 8 the company is under the control and supervision of the officers and servants employed by the company. We know how it worked out with the Canadian Broadcasting corporation; they just snapped their fingers at parliament and said: "What are you going to do about it?" The same thing is true of the Canadian National railways. We have a committee that inquires into the operations of the Canadian National railways, and makes little or no check of it. On one occasion I called that committee a whitewashing committee. We do not want to have this corporation act the same way.
While I have every confidence in what is being done, I believe the time has come to limit some of the salaries to $10,000 a year. There should be a limit of $10,000 on those whom the directors employ without any order in council or special provision. I know of a young engineer about to graduate who has a position now which will pay him more than that, and he has just got a degree. That is true of the mining industry in Canada. If you pick up a copy of the manual issued by the financial and mining Companies of this country you will see what has been done there for the benefit of Canadian industry and Canadian students on whom the country has spent so much money. It is possible that in the preparatory stages we may have to bring somebody from Britain or from our neighbour to the south, but I believe that ninety-five per cent of the technical men should be Canadians who have been educated as I have indicated. If that is done we shall be giving some help toward the real development of science.
There is another bill before us which has to do with scientific and other research councils. I shall not refer to it at the moment. I do not want to see this corporation under government control turned into research, and research just to keep the government of the day in office. Parliament should have some control over it, and we should have no politics in it. It seems to me that everything in parliament is politics. We are the worst party-ridden country in the world. I say that without fear of contradiction, because I have seen something of politics, since I have been sitting on the back benches for many years. I can tell the committee that the people in the constituencies want to get value for their money, and these crown companies' are run solely from the commercial aspect. The
people do not want to see their children and their grandchildren go to the United States after having gone through our technical schools and universities in the cities where in Toronto $12 to $14 million is spent on technical education. I want to see the children and grandchildren of our soldiers of the two wars get a chance to earn a livelihood and develop their own country, for which their fathers and grandfathers fought.
We do not see much reference to this in the newspapers. We shall not see much reference to the discussion here. In fact for all we do hear we might most of the time just as well meet in secret.	_
Then we have the broadcasting corporation -another one. A motion was on the order paper to-day calling for certain information and it was challenged. The house refused to give us any information on that government corporation. There are thousands of municipalities in this country. They developed their own power through Canadian engineers. They had control because it was a municipal scheme, and there was very little politics in it. I believe the time has come to consider the scientific aspect of this matter if we are to make any headway in research. A separate research council should take control and develop and explore these subjects. We have only touched the fringe of these mining subjects in Canada. We should undertake development without politics. We should develop our great heritage, coal and all these other things. It would mean a great deal in employment to the .people of Canada. A wrong solution of it will not. If we get politics mixed up in this, we can say good-bye to any search or research, because, as I see it, that search is research trying to keep my hon. friends in office.
The minister, who is an engineer, has been showing some capacity and ability to get results. I do not agree with all that he has done, because you cannot get everybody tcf agree. Fortunately we have a diversity of opinion in this country, but I will say this about him. Since I have known him, and I have known him a long time, I have found him to be a man whom I, one of the opposition, can approach and he will give careful attention and consideration to what is placed before him. As an officer of a -municipality and chairman of the harbour board, I found that out." I do not wish to say anything further on that. This should be a non-political venture. It would be a good thing if an individual who was not known to be of a certain political stripe could be placed on the directorate. There should be included men from different branches
Government Companies

of business so that these crown companies could develop solely from the commercial point of view.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every elfort is being made to interest young graduates of engineering schools in the work of the corporations. At the moment there is an acute shortage of young scientists, or older scientists for that matter, and of engineers both young and old. My hon. friend can be assured that there will be no lack of openings in the next few years at least for men graduating from our universities.
While I am on my feet may I say that my authorities have been questioned on the point discussed by the hon. member for Carleton. I hold in my hand the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936. I shall read sections 16 and 17. While I am reading these sections the hon. member can compare them with sections 4 and 5 of the bill before us. Section 16 reads:
The governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, may authorize the Minister of Finance to place to the credit of the corporation working capital advances from any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, but the aggregate amount of such advances outstanding at any one time shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars, and such advances shall be repayable to the Minister of Finance on demand.
Then section 17:
The governor in council may authorize the construction, extension or improvement of capital works of the broadcasting facilities of the corporation in Canada and, on the recommendation of the minister, may authorize the Minister of Finance to place to the credit of the corporation from any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund such sum or sums as may be necessary to carry out such construction, extension or improvement of capital works: provided that the total amount which may be authorized for the said purposes shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars.
Then I have before me the consolidation of the National Housing Act of 1944. Section 27A thereof reads:
The minister may pay any expenditurs incurred under or in carrying out the provisions of this part, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund to an aggregate amount not exceeding five million dollars.
I have the Hansard record of the vote on that question, and included among the yeas I find the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell).


George Russell Boucher: I am very glad to have the minister place that on record, because if he will just check it up he will find a perfectly satisfactory reason for the stand I am now taking and the stand I took in that vote. In 
connection with the Canadian Broadcasting corporation we were speaking of one company, under one act, to operate in one way. We put a limit of $500,000 on the money which could be advanced. This bill places a limit on the amount that can be advanced in any one year, but no limit on the amount that can be advanced in any number of years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are quite mistaken.


George Russell Boucher: Here we have a number of companies. This bill is to deal with all crown companies, including Polymer, Elorado or any others of the. hundred or more companies which may be set up under it. So that our present submission is entirely consistent with our stand in connection with the broadcasting corporation, when we ask the minister to bring in one bill for each company, to limit the amount of money that may be given each company and to set out the powers of each company in a separate bill, just as was done in connection with the broadcasting corporation. It is an entirely different matter when you come to grant money for crown companies. Certainly parliament cannot expect to set up crown companies without granting them money; certainly under the broadcasting act we did grant money, and gave the governor in council certain power. But that power is much more limited in the act setting up the broadcasting corporation than in this bill. Here it is not limited to one company.


John Thomas Hackett: Moreover, that was a
great public service and I submit should be distinct from the commercial enterprise or enterprises upon which the government may embark under this bill. Here we have no limitation restricting the corporations to what are sometimes called the public services, such as those rendered by the post office and by the broadcasting corporation, if you like. The whole realm of financial, industrial and commercial activity is thrown open to government action, and these powers will enable the government to finance these crown companies in an altogether extraordinary way. I am sure the minister has given mature consideration to the drastic and radical change made by section 3. Even during the war the profits made by these companies came to the treasury. They could not be expended or dealt with in any way by the corporations themselves. Under these powers the crown companies become masters of their own finances, and in each case independent undertakings financed by public moneys are free from the control of parliament. That, I submit to the minister, is subversive of the very elementary principles of parliamentary government.

Government Companies


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then surely parliament must have been subverted many years ago, because a great many corporations do spend their earnings. For instance, the national harbours board does; the broadcasting corporation does; the Canadian National railway does, and it has been in operation since 1919.


John Thomas Hackett: Those axe the great public services.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How do you measure a great service? Polymer, with a capital of $50,000,000, is not a small service.


Mr. JACKMAN:: It has a great inventory turn-over, but what is the turn-over of the national harbours board? It is nothing at all. It does not handle a commodity; it is a service company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It handles a great many commodities.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Pension or superannuation.
Mr. FLEMING:: On this section several questions immediately arise. Here we have provision that the Civil Service Superannuation Act shall not apply to the officers and servants employed by any of the companies to be established under the bill. The second subsection preserves all the rights of persons who may have had any rights under the civil service superannuation provisions before becoming employees or officers of one of these crown companies. What was said yesterday as to the effect of section 8 in creating a super civil service will likewise apply to this section. Not only that, but it is quite apparent that under this section it will be possible for a number of companies-and the number is unlimited as far as the legislation is concerned-each to have its own superannuation scheme. There may be the utmost diversity as between them, with wide discrepancies in amounts. I ask if that is a sound principle.
I invite you also, Mr. Chairman, to consider the fact that when we are dealing with legislative provision for the establishment of superannuation schemes we are dealing with something that contemplates a long period of time. Let us look at this situation squarely. Actually in this legislation the minister is playing a game for 'keeps. It is not just temporary legislation; it is not legislation introduced for a temporary purpose. If that were the case there would be no occasion, I suggest, for legislative provision to establish superannuation funds and take care of employees who have given over twenty years and often a lifetime of service. Let us be quite frank about it. What the minister had to say in the first place in justification for the
bill was that there were five corporations which must continue to exist for a time, two to exist for a brief period and three for a long period.
In the two bills accompanying this bill, namely bills Nos. 154 and 165, we are asked to open the gates so that crown companies, without number and without limitation on their existence in point of time, may be established. The situation is simply this-and this section proves it beyond peradventure-that what parliament is now being asked to authorize is a permanent method of doing government business, namely a method whereby crown companies are set up by the government without first having reference to parliament, and without first having their creation subjected to direct parliamentary approval.
Legislation of this sort is not the kind of legislation which ought to precede the incorporation of crown companies to carry on specific projects of government business. If there are any hon. members who are still naive enough, after all the time spent in this debate, to believe that this is simply legislation to take care of an immediate and temporary purpose, then surely to goodness their eyes are opened by now.
I will say this for our C.C.F. friends to my left, that from the outset of the debate they have seen clearly the scope and potentialities of the bill.


Mr. FRASER:: And they approved it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a gentle word to describe the enthusiasm with which they have received this legislation. However, I give them credit for having been clear-sighted in their approach to the legislation. They can see that, so far as the effect of the legislation introduced by the minister is concerned, it is a policy of .socialism for keeps.


Mr. KNOWLES:: First of all, there is one point of a general nature I should like to have cleared up. It seems to me. that most of the opposition raised against this measure by members of the Progressive Conservative party is based on the fear that the legislation makes it possible for the government, without coming back to parliament, to incorporate crown companies without number. There are many lawyers sitting to my right and, if that is their belief, I wish they would point out in the bill any section which substantiates that position.


Mr. GREEN:: If the hon. member had been here last night he would have heard it discussed.
Government Companies


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member's
imagination is running wild. We did not mention that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I see the bill, it is simply what the title indicates, namely an act respecting the operation of government companies. I do not see anywhere. in the bill a provision for setting up any crown company.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has not the hon. member read the provisions of bills Nos. 154 and 165 which give power, with the approval of the minister, to go on setting up crown companies without number? And has he not regard for the fact that these three bills were introduced together, for common purpose?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no such bills as those mentioned by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other bills to which the hon. member has referred substantiate the position I am taking, namely that in order to set up these companies without number, of which my hon. friends are afraid, legislation has to be brought before parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend's position were well taken, it would not be necessary to bring in these other bills. Bill No. 155 would give that authority to the government.
Then, my hon. friends talk about our ready acceptance and approval of the bill. Yes, we do approve it, as far as it goes. As a matter of fact, we are not satisfied that it goes far enough; and the minister is quite aware of that. But it seems to me that there should not be quite so much loose talk about the bill's giving the government power which it does not give at all.
It is only a measure laying down a pattern by which crown companies are to be operated, if set up under these provisions. If I am wrong in that, then I should like to be corrected either by the minister or by hon. members to my right.


George Russell Boucher: The spending of a million dollars a month is more than a pattern, is it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The million dollars to which my hon. friend refers has to have reference to a particular company which must either be already in existence or set up in the normal way by act of parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not by act of parliament; it is under part I of the Companies Act, so far as the provisions of these other measures are concerned.
("Mr. Green.]


George Russell Boucher: Study the other bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill No. 154 simply
proves the point I am making.
I would interpret your leaning forward in the chair, Mr. Chairman, as a suggestion that I ought not to do what other hon. members have been doing, but rather that I should proceed to a discussion of the section. I have one or two suggestions to make, and I hope that the minister will realize they are made with a desire to be helpful and not to hinder the operation of the measure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Helpful for socialism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would refer first to section 9 (1) where I notice the word "may" appears. It is stated that these companies may establish and support a pension fund or group. It seems to me that the principle of making provision for the years of retirement of those rendering service should be accepted at least by the government, and with that in mind I would suggest that the word be changed to "shall", so that the provision would be compulsory, and that the companies would either have to be connected with some established pension fund or have to establish one for their employees.
Then, subsection 2 makes provision to keep on a superannuation basis employees who formerly were in the civil service and who came over into one of these crown companies. It also makes a similar provision for former civil servants who became employees of crown companies and then went back to the civil service. That, too, seems clear. However, I see no provision for employees of one of these crown companies who, let us say, in the event of such company completing its job and dissolving, have a chance to come into the civil service. Should not consideration be given to the beginning of a superannuation or pension fund right at the commencement of the term of service of all these employees, making sure that such arrangement would be completely interchangeable as between service in crown companies and in the civil service.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why not put them all under the civil service?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be perfectly satisfactory to me. My only concern is that we should not lose any more time in recognizing the claim of those who render service to some security in their old age.
One other closely related question is that having to do with age limits as applied to entry into employment in government companies. I have at the moment one case in mind. It has to do with a young lady who

Government Companies
for a number of years was employed in a temporary capacity in one of the departments of government, and who recently was considered to have those special qualifications which would make her employment by the Canadian Broadcasting corporation desirable.
I understand that arrangements were just about completed for her employment by that corporation when it was discovered that she was a little older than she looked. She was in fact slightly past the age limit of thirty-five years. *


Mr. MacNICOL:: You would not call that
old.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not, no. Because of that circumstance there seems to be some difficulty about her being employed by the Canadian Broadcasting corporation. I understand that the reason so far as the Canadian Broadcasting corporation is concerned is that it would not meet the provisions of their pension fund. Is there any danger of anything like that happening in connection with these companies? It seems to me that throughout employment generally, and certainly in government service, whether civil service or a crown company, there ought to be interchangeability. It should be possible for people to move about, particularly when, as happens in many cases, the experience gained in one line of government service makes a person desirable for some other kind of work. I would appreciate it, if the minister would comment on the suggestions we make for the purpose of strengthening the bill and making employment with- these crown companies more attractive. In other words, they come from one who is in support of the measure before the committee.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Would the minister allow me to add to that question? I apologize in advance of asking the question because, if it has any validity, it will really give assistance to the minister. As I read section 9 as worded, anyone entering the service of a crown company from the civil service would be entitled to whatever rights he would acquire while in the company and still retain all the pension rights he would have in the civil service. The latter part of subsection 3 would seem to indicate that he would have all the benefits, except salary, that he would have had as a civil servant.
There is another question I should like to ask with regard to subsection 2. It would appear that anyone employed in- a government company would still be entitled to his rights under the civil service pension fund. In other words, he would be entitled to the
contributions that had been made, I presume partly by the government. It is possible I may have read this subsection wrong, but I think I have read it carefully and it seems to me that there is that duplication.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 9, subsection 1, makes provision for the setting up of certain benefits by the company, not necessarily a pension scheme. None of the crown companies formed during "the war has a pension scheme. A company may have sickness insurance, a hospitalization fund or group insurance, which would be paid for by the employees with a contribution by the management. That is the type of benefit we have to-day in the crown companies. Crown companies which are permanent or reasonably permanent no doubt will apply to have a pension fund established. The rules of the pension fund will be worked out in agreement between the officers of the company and the superintendent of insurance for the government and would have to be approved by the privy council before being adopted. That is a matter for the future. This is simply permissive to allow the setting up of a fund of that sort. <
Subsections 2 and 3 have appeared in every act that has been passed during the last ten years where there is a possibility of a civil servant being used in a government company. It is simply a provision to protect the rights of a civil servant who may leave government employ presumably to take temporary employment with a crown company.. This provision preserves his rights to the benefits of the civil service fund. If he is already a member of the fund when he joins the company he can continue his payments into the fund and keep up his standing, even though he draws no salary from the government. But if he elects to keep his benefits under the civil service fund he is not entitled to the benefits of any superannuation fund that might be set up by the crown company. Obviously he would * not be eligible to benefit from two types of superannuation under the federal government.


John Thomas Hackett: I understand that it is quite possible that the salary paid by a crown company would be greater than that paid in the civil service. Let us assume that a man earning $5,000 left the civil service to take a position with a crown company where he was paid $10,000; he would not be permitted to keep up his civil service insurance, if you permit me the word, to that extent and be insured in the company for the residue?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the civil servant would contribute to the civil service pension fund on the basis of the salary he was receiving
Government Companies

when he left the civil service. If he were paid more money in the crown company it would not affect his position under the civil service fund.


John Thomas Hackett: It seems to me that in fairnes he should have some pension rights for his excess salary drawn from the crown company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question is hypothetical because no crown company under the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of Reconstruction and Supply has at present a pension fund. I think the point raised by my bon. friend would require study if and when pension funds are established by crown companies. The only crown company that I know of that has a pension fund is the Canadian Broadcasting corporation. I am not familiar with the provisions of that fund, and therefore I cannot say whether the point raised by my hon. friend is met.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Annual report.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister be agreable to having these annual reports brought down to the .public as soon as possible? The section as it stands provides that a company shall submit an annual report to the minister as soon as possible after the 31st of March in each year; the minister shall lay the report before parliament if parliament is then in session, or within fifteen days of the next session of parliament. Would the minister be agreeable to adopting the principle which applies under the Companies Act where a company submits its annual report, no.t as soon as possible but within four months? Would the minister be agreeable to having these reports published within the four month period?	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the standard section that is put in all bills. I doubt if hon. members would wish to have a report published in the press before it was presented to parliament. I would not be a advocate of that. If I were a member of the opposition I should like to see the report before it was published, or at least as soon as it was published, so that my comments on the report could go out.
I think it is desirable to follow the standard form. This section will be found in a great many bills having to do with similar corporations, and I believe it would be unwise, to have a departure from that practice in this case.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Most government reports do not concern business enterprises where time is of some importance. If the fiscal year 
of a company corresponded with the government fiscal year the auditor general would have four months to go over the accounts. That would take it into the summer. We hope that parliament will not always be sitting through the summer months. That would mean that in all likelihood the report would not be tabled until parliament assembled in January or February of the following year, at which time the report would be from eight to ten months stale. I think the question of time outweighs the minister's argument that members of parliament would like to have the report submitted to them first rather than to the press of the country simultaneously. I hope that the minister will give consideration to the suggestion I am making. I do not think it would cause him or the department any difficulty, and it would mean that we should get the information when there is still time to bring about any rectification in policy or to make any comments needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would hesitate to change on the spur of the moment the practice that has been well established in connection with these crown companies. Every corporation of the government has a section similar to this.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The report of the Canadian National railways is always tabled in parliament before it is printed in the newspapers. Certainly the monthly earnings are not tabled in the house but are given to the newspapers from month to month. I think that is the way that any business enterprise, whether government-owned or privately owned, should carry on. The minister should draw a distinction between this type of company and certain other emanations from the crown.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Would it not be possible to have the fiscal year of these companies end on December 31? Then the figures would be available to parliament during the session. I do not see why the fiscal year of these companies should have to coincide with the fiscal year of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to give consideration to that suggestion. The fiscal year of the Canadian National railways was changed so that it would terminate with the end of the calendar year. I dare say that could be done. I shall be glad to give it consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 1,1-Coming into force.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to section 11 which I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs to [DOT]move. It is as follows:

Government Companies
That section 11 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This act shall apply to a company only from the date of the issue of the proclamation by the governor in council declaring this act to be applicable to such company."


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I move accordingly.


John Bracken: Would the -minister explain the effect of this amendment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. As I explained to hon. members, there are at the moment some thirteen companies which would be affected by the proclamation of the act. It is the feeling of the department that the act need not apply to certain of these companies which will be wound up in the next two or three months. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the government to select companies at present in process of being wound up and to apply the act only to those others which will require its application for a fairly long period.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I may make an observation, it will be noted that the proposed amendment is not confined to existing companies. The reason given by the minister for the amendment relates purely and simply to existing companies, because he says it may not be expedient to apply the act to certain companies now existing. But the amendment goes much farther than that. It applies to any company whether in existence to-day or hereafter created. Certainly if there is any merit in the bill there can be no justification for a series of orders in council applying its provisions in turn to any one of the numerous companies which may be set up as crown companies in the future. My suggestion to the minister, in the light of the ground he has put forward, is that the amendment be confined to existing companies. If there is reason for not applying it to companies which are in process of being dissolved and their charters surrendered, well and good; but once you make that exception, surely there should not be any reason for not making a general proclamation of the act. Is it reasonable to make individual proclamations of the act making it applicable to a particular company? The minister has put this bill forward as one which was required to lay down a -course of procedure and a method of financing for crown companies in general, with the exception of statutory companies. That is a long way from his amendment. If the amendment passes in the form in which it has been introduced it >
will mean that it will be possible to defer any general proclamation of the act and reserve to the governor in council the power to say to which individual company, whether in existence now or hereafter created, the act shall have application.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend's colleagues spent several hours in arguing that there should be a separate bill for each company, and now he is arguing that there should be one bill of general application.
Some hon-. MEMBERS: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If a company is brought into existence it must have a body and legal existence. This is the standard provision for companies under part I. Since my hon. friend's colleagues have argued strongly for a separate bill for each company, he should not object strenuously to a separate order in council for each company. He seems to be taking a strange position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a strange position, as the minister will see if he will apply a little logic. Here is an amendment which cuts right across the principle for which the minister has been arguing throughout the consideration of this measure. If there is any merit in the legislation, surely the ordinary rule should apply, that there shall be one proclamation of the act. The minister says: We have a situation which makes it desirable for us not to apply this measure to certain existing corporations. But he did not answer my point. I tried to make myself clear and thought I had spent enough time in doing so. I do not want to take up more time than is necessary for a clear understanding of the situation. The effect of the amendment will be this. It will lie within the power of the minister-it is always a question of giving the minister more. power, and that is what we object to-to decide whether the act shall or shall not apply to any particular crown corporation as long as it is a joint stock company. That being so, the amendment cuts right across the principle for which the minister has been arguing right along, the principle which he says he has sought to give effect to in introducing a general bill of ..this kind applicable to all crown companies incorporated under part I of the Companies Act. Far from cutting across the position for which I have been contending all the way through, the position I now take is precisely in keeping with that which I have taken all along, and what I have said is put forward with a view to making a constructive suggestion in order to be helpful to the minister, though I do not think he has accepted it in that light. I think the amendment proposed ought to be further considered. I should be surprised if in introducing this amendment the minister had in mind anything more than the existing companies to which he has referred.
Government Companies


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is quite true I had in mind existing companies. I had in mind that Allied War Supplies, one of the largest of the crown companies, is expected to be liquidated before the 1st of July, and therefore it is hardly worth while applying this bill to Allied War Supplies. But there are existing companies to which it is applied, which will require the provisions of the act prior to their winding up, instead its being applied automatically to companies such as Allied, which does not require it. The officers of my department have suggested that it' be applied by order in council to each individual company rather than 'by a blanket provision to all companies. As far as new companies are concerned, if they are set up under act of parliament, such as the national research council, they could not be effective until the rules and regulations were applied. The provision now suggested would permit those rules and regulations to apply through the issuance of order in council rather than automatically.


George Russell Boucher: I am impressed by the last words of the minister when he said that the officers of the department felt that this act should be applied by order in council to individual companies. I think that is entirely consistent with the argument which has been advanced; that this whole act should be a measure with respect to each company when that company is created, and not an act covering all companies. But if the minister makes the amendment he is actually making this act, which was general, apply only to such companies as the governor in council may select for its application. I do not know what the intention is. The minister may have the very best intentions now and his intentions may be exclusively confined to existing companies; but it would seem anomalous if we were to allow the act to pass so that the minister could say that company A shall have the benefit of the powers, privileges, liabilities and so forth and that company B, run under similar circumstance, a similar business, shall not. If we come to that point, then I suggest that the minister should take the officers of the department again into consultation and see whether they will not agree with us that a separate bill should be brought in for each companjq setting out its powers, privileges and liabilities.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
\
Section as Amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I should like to have it read now.
. Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the measure before us has had very full discussion and what I am about to say need not take more than a very few minutes. It has to do, however, with one of the fundamental features of the measure, namely, the drawing upon unappropriated funds for the financing of these government companies. The bill is for the operation of government companies, including their financing, and it provides for financing them out of -I think I use the words correctly-unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
It is important that hon. members should thoroughly understand what we are doing in this measure. The measure itself is for the operation of government companies, companies already set up under other measures, or companies which may yet be set up under measures now existing or which later may be brought in. We are saying to the government that, no matter how many of such companies there are or may be, the government by this bill may arrange for financing any or all of them from unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
What is the consolidated revenue fund? It is one fund into which all of the revenues of the government are brought, whether derived from taxation, from borrowings, from earnings or from any other sourcfe. That is the consolidated revenue fund. What this parliament does when the government comes in with a supply bill or a money bill or an appropriation bill is to authorize the government to spend so much money on specific enterprises of one kind or another. They are called appropriation bills. Out of that consolidated revenue fund parliament authorizes the government to draw so much money for specific purposes, nearly [DOT] -all of which will be found in the estimates for the present fiscal year and some of which will come down in supplementary estimates later.
Let us assume for a moment that the consolidated revenue fund changes. It is changing daily. Let us suppose the fund is $4,000 million, or that amount may be accumulated during a given period of time. This house may have directly authorized, either in the / estimates now or by statute formerly, the expenditure by the government of only $3,000 million. There is therefore a balance left in the consolidated revenue fund. What we are doing by this bill is saying to the government, "You have government companies now. You may set up other government companies

Government Companies
under other bills than this, and you may draw upon this fund to the extent provided for the operation of any or all of them without coming back to this house again." In other words, it is a blank cheque of a size that we do not know. Not only is it a blank cheque of a size that we do not know, but it can be arranged by the government in any way it choose after we have gone. It is in effect an appropriation bill not for this year only but for as long as the measure remains on the statute books. We thereby give the government power to draw on any balance that there may be in the consolidated revenue fund of this country, to operate these companies. My submission is that it is much too broad powers to take away from parliament and put in the hands of the governor in council. That is the only point I propose to raise on this measure at this time. I think it is a matter of fundamental concern to the house and to the country. The minister said that it had been done before in some cases. Suppose it has been. It does not need to be continued. And generally when it has been done before it has been done for specific measures. Therefore I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher):
That Bill No. 155 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to committee so as to be amended as follows:
1.	That the word "unappropriated" in the third line of paragraph (a) of section 4 of the said act be deleted and the word "appropriated" be substituted in its place.
2.	That the word "unappropriated" in the second line of paragraph (b) of clause 5 of the said act be deleted and the word "appropriated" substituted in its place.
3.	That the word "unappropriated" in the third line of paragraph (c) of clause 5 of the said act be deleted and the word "appropriated" substituted in its place.
This amendment means simply that the government may draw upon funds that may be appropriated from time to time for the operation of these companies, but that we do not give the government a blank cheque now of unknown size. This bill is an appropriation measure for as long as the act remains on the statute books, the result of which is that the government may draw huge sums for the operation of present and subsequently formed companies without coming back to this house again for the appropriation of funds. The amendment I have moved would require the government to get the approval of parliament for specific expenditures. It is opposed to giving the government a blank cheque of unknown size.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the amendment would be to destroy any meaning whatever of sections 4 and 5. The bill would then read:
The governor in council may
(a) authorize the Minister of Finance to advance to a company, by way of loan, additional working capital out of appropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
Obviopsly, if the moneys were appropriated it would not require this bill to authorize the Minister of Finance to pay the money over to the company. In authorizing the appropriation bill, parliament would have already taken that step. The purpose of sections 4 and 5 is to authorize the government to afford temporary relief in case of need to the company, subject to later appropriation by parliament. The reason is that these companies are now operating in a commercial field and are not able to predict their financial requirements in advance as accurately as is a government department.
My hon. friend has referred to the present provision as a blank cheque. The cheque is not blank. A maximum amount is definitely specified. It is $500,000 in the case of working capital, and $500,000 in the case of capital advances.


An hon. MEMBER:: For each company.


John Bracken: But there are a number of them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For each company. It does not matter if there are thirteen companies, the advance to one cannot be $500,000 multiplied by thirteen.


John Bracken: It may mean thirteen more.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may. In any event, each company is taken individually. They do not make application all together. The practice is not new. I have referred to the Canadian Broadcasting Act where the limit is $100,000 for working capital advances and $500,000 for improvement of capital works. In the case of Bretton Woods, which hon. gentlemen opposite voted for only a few months ago, the limit was $700,000, and in the case of the Central Mortgage and Housing corporation the limit is $7,000,000 that can be drawn. Exactly the same words were used in all these acts. In other words, they are standard provisions wrhich have been placed in the acts setting up government corporations.
As I have said, to change the word "unappropriated" to "appropriated1" would make the provision absolutely meaningless, because if the money has been appropriated it does not require any provision in any act other than the Appropriation Act to place it at the
Government Companies

disposal of the corporation or any other agency to which the appropriation was made. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,, I ask hon. members to oppose this amendment as being an attempt to vitiate that which the government believes to be important to the successful operation of the crown companies which would be affected by it.	.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: I have some slight interest of a personal nature in this measure in that last night when I put this point to the minister he said: "My hon. friend is quite mistaken." That remark appears at page 2186 of Hansard. Last night in deference to the minister's experience I did not go on, but on examining the question after that incident I found that what I had said was, in my vieiw, strictly correct.
On many occasions, both last night and to-day, the minister said that these payments are subject to later appropriation by parliament. After being further questioned by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher,), the minister said, as appears at page 2186 of Hansard:
The further step is a vote of parliament appropriating the money.
Therefore it is quite clear that the minister intends to come back to parliament each year to have this money voted. The wording of section 5, as it exists in the bill, however, does - not require the minister to, come back to parliament for the money. I am sure that the minister would not wish the statute to be passed in a form which he does not intend it to take.
Last night I said that I thought this section was analogous to the provision in the Family Allowances Act whereby the amounts of family allowances paid are a statutory vote and are not subject to discussion and control in the estimates, although in fact they appear in the estimates; whereas the administrative expenses of the Family Allowances Act are subject to control by parliament, are discussed in the estimates and are in a numbered vote which can be controlled by vote of the committee of supply. I referred, therefore, to the Family Allowances Act and found that what I had stated was exactly the case. Section 3 of that act contains wording similar to that of section 5 of the measure now before us, and provides that these family allowance payments may be made out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund. Then, when I turn to page 28 of this year's estimates I find an item covering family allowance payments of $250,000,000, with "(S)" before it instead of a number, showing that 	.
it is in fact a statutory item which does not require to be voted,. To prove more conclusively that I am right, in section 16 of the Family Allowances Act provision is made for the payment of administrative expenses, in these words:
The expenses necessary for the administration of this act, other than payment of allowances, shall be payable out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
If you turn again to page 28 of this year's estimates you see item 228, "Family allowances-administration", showing that to be the way of providing for a controllable vote, and that the present wording pertains to a statutory vote. The minister has said several times that he intends to come to parliament for these moneys every year, and I am sure he would not wish the. statute to pass in a form that would not -require him or' possibly his successors through the years to come to parliament. In fact, as the section now stands, it is my view that, no matter how much the minister wished to come to parliament for these moneys at the time the estimates are brought down, legally he would not be able to do so.


George Russell Boucher: I believe that one other point in the minister's last statement might be brought before the house. The minister stated that to amend the bill as suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) would vitiate sections 4 and 5. Let us analyse that statement. Sections 4 and 5 provide that by order in council the dominion government may pay out of the consolidated revenue fund to any crown company and any number of crown companies a sum or sums up to $500,000, and at any time. In the second place, it can give in the same way to any company or any number of companies, and even the same company or companies as before, in any fiscal year and, I submit, in every fiscal year if that should be so decided, a further sum of $500,000. The minister says that even if an order in council is passed allocating moneys to these firms it will be brought back to parliament and there discussed. I cannot agree with that statement because I do not understand how it would be done. This amendment simply means that the money must be voted by parliament before an order in council can transfer it to a company.
The minister says that if the government is not permitted to advance this money by order in council before it is voted by parliament, sections 4 and 5 are of no value, that their meaning will be destroyed. According to his statement, therefore, sections 4 and 5 have absolutely no meaning or significance if

Government Companies
parliament is consulted before an order in council is passed. But he suggests they have a meaning if the order in council can be passed giving the money to the companies, with parliament then asked to approve something already accomplished. In other words parliament is to be asked to lock the barn door after the horse is stolen. I believe that the minister's own statement more than justifies the discussion this afternoon and last evening in opposition to this blank cheque legislation. I say "blank cheque" because, while it is a limited cheque, there is no limit to the number of companies that may get this limited cheque, or on the number of years during which that cheque may be issued.
In the amendment which was moved before the bill came out of committee the minister said he was making this act apply to one company; that they could not make it apply to any others, but they could make it apply to any company by order in council at any time they saw fit to do so. In view of these very revealing statements by the minister, Mr. Speaker, I believe the present amendment is entirely justified.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to argue the point as to whether this is a blank cheque. If my hon. friend would like to know how blank cheque legislation reads let me read-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: The minister has a perfect right to answer a question, but if it is not a question he may not speak a second time.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this is the end product of what I referred to last evening. During yesterday's debate most of the hon. gentlemen to my right who spoke to this measure referred to the few remarks I made the previous evenings Of course I feel greatly flattered that what I said should have so much significance, but as a matter of fact I did not say at all what my hon. friends have suggested I did. We are supporting this bill, not because it represents socialism or is a step in that direction. I am not going to discuss that aspect now, but I want to submit that in my opinion the amendment is out of order. I would refer to citation 344 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, at page 136:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I submit, sir, that this amendment is not intelligible or consistent with itself. Tlae leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) movea the amendment and then explained it; but what he said in explanation is not what the house has before it. It has what appears in the written amendment, and it contains these words:
That Bill No. 155 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to committee so as to be amended as follows:
1.	That the word "unappropriated" in the third line of paragraph (a) of section 4 of the said act be deleted and the word "appropriated" be substituted in its place.
Then it goes on through the other sections, proposing a similar change. The point I wish to make is that if the money has already been appropriated it cannot be appropriated a second time. Consequently I submit that the amendment is out of order.


Gordon Graydon: Good team work.


William Ross Macdonald: On the point of order, I rule that the amendment is in order. My belief is that the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-fnnis) is more one of procedure. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. STOKES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


John Watson MacNaught: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.	-


George Russell Boucher: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MANROSS:: I was paired with the , Deputy Speaker (Mr. Macdonald) (Brantford City). Had I voted I would have been out of order.


Alan Cockeram: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I was paired with the hon. member for York North (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired vyith the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Percy Chapman Black: I was paired with the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: I was paired with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Taxation


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was paired with the hon. member for Outre-mont (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


James Horace King: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for London, I must rule that he was strictly in order.


John Bracken: I move that your ruling be made unanimous.
Mr. HOWE moved the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, June 6, 1946.