1946-08-12

RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Breithaupt.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved:: That standing order 105, respecting the posting of private bills, be suspended for the remainder of the present session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 375 for the relief of Mildred Cohen Share.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 376 for the relief of Muriel Elizabeth Clarke Gagnon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 377 for the relief of Margaret Fern Hobbs Burns.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 378 for the relief of Joseph Euclide Beaudoin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 379 for the relief of Mary Rose Ellement Boulet.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 380 for the relief of Jean Stewart Lavery Martin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 381 for the relief of Catherine Edith Thompson Williamson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 382 for the relief of Joseph McCaffery.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 383 for the relief of Marian Pearl Dunfield.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 384 for the relief of Dollard Charest.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 385 for the relief of Kerttu Helvi Helen Fascio.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 386 for the relief of Anne Shacket Payne.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 387 for the relief of Gaston Marcel Chapdelaine.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 388 for the relief of Ross David Chartier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 389 for the relief of John Boosamra -Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 390 for the relief of Dawz Sims.- Mr. Maybank.

Questions

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoMASTER:
1.	Is the method stated on pages 235-238 of the report of the Royal Commission on Cooperatives the one adopted by the department in assessing and collecting income tax on mutual fire insurance companies?
2.	If so, what is the authority of the minister in so assessing the said companies?
Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


REPATRIATION OF JAPANESE
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Was one Kosho Matano, a naturalized Canadian of Japanese origin, who served in the Canadian forces in the first world war, among those repatriated to Japan this year?
2.	Was he confined in the British Columbia mental hospital at the time of his departure for Japan?
3.1f so, how long had he been a patient in the mental hospital ?
4. Did he sign the repatriation form being circulated among those of Japanese origin?
5.1f so, did an R.C.M.P. officer or constable secure his signature?
6.	How many other patients of Japanese origin in the British Columbia mental hospital have been sent to Japan?
7.	How many from mental hospitals in the other provinces?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Since January, 1933.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	One was deported by Immigration branch; 15 went at their own request.
7.	None.


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	How many Japanese left Greenwood, British Columbia, for Japan (a) prior to January >1, 1946; (b) since January 1, 1946?
2.	On what dates did they leave and how many were in each group?
3.	Of the total, how many were (a) nationals; (b) citizens of Canada, by naturalization; (e) native born?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	(a) 10; (b) 185.
2.	10 left for Japan August, 1943; 134 left for Japan June, 1946; 51 left for Japan August, 1946.
3.	(a) 26; (b) 56; (c) 32 Canadian born 16 years of age and over; 81 'Canadian born minors.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. DiORION:
1.	What quantity of A.R.P. fire-fighting equipment has been disposed of by the government?
2.	What quantity of such equipment was sold to municipal corporations?
3.	What was the sale price of such equipment?

Mr. HLYNKA:: 1.	Have any meetings been held by the Canadian-Soviet Friendship League in tile auditorium of the National Research Council building during the years 1944, 1945 and 1946?
2.	If so, how many and on what dates?
3.	What was the subject of discussion at each
of	meetings, and who presided?
4.	Was there any charge for the use of the
auditorium for these meetings? If so, what charges were made for each meeting and to whom was the money paid? ...	,
5.	What was the name of the individual who
applied for the use of the auditorium on each occasion?	.
6.	What is the name of the official or officials responsible for renting the auditorium to the above-mentioned organization?


SUBSIDIES TO PROVINCES
Mr. REID:: What have been the total amounts given by way of assistance or subsidies to the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the years 1940 to 1945?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked me if any direction or suggestions had gone forward from my office with respect to decisions being made by the regional, war labour board of British Columbia within the limit of ten cents an hour increase. I have checked up as I promised and I can assure the hon. member that no such direction or suggestion has been advanced. It may be that the regional war labour board of British Columbia, in view of the sittings of the industrial relations committee of the House of Commons, feel that they should wait until the committee has reported to this house before making final findings and directions in some cases.
Passports


PASSPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the item in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, entitled "Suspicion in false passport ring .points to federal cabinet member" has been drawn to his attention, and if he has any report to make to the house in connection thereto?
Right Hon. L. 8. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Before I got out of bed this morning I began to have questions asked me as to what I knew about this report in the Gazette and its reproduction as a dispatch of the Canadian Press. Just as soon as I got to the office I started to telephone myself to others to find out if I could get any information about it. So far I have not been able to get anything that I could convey to the house. There may be something-


Angus MacInnis: Something in it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:-on which the dispatch is built, but I have not yet been able to trace it. If the writer of the dispatch were to give me more precise information perhaps it would assist me in running down whatever it may be, if there is anything, around which it is written. The paper has another dispatch about a reshuffle in the cabinet, and if the one about the passports is not built on any surer foundation than that one, I do not think we need be very much concerned about it.


ARMY SUPPLIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: On Saturday I directed a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply as to the disclosure of the name of the merchant or merchandiser who had left or had abandoned shoes on the dump at Point St. Charles. The minister was good enough to indicate at that time that he had already given that information. I have run down the matter as far as I can and I do not think the minister has given the information. I should be glad if he would now correct the answer he gave on Saturday.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I ran down the question myself and I found I gave the address to the press gallery representative of the

Montreal Star. I gave it to him in writing. He had been pressing me for it and I understood it would be published. I found later that his lawyer advised him it would be very unwise for the paper to publish it and it was not published. However, I will get the name. I intended to have it this morning, but I will get it and I shall be glad to give it to the house.



EXCISE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 371, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 372, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-"Net premiums."
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Will the minister be good enough to explain a little further the effect of the change from the section as it now stands.


Mr. ABBOTT:: My hon. friend may recall that prior to the proposed amendment mutual insurance companies other than life insurance companies were taxed on gross premiums rather than on net. This section amends the definition in order that the same principle shall apply to that type of company as to the others which were previously taxed on a net basis.


Mr. HACKETT:: I have not been able to get a copy of the bill. Does this delete as part of the premium the interest on deposits made on the premium deposit plan?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that this does eliminate the interest item to which my hon. friend refers, and it puts on a net basis all companies other than life.


John Thomas Hackett: I am sorry, but I have not been able to get a copy of the bill. I know the definition of net premiums in the statute; it includes, with regard to the reciprocals and the factory mutuals, interest on amounts deposited on the premium deposit plan, which it seems to me is more in the nature of income

Customs Tariff
on capital than a premium .paid for insurance. I understand from the minister that that particular part of the definition has been deleted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand that the same definition of net premiums applies to the deposits of mutuals as to the other mutuals under the proposed new law. I do not know whether that assists by hon. friend in appreciating the definition.


John Thomas Hackett: If that is so, I am satisfied.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is so.


Mr. SENN:: I wish to ask the minister a question with regard to farmers' mutuals, which are purely mutual, where they take the premium note and assess it periodically. I suppose the total premiums are taken for the year and deductions made for losses which are sustained, and other expenses of operation, and what is left, as I understand it, is the net premium, and that is being taxed. Is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know exactly how these mutuals operate, but in view of the terms of my hon. friend's question I believe he is confusing income tax with premium tax. This is the tax on net premiums.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 369, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to, bill read, the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Schedule "A" amended.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: In view of the fact that many hon. members have no copies of this bill, I should like to ask that it stand until hon. members have had the opportunity to
see it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was distributed on Saturday morning.


George Hugh Castleden: It is not on my file.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There has not been much time to study this bill. Can we take it that the items here are exactly those which were in the schedule?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, they are exactly the same as the ones which were discussed, as my hon. friend will recall, in some detail in committee. There is no change in the items in any respect whatever. The bill is in the usual form to amend the Customs Tariff.


Mr. SHAW:: I am not sure whether it would be in order on this item to discuss the general question of tariffs which go beyond the specific items contained in the bill. I have received a complaint from a certain bus company and I cannot find any other opportunity of bringing it up except on this section of the bill. I should like to know whether I am in order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend had thought of it a moment ago I think it would have been in order for him to do it on the motion for second reading, but I do not think it is in order in committee. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has yet to pass his estimates, and it will be in order for the hon. member for Red Deer to raise the question when these estimates are before the committee.


John Thomas Hackett: When are the estimates coming down?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: As soon as the hon. member will allow us to bring them down.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Mr. MacNICOL:: When item 180e was before the house some time ago-I am now speaking from recollection- I believe I asked the minister whether he had any representations in opposition to the admission of engineer's plans as outlined in this item. My memory is that he said no, but he has had many since, has he not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not many. I have had one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That particular one being from the Canadian engineering institute?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have had a representation from the Engineering Institute of Canada, Mr. Austin Wright, of Montreal, secretary, has written to me since the introduction of the resolutions and since they were passed in committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I too have had a number of communications from Mr. Austin Wright. I received one this morning, but it is not before me at the moment. He points out that passage of this item will have a very serious effect on all that branch of Canadian engineering. As I said before, I can plainly see how it would have. I am wondering
Customs Tariff

whether the minister or the department do not now wish to change this item, or whether they have looked into it thoroughly, because as one who in past years had a great deal to do with engineering plans I can plainly see that the admission without duty of engineering plans from the United States will have a deterring effect on the expansion of- Canadian engineering in this regard. Has the minister had it looked into, or is he familiar with the subject?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister says that the tariff board or tariff commission investigated the application of this item. Did they have before them representatives of the institute mentioned by the minister? Did they send notice to such bodies that the item was to be discussed and, if so, were any replies received?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not as the result of a public hearing, of course, and I do not know whether or not notices were sent out, but- I am told that the question was thoroughly looked into.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall not further oppose the item at the moment, but this is something in connection with which I have had a good deal of experience, having drawn a multitude of engineering plans in certain lines. Personally I cannot see anything but disaster to certain branches of engineering in Canada through the admission to this country of engineering plans for the construction of buildings. I appreciate what certain people may have in mind, that they would like to bring in plans for a factory building duplicating one in the United States, and that they would
[Mr MacNicol.]
like to bring in not only the construction plans but the engineering plans as well, but on the other hand I believe those plans should be drawn by Canadian engineers; and I say that for several reasons. Naturally in drawing their plans the United States engineers will specify certain lines of material, which in turn will be specified for the buildings being constructed in Canada. If contractors in Canada have to figure on United States material instead of Canadian material, and not only figure on it but use it in construction, as the minister can appreciate it will have a serious effect on several important firms in his own city of Montreal who make excellent engineering equipment. It is not necessary to mention them by name; they are splendid Canadian firms in the city of Montreal. If these Lnited States engineering plans come in here specifying United States material it may have a severe effect on firms in the minister's own city. I suggest that if nothing can be done about the plans themselves, when specifications are brought in from the United States detailing American material, instructions should go out that Canadian material of equivalent manufacture and equivalent capacity be used instead. After all, the minister and I and others must think of these big cities, where there are. many engineers and where they make much engineering equipment. In the minister's own city of . Montreal there are many eminent engineers, and firms manufacturing excellent equipment. Would the minister care to comment on the use of Canadian material?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I .have taken careful note of what my hon. friend has said. He may rest assured that we shall watch the operation of this item very closely to see whether or not it has any injurious effect on the Canadian economy and the use of Canadian materials. If it has, he may be sure the item will be changed.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to direct the minister's attention to item 703, dealing with baggage. Does this refer to the importation of luggage or baggage for resale?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that it does not relate to luggage brought in for resale, but only to travellers' luggage brought in under the $100 limitation which now exists.


Mr. JAENICKE:: In several items, as for example the first two, there does not appear to be any change; the present rates are the same as the rates proposed according to the schedule filed on June 27. I should like to know why they are included in this amendment.

Customs Tariff


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I explained some of those when the items were considered in detail. Where there is no change in the rates, as my hon. friend points out; there is a change in the descriptive language of the item. For instance in item 1, dealing with horses, the change is the addition of "n.o.p." which means "not otherwise provided for." He will find other items where the rate of duty is the same but the item is inserted because of a change in description, perhaps a broadening of the description as contained in the tariff item.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That did not show in the schedule when it was filed on June 27.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The rates are the same as shown in the schedule of June 27. There has been no change in rates in this bill, no change whatever in the schedule.


Mr. McKAY:: In connection with item 326k, concerning high thermal shock resisting glass parts, I should like to ask if any change has been made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The only change there was made in committee, where we dropped the words "in their own factories." Those words were contained in the item as it originally appeared in the resolution.


Eric Bowness McKay: Actually there has not been any change in the tariff?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No change at all in the rate of duty.


Eric Bowness McKay: Then what is the purpose of this tariff item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I meant to say there was a change in the duty in the original resolution, but there has been no change since it was discussed in committee.


Eric Bowness McKay: What is the change?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Formerly shock resisting glass parts of this kind were dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent. Now they are free.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister. of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 373, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Substituted first schedule.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a question in connection with a situation which arises frequently, particularly in respect of smaller estates where an executor designate or an applicant for administration finds it impossible, owing to financial difficulties, to make payment of succession duties even though there are moneys in the bank. I offer to the minister a suggestion which comes from two or three sources. One of these, Mr. H. E. Keown, K.C., is a bencher of the law society of Saskatchewan. If the suggestion made here were adopted it would help materially an executor designate or an applicant for administration. I shall read from the letter, because I feel it sets out the facts more clearly than I could hope to do:
Where there is a bank account the executor, after the application for letters probate or administration have been filed, is unable to issue a cheque until the necessary release is received from the dominion succession duty department. I take the position that succession duty due, either to the dominion or the province, is a first charge against the estate and should be paid.
My practice has been to have the executor or administrator issue a cheque on the bank account payable to the department, forward the cheque to the department asking them to send the necessary release to deposit with the bank and hold the cheque a day or two. However, it usually works out that the release has not been received by the time the cheque comes through and the bank then returns the cheque unpaid, which causes considerable inconvenience.
This gentleman suggests that in order to improve the process of collection of succession duties a change be made, either by amendment to the act or by regulation, whereby an executor or administrator could issue the necessary cheque for payment, either to the dominion or to the province, or to both, notwithstanding the fact that the release had not been received from the respective departments. I do not think there is anything in the suggestion which would interfere with the routine practice, and I believe it would be beneficial to executors designate and applicants for administration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. It does sound like a matter which could be handled administratively, as he has suggested, without amendment to the law. I am not sufficiently familiar with the practice in the common law provinces to know what is done in connection with an executor designate. But in my own province we often do adopt a practice somewhat similar to the one suggested. We arrange with the provincial succession duties office to take a cheque in payment of succession duties, the cheque being issued on the bank account be-
Customs Tariff

fore complete returns have been filed, and before the general waivers have been issued. The practice there is to give authorization to the bank to pay that cheque. In some cases where preliminary returns can be filed, if it is thought desirable to do so they will even release some other assets.
I am pleased to have my hon. friend's suggestion. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue has followed it closely. The matter will be discussed with departmental officials to see whether or not it would be practicable to arrange the administrative regulations so as to permit what the hon. member has suggested.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would an estate, part of which is in Maryland and part in Ontario, have to pay four separate succesion duties, namely to the dominion, to Ontario, to Maryland and to the United States?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is possible. The
liability for succession duties depends both upon the situs of the assets and the domicile of the deceased at the time of death. The estate of a man who dies in Ontario would be liable for succession duties on all assets wherever situate, both for dominion and for provincial succession duty purposes. He can take credit for certain duti'es paid abroad, I understand; and my colleague the Minister of National Revenue informs me that under the tax agreement with the United States the estate would be able to take credit for duties paid to the United States, thereby to some extent eliminating double succession duties.


Mr. LOW:: Has an agreement been reached with the old country in this respect?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe it was approved in the house a few days ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister satisfied with the word "successor", a word which I do not believe is familiar in the common law? Is the word sufficiently defined to be familiar to the courts?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The word "successor" is defined in the interpretation section of the Dominion Succession Duty Act, and I believe has been in the act since it was adopted. I have not given any special consideration from the legal point of view to the question whether the term is or is not appropriate. It is defined in paragraph (n) as follows: "'successor' means the person entitled under a succession." Then the word "succession" is defined at considerable length.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Allowable deductions.
Mr. EULTON:: Has any effect been given to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South on July 26, when the resolutions were being discussed, following which the minister said he would give the matter consideration? I cannot tell offhand from looking at the bill whether consideration has been given to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had intended making a statement, but I saw the hon. member for Vancouver South was not in the house. When the resolutions on which this bill is based were before the committee the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that double rates should apply only in those provinces which consented to give up their succession duties, and that the present rates continue in force in those provinces which had not by agreement given up those duties. At that time I told the hon. member that I would explore his suggestion.
Upon looking into the matter I find that his suggestion was considered prior to the making of the off* to the provinces, but that it could not be adopted since it meant that the dominion law would not be uniform in application in all parts of Canada. I think hon. members will agree it would be highly improper under a dominion statute to levy one set of rates of duties for application in some provinces and a different set of rates for application in others. For this reason it was felt the hon. member's suggestion was not one which could be adopted.
iMr. FULTON: I do not think anyone will disagree with the suggestion that it would be unfair or inadvisable to levy different sets of rates. But could not the matter be taken care of by making a differential in the amount to be deducted? The act as it stands at present allows a successor to deduct from duties otherwise payable either the amount he pays to the provinces or fifty per cent of the duty otherwise payable, which ever is .the lesser. It seems to me a third paragraph could be inserted providing that if the effect of the preceding two paragraphs is that a successor will now have to pay more duty than he would before the act came into force, he shall be allowed to deduct an amount so as to equalize his tax with that paid in the other provinces, or with that previously paid. Then the minister would be applying a uniform rate, and simply varying the amount of deduction.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether I am quite right in this, but it seems to me the suggestion the hon. member is putting forward would be that in some provinces a man would be entitled to deduct a fixed amount,

Customs Tariff
say up to fifty per cent of the dominion tax, whether he had paid it to the province or not. It seems to me it is clear that that would result in a person in one province paying a lesser sum than one in another.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was not referring to the question whether it was paid or not. If the effect of this bill is that the total tax to the successor both dominion and provincial, will be increased, then he should be allowed to make a larger deduction from the amount of the dominion tax than in the other province where the net result is different. In other words, if you had a uniform scale of rates it would simply allow the deductions to follow.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it would have exactly the effect I indicated a moment ago. If my hon. friend will reduce it to a concrete case I think he will see my point. Assuming that the dominion tax would be $200, the provincial tax would be $100, making a total of $300-[DOT] that is as things stand now. If the dominion is doubling its rates the new dominion tax would be $400 while the tax in the province would still remain at S100. Under the proposed law he would be entitled to deduct from his dominion tax of $400 either the amount he has paid in the province or fifty per cent of the dominion tax, whichever is the lesser. In that case he would deduct $100 and his net dominion tax would be $300, the provincial tax remaining at $100. He would be paying the same tax as the man in another province whose dominion tax was $400.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Mr. PROBE:: Perhaps the question I intend to ask will show my ignorance of succession duties generally, but I am happy to have that happen if I can obtain an answer. The schedule of rates shown here strikes me as being exceedingly generous to the person who receives an estate. Where a person receives an estate or a sum of money as a result of a bequest is there any tax levied by the federal government in addition to the regular succession duty tax? In the case of a $35,000 estate, a class A beneficiary would pay -a tax of six per cent, which would amount to $2,100; then the rates for other classes of beneficiary go up slightly but none of them seems to be too burdensome when an estate of that magnitude is passed. Is that property or money also subject to some other tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a capital amount received as a result of succession. My hon. friend has referred to an estate of $35,000. Such an estate left by a young or middle aged
professional man might represent life insurance being left to his widow. It would represent his savings over a period of years and it is left to his widow and children to help take them over the rest of their lives. That estate would pay the tax indicated here, but the income in the form of dividends or whatever it is *would be subject to income tax from the date of the man's death. The capital levy, if I may call it that, is the succession duty tax which is paid following the death of the deceased.


John Oliver Probe: The minister has taken the most compassionate case; that of an immediate widow.


Mr. IRVINE:: Take the $5,000,000 one.


John Oliver Probe: I will still stick with this $35,000 estate; that is big enough for me to discuss. I am prepared to concede that there is a case for the widow', but the utter stranger, who would be considered a class D beneficiary, pays only ten per cent, so his capital accretion would be $31,500 net. There would be no further tax on that net amount except as it produces income.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. Of course when he dies it goes through the same process again if it is still there.


John Oliver Probe: When we think of an eight per cent sales tax on a number of modest commodity purchases and compare it with a ten per cent tax paid by a class D beneficiary, it does not seem sufficient.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When my hon. friend talks about sales tax he is talking about a current transaction, but this $35,000 may represent the residence of the deceased or it may include other assets. It is seldom that you will find an estate made up only of cash. My hon. friend may have some good farms out around Saskatchewan that are worth $35,000, and sometimes it is not too easy for a successor to find $2,500 or $3,000 in cash to pay the succession duty on a farm. It covers all types of assets.


John Oliver Probe: Whether it was a western farm or an eastern estate would not change the argument as far as I am concerned, because I think the principle is identical. It seems to me that the class D beneficiary is getting a reasonable hand-out at a time when we are looking for sources of revenue. Here is a chance to get in a most painless manner, revenue that the federal government requires.


Mr. JACKMAN:: That will be good in the next campaign.


John Oliver Probe: This is not a campaign.
Customs Tariff


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Where do you get that hand-out stuff?


John Oliver Probe: Besides providing a painless method of collecting a tax, there is a measure of justice in it of which the hon. member over here who keeps interrupting has not the slightest conception. I did not ask him to make a speech, and I want to have my little say,. I am simply trying to point out that when a stranger receives a bequest, as a class D beneficiary he is entitled to contribute a larger sum to the national revenue than the ten per cent provided by this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to revert to the matter we were discussing before, because it is a little difficult to follow. It seems to me that according to the figures the minister gave this man is going to have to pay another $100 duty because he can deduct only the lesser of the alternatives. If the previous dominion tax was $200 with a provincial tax of $100, he paid $300. If the dominion duty goes up to $400 and the provincial tax is $100, he pays $500. He can deduct only the lesser of half the dominion tax or the provincial, so he could deduct only $100 which would mean that he is paying $400 whereas before he had to pay only $300.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He deducts from his dominion tax the $100 he pays to the province; that is a tax credit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He pays $300 to the dominion but he pays $100 to the province.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He pays $400 altogether.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Whereas previously he paid $300.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He paid $300 before the dominion raised its rates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood the intention was to try to keep the total tax the same. I suggest that that could be done by eliminating the words "lesser of" so as to allow him to deduct half of the increase in the dominion duties.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's suggestion in effect would be that there should be no limit. Under what he is proposing the provinces could increase their taxes up to our double rates and then we would get nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 370, to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1 - Corporations and persons liable to tax.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps a word of explanation would be useful. This bill does three things: it eliminates the flat rate of excess profits tax and incorporates it with the corporation tax, it removes partnerships and sole proprietors from the operation of the Excess Profits Tax Act, and it reduces from 20 to 15 per cent the rate of tax payable on profits in excess of 116% of standard. The other changes are incidental to accomplishing these purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not quite sure that I have read this correctly, but unless there is an explanation which does not occur to me, the effect of this section is to do away with the minimum of $5,000 which was incorporated last autumn. What is the reason for that? I am looking now at the act of 1945, section 3, subsection 2.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in substance in the act in that respect. Perhaps there may be some confusion in numbering the section.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I am referring to is printed in the explanatory notes, at the bottom, opposite the first page.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The subsection 2 to which my hon. friend refers no longer operates. That section was introduced to prevent the 22 per cent fixed rate under the Excess Profits Tax Act from operating to reduce the taxable profit of a taxpayer below $5,000. Since the 22 per cent rate is being repealed, the section becomes no longer necessary. It was a sort of saving section, if my hon. friend appreciates that, to prevent the Excess Profits Tax Act from operating to reduce the tax below $5,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I follow the answer; nevertheless was there not a broader intention of establishing this $5,000 as a minimum in itself, not merely with regard to that part of the Excess Profits Tax Act which, I appreciate, is now altered? May I draw the minister's attention to' these words-reading now from subsection 2:
(2) The aggregate of the taxes exigible under paragraph two of the first part of the second schedule to this act and under the Income War Tax Act shall in no case operate-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, but shall in no case operatefMr. Probe. 1

Excess Profits Tax
-to reduce the profits of a taxpayer below the amount to which they would be reduced by the aggregate of the taxes exigible under paragraph one of the said first part and under the Income War Tax Act . . .
It is simply to prevent the tax under paragraph 2 of the first part -of the second schedule operating to reduce the profits below what I might refer to as the standard amount. It is a little complex, I know, but, having eliminated the 22 per cent tax I am assured that this section becomes no longer necessary, and the position of the corporation which earns up to $5,000 is not prejudiced by this amendment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry to be so persistent. I want to put the matter once again, and here is where I may be wrong. As I read this, it said in terms that this limit should be preserved, should not fall below this $5,000, whether under the operation of the 100 per cent of the first part or under the Income War Tax Act. Am I right in thinking that that says in effect that a man's $5,000 shall be the minimum below which the profits shall not go no matter which tax applies, and if you take that off, will he not be able to go below the $5,000 under the ordinary operation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Has my hon. friend read
the first part of the second schedule of the Excess Profits Tax Act? Perhaps I had better read it to make the point clear:
Where the profits of a corporation or joint stock company in the taxation year before deduction therefrom of any tax paid thereon under the Income War Tax Act or any payment to a shareholder by way of salary, interest or otherwise, are five thousand dollars or less, twelve per centum of the profits before deduction therefrom of any tax paid under the Income War Tax Act, except in the case of a taxpayer referred to in subparagraph (b) of paragraph two of this part.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I cannot quite get the point my hon. friend is making. If the minister will say that the position of the man with the minimum of $5,000 is still protected as it was, I think that meets my point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that by reason of the amendments to the act there is nothing to protect him against in the sense that we needed to protect him before the present rate changes in that law were made. While the existing rates were still in effect, he would have been subject to the fiat rate of 22 per cent and 18 per cent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not understand very much about it either. Is it true that the man doing $5,000 worth of business was protected
against the excess profits tax under existing statutes, so that his tax was not more than eighteen per cent?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. He paid 18 per cent and then was protected against part of the 22 per cent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: They protected the small man. Now, with the changes we are making, the normal corporation tax being 30 per cent, the little man who has a $5,000 a year business no longer has protection as to that 30 per cent. He will be taxed at least 30 per cent now, which puts him in a worse position than before, when he was taxed only 18 per cent, that being the limit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He paid 30 per cent before. He did not pay the 22 per cent, [DOT] but the 12 per cent. I am sorry the deputy minister of taxation is not here. He could supply the answer at once.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I thought the bracket had been raised the previous year to $15,000, or $12,500.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, but standard profits are still at $15,000. There is a limit of $15,000. Below $15,000 there is no application of the special tax on excess profits.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is the way it stands now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That still stands at $15,000, so that the $5,000 man was not subject to tax on excess profits before. He is not subject to it now, and he will continue to pay the rate of tax he paid under the income war tax act.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Thirty per cent?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This proviso was put in to protect that same man against a part of the flat rate tax of 22 per cent. That has been repealed so that he no longer needs that protection.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nevertheless has he not gone up from 18 to 30?


Douglas Charles Abbott: But he paid that even under the protecting section, under part 1 of the second schedule. He paid 12 per cent under the first part of the second schedule, but was protected against paying 10 per cent of the 22 per cent under paragraph 2. He always paid 30 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In other words-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The statement I made was correct. He was protected against paying the 22 per cent, or against paying the 100 per cent
Excess Profits Tax

excess profits under the second part of the second schedule, but he always paid the 12 per cent under paragraph 1 of the same schedule, so his effective rate was the old rate of 18 per cent plus 12 per cent. Now we have repealed the 22 per cent. This proviso was put in to protect him against part of that. He was already protected against the 100 per cent by the amendment which raised the ceiling of profits to $15,000 for small businesses, and in the result, when this amendment passes, his position will be exactly as it has been for the last two years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me, if it is as I understand it now, that before, and as the section had stood, he paid 12 per cent of the 22 per cent. In other words, he was paying 30 per cent. If that is so, I am answered.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That sums it up.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Second schedule.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: On section 5, which is the substance of the bill, I have on two different occasions made an argument to which the minister-not the acting minister-gave a reply which in my opinion was fallacious, and I quoted both my argument and the minister's contention when the acting minister had the resolutions in front of him. To refresh his memory, I may say that my argument is that the excess profits tax of 15 per cent is very detrimental to business and employment in this country because of the invidious comparison of taxation of business in Canada with taxation in the United States particularly. I do not know whether I need to rehearse the various points with the minister. He may have them in his mind. Succinctly, however, the situation is this. Our tax on business is 30 per cent plus 5 per cent for the provinces, and if your business volume is large, as most businesses are, there is a 15 per cent excess profits tax, making our rate 50 per cent as against the United States rate on larger corporations-it is less on smaller businesses-of 38 per cent. The Minister of Finance, winding up the budget debate, after quoting the figures I had given, made this statement at page 3596:
But taking the tax over the whole range of their business,-
Speaking of Canadians.
t they will have to have very large excess profits indeed for their excess profits tax and their corporation tax to he greater than 38 per cent plus state taxes in the United States.

Then he said:
What therefore becomes of this argument that by our short-sighted, ignorant way of taxing corporations we are going to drive manufacturing business from Canada to the United States?
No answer was given by the acting minister when I contended that the position taken by the Minister of Finance was most fallacious. The minister said, taking the tax over the whole range of their business, there was not an unfair comparison with the American tax. It seemed to me that that was very much like telling the working man who refused to work on Fridays, or more particularly on Saturdays, because he got into a higher bracket, that his average rate was not at all bad, only five or six per cent. That was not what interested the working man. What concerned him was that his tax on Friday or Saturday was 25, 30 or 40 per cent. In the same way, businesses-and I mention particularly American companies that have tremendous investments in branch plants in Canada, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars-would find, as far as their export business was concerned, that it would be more profitable to do that export business from their American plants where the retainable profit was greater than it was if they did the business from their Canadian branches. The minister's contention that the average rate of profit was the one that determined the question has nothing to do with the matter, as I see it. If our rate is 50 per cent in the taxation of business in the excess profits tax class, whereas in the United States there is no excess profits tax and the rate is 38 per cent, or one or two per cent more, allowing for state tax, if there is any-I have not heard of any-then it will certainly have a deterrent effect on Canadian business. Therefore the provision of this excess profits tax is .to my mind in direct contradiction to many of the government's policies.
The government is spending a great deal of money in advertising through the Department of Trade and Commerce; it has representatives abroad, and there is a great deal of money entailed in the Exports Credits Insurance Act. We are appropriating hundreds of millions, in fact billions, in order to give credits to other countries to buy our goods. We are spending money on the Canadian Commercial Corporation-$10,000,000 I believe-for the purpose of developing our trade, and we have similar items in connection with the Canadian information service, all of which, as part of their purpose, are intended to develop our trade. Yet we find the enterprising manufacturer placed under a competitive handicap, and export business is largely lost to a great

Supply-Public Works
many concerns, particularly where the alternative is to manufacture either in the United States or in Canada. I mentioned a Canadian manufacturer who was developing some business in Newfoundland. He found that he lost out to a United States firm because that firm had more retainable profit and could quote a lower price on the product. Therefore the government is working at cross purposes with itself in keeping this tax and at the same time trying to develop the export business of the country. It indicates to those of us who should approach this subject with an open mind that there is a complete lack of business experience in the Department of Finance or on the part of those who are advising the government on these matters. It also indicates that the present administration do not do as some other Liberal administrations did, namely, consult with business men, even of their own political persuasion, and find out exactly how some of these tax laws would affect business and employment.
At the present time Canada has a wonderful opportunity of developing export business, because so few countries are in the fortunate position, as we are, of being able to offer goods in the export market. But our government does not seek practical advice on these matters and has little or no practical experience in the field; they are muffing the ball. They are nothing but football strategists who never saw a playing field or even a dressing-room, but live in the ivory tower of the clubhouse. I should be pleased if the minister would answer my argument.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think there is anything I can add to the statement I made the other day, Mr. Chairman.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister says there is nothing he can add to what he said the other day. But he did not even start the other day. Add nothing to nothing and you still have nothing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what my hon. friend thinks; I thought it was a pretty good answer. Opinions differ on that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What was a pretty good answer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The average rate.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is not the average rate which interests the ordinary person; it is the rate of taxation on the last unit of business you have under consideration. That is what you are considering. If the minister will be good enough to listen to me for a moment I shall tell him again. It is exactly the position in which the workman finds himself in regard to Saturdays. The government may
say that the average tax on the workman is five or ten per cent, but he will say: "It is my business; I can see right away that the tax on the Saturday's business is twenty-five or thirty-five per cent." It is exactly the same way here; the business will not be done in Canada, and if we are faced with unemployment in the future it will be directly traceable to this government's action.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of opinion. This tax relates only to companies whose profits run over 116j of their standard during the standard period.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: With the present national income any good company should earn more than its standard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a fifteen per cent tax on the excess, and I do not believe it will deter any up-and-coming concern from going ahead and doing all the business it can and making all the profits it can, although my hon. friend may think it will.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is exactly the point. I want to give the up-and-coming concern a fair competitive break in this country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So do I.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If there are plants in the United States and Canada the business is going to be done where the greater retainable profit is. An up-and-coming concern, which was probably a friend of the acting minister, was in a position to do business in Newfoundland, but because its retainable profit was less than that of the United States concern, the United States concern could quote a lower price and took the business away from our own people.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sction 6 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Chief engineer's branch-Dredging-[DOT]
302. British Columbia and Yukon, $386,080.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I am sorry I was not here on Saturday afternoon when this item was discussed. I understand the hon, member for New Westminster spoke on dred-ing, and I wish to concur in everything he said. So far as the Fraser river is concerned conditions have changed owing to the fact that the surrounding territory is all logged
Supply-Public Works

out. Because of that there is a much quicker run-off of water than used to toe the case years ago. The dredge used out there is thirty or forty years old. It is supposed to take care of the whole Fraser river, including the finest fresh water stretch in the Dominion of Canada, that around New Westminster. The present dredge cannot possibly look after the Westminster area alone, quite apart from the whole Fraser valley. The farmers are in danger because the Department of Public Works are unable to keep the channel open. In addition the vast investment in the Canadian National Railways is endangered because the line may go out at any time owing to the floods. If that happens it will be a serious matter in the Fraser river valley, the New Westminster district and the whole of Canada.
In spite of the fact that the government says it is not the duty of the federal department, I think it is unreasonable to expect the local districts to look after the river banks and erosion. It might have been all right forty years ago to say that it was a local matter; but conditions have changed and each year we are losing a tremendous amount of earth and farms into the river through erosion. Earth and silt are clogging up the channel. I understand that the federal department is responsible for navigation channels. But the act which gave them that authority was drawn many years ago, and conditions in that respect also have changed. The reason we have so much erosion is that the channels are not kept open. In the Fraser river there are many places where sandbars have closed the channels. Years ago boats could cross over these places, but now you can wade across in rubber boots. That should be obvious even to the Department of Public Works.
As far as dredging is concerned, I want to support what was said by the hon, member for New Westminster. The present dredge is entirely inadequate, and it is time the federal department gave an order for a new modern dredge. I understand there is one down in the Columbia district which should serve as an example of the class and size of dredge we need. I want to urge the minister not to wait until the Canadian National is put out of business before something is done. Some years ago the dike at Matsqui broke, and for forty-eight hours the railway was out of action and the city of Vancouver was cut off. We all hope there may never be another war, but suppose that had happened during the war period, when we were rushing supplies not only to Canadian and British forces on the Pacific coast but also to American forces, who as far as that area was concerned received

most of their supplies over the Canadian National. What would have happened if the dike had gone out then? I hope there will be no more wars, though I doubt it very much, but look at it in a broad sense; if that should happen what would be the result? In addition, the city of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia are entitled to some consideration, since Vancouver is our only Pacific port of any importance, and the possibility that it might be cut off is a serious matter to the business men there. My friends of the stock exchange in Toronto talked a long time about $3.20 or something in regard to the gold market. We are entitled to talk about the few industries we have in British Columbia, and surely this government cannot afford to risk the possibility of having those industries cut off and men thrown out of work, when that possibility may be avoided by doing a very little dredging. I am not an engineer, but I think the solution to the problem of erosion, at least, is dredging the channel properly.
Unfortunately I did not hear the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo on Saturday, but I understand he made reference to some filth in the Fraser river. I am glad the hon. member for New Westminster was here; he could be depended upon to do something about it; but the only time water runs uphill, as far as I know, it when the filth from the other side comes up the Fraser river. We have no filth coming down the Fraser river. Not knowing what the hon. member said I cannot very well reply, but I am sure my colleague from New Westminster gave a good answer. Any filth we have in the Fraser river would be going to the proper depository if it went across the channel.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I want to make similar complaints about a much more important river than the Fraser; I refer to the Columbia river that flows from the Big Bend1 country to the north of my constituency, south into the United States. We have had steamer navigation on the river to my knowledge for something over fifty years. In the early years of this century the dominion government undertook an extensive dredging programme to aid navigation between the upper and lower Arrow lakes, and to permit steamers to land at the docks at Arrowhead. In those years we had a very small population, possibly only two or three hundred people in a distance of 150 miles. Later the population grew considerably, and we had an all-year boat service from one end of the lakes to the other. Dredging operations were later curtailed, and to-day, with a greatly increased popula-

Supply-Public Works
tion, with much greater activity in farming and lumbering, we only have through service from about the end' of April until the beginning of November, owing to the fact that the expenditure on dredging has been limited. As a result, at low water steamers cannot go between the upper and lower lakes. I suggest to the minister that he provides a larger appropriation in order to keep open the channel between the upper and lower Arrow lakes, and in addition I should like to draw to his attention the fact that silt from the Columbia entering the upper Arrow lake is deposited in large quantities on bars around the mouth of the river and the wharf at Arrowhead. I suggest to the minister, and I have had this advice from skippers who have operated on the lakes for a number of years, that a considerable portion of the expense of dredging around the wharf at Arrowhead, and possibly a portion of the bar at the mouth of the Columbia river, could be avoided if the department could get the Canadian Pacific to move their dock at Arrowhead some three *hundred yards to the east, where there is deep water, and the area is never silted up.
I do not suggest that we should have a new or larger dredge on the Columbia, because we all realize that within the next few years we may have immense developments in that area which will completely change the situation. But I do ask the minister to give consideration to an increased appropriation for dredging, particularly between the upper and lower Arrow lakes, because when the season is curtailed and we do not have through steamer traffic it is a great handicap and inconvenience to the whole district. I should like to know what is the appropriation for dredging this year.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley on the way he told the committee of the need for dredging in the Fraser river. I told the hon. member for New Westminster on Saturday that we were considering purchasing or building a new dredge for that river, and my officials are actively looking into the matter now. We hope to come to some decision in the near future. As to dredging the Columbia river, I understand a commission has been appointed, on *which are representatives of the United States and Canadian governments, to study the situation described by the hon. member for Kootenay West. One of the outstanding engineers of my department, Mr. Goodspeed, is on that commission, and we are expecting a
report in the near future. The hon. gentleman may rest assured that we shall do our utmost to carry out their recommendations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-Dredging-[DOT]
SOS. New dredge for great lakes (revote $50,000), $162,000.
Mark Cecil Senn: Earlier in the session I asked the minister to send one of his inspectors down to the mouth of Nanticoke creek-that is in Ontario; perhaps I am out of order in asking this question-to see whether some dredging could not be done to help the fishermen there. Would the minister say whether anything has been done, or if anything is contemplated?


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as the hon. member spoke to me about this dredging I instructed the officials to send an engineer to that point to make a report on the feasibility and possibility of doing this work. As yet I have not received the report, but as soon as I do I shall let my hon. friend know the conclusion. This vote is for a new dredge we are putting on to expand dredging on lake Ontario.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask the minister to see to it that the report is made and, if it is favourable, to act upon it?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes. I think under the general vote we shall have funds to do the work if it is necessary.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is this dredge for any particular part of the great lakes?


Alphonse Fournier: It is for lake Ontario.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If I may direct a question concerning item 301, which is for dredging in Manitoba, is any part of that money to be spent in the harbour of Churchill?


Alphonse Fournier: No. Churchill is a national harbour and does not come under public works.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What type of dredge is this?


Alphonse Fournier: A dipper dredge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-Maintenance and
operation of roads and bridges-
SIS. Generally, $65,000.
Gordon Graydon: I have been seeking some item upon which I might bring to the attention of the minister a matter of some importance, and it seems to me that this is the appropriate item. My observations
4G52
Supply-Public Works

shall not be directed, to the inclusion in the estimates of a certain sum of money, but rather to a matter which the minister has had before him, and one to which I believe the department feels its jurisdiction does not extend.
Along the shores of lake Ontario, and I fancy the same would apply to the shore lines along others of the great lakes, a considerable degree of erosion has taken place within the last few years. Many newspapers and other publications have carried news items and pictures showing the serious degree to which this erosion has developed in the great lakes area. While there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the cause of this condition, there is a feeling in the Port Credit area, and at points lying along the shore line of Peel county, that it comes from an artificial diversion or change made at points nearer the headwaters. In my part of Ontario this condition of erosion has reached serious proportions. Many of the residents in the south portions of Peel find that those parts of their properties abutting the lake have been worn away, and the foundation of their homes endangered thereby.
I have made an appeal to the minister privately, and received the courteous consideration one would expect from him. I would ask him now however to consider the responsibility of the federal government in respect of this problem. If the experience in other parts of Canada'is similar to that which we have had, the loss must run into many millions of dollars in the great lakes area.
Local authorities have attempted to relieve the situation by various means, but in many cases the projects overreach the financial ability of the municipalities to pay. I would ask the minister to see if the department can do something to help. My only regret is that the minister has not been able to visit that part of Ontario to see what the condition is, because I know if he did see it he would consider it most serious. He knows, of course, that no matter what be the occasion for his visit, he would be a most welcome visitor in that part of the country at any time-as indeed the Minister of Veterans Affairs has been on many occasions. I suggest that departmental officials, and if possible the minister, ought to visit the area to see what is happening, having in mind the possibility of extending the dominion's jurisdiction to relieve the suffering and loss that is now being sustained.


Alphonse Fournier: The condition of erosion along lake Ontario, as well as other lakes and rivers in Canada, has become

serious. We are willing to admit that in the Department of Public Works. Speaking generally, two kinds of protection works would be studied by my department, under the first of which we admit responsibility by stating that the erosion has been caused by some works or act of the federal government. In cases of that kind, on both coasts and along the shores of rivers and lakes, we do a considerable amount of protection work. The second type of erosion, which arises from natural causes, and has not arisen from anything done by the federal government, is not generally accepted as a federal problem.
I believe that in 1932 the government did in a general vote, and for the purpose of relieving unemployment in years of depression, spend moneys on this second type of work. The vote, which was originally under the Department of Labour, was transferred to the Department of Public Works, and the result was that in each province we undertook protective works.
I do not believe there is any subject which causes so much correspondence in our department as requests for protection works. The policy of the government is to assume what we believe to be our responsibility, and to do those works. Other works would seem to come more under provincial or municipal authorities. As the hon. member for Peel has said, in some instances the damage is so great that the local authorities cannot meet the needs. I cannot say that at this session, even in the supplementary estimates, I can get an amount for protection works of that kind. As time goes on we are making a serious study in the hope that we shall have an amount of money to relieve the most pressing cases, or to conduct works at points where the most damage has been done by erosion. I would not wish, however, to have people hoping too much that I shall succeed in getting money for that purpose. When we make demands for our estimates we are bound to stay within our jurisdiction, and unless there is a general consensus in the house that the federal government should undertake these works, I should imagine that condition would continue. If we ever did undertake them we would have to spend millions upon millions of dollars on works which up to the present have never been recognized as our responsibility.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Peel and with many other hon. members. Indeed I do not think there are ten members in the house who have not in their own ridings suffered damage from erosion of this kind. If there were a vote for this type of damage, undoubtedly there is not a township along the

Supply-Public Works
Ottawa river which would not have a claim for some kind of protection work, to protect the property of people along its shores. To make any change in policy would be a most serious decision, especially this year when I have been asked to curtail all expenses not considered absolutely necessary for the upkeep and maintenance of works actually under our control.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Peel. He is perhaps the first member who has brought before the house something which I predicted years ago was going to happen. I am sorry to say that I fear this government is confronting the necessity of fighting thousands and upon thousands of damage actions through riparian rights which have been or may be destroyed. As my hon. friend has said, erosion has occurred, and I am going to give the minister the cause. You must consider the cause when you start negotiating about these matters. Perhaps the minister will remember that a bill passed this house a few years ago permitting a diversion of water in northern Ontario of 5,200 cubic feet per second from the Albany river watershed to the St. Lawrence river watershed. At that time Chicago had been taking perhaps
10,000	cubic feet per second from lake Michigan, and there was an argument advanced that the levels of the great lakes would be maintained by this diversion from the Albany river watershed to the St. Lawrence river watershed. However, since that time the United States government has had the diversion at Chicago reduced to 1,500 cubic feet per second in accordance with a United States supreme court order. In order to check my figures I wrote to the chief engineer at Chicago a few days ago to inquire what was being taken out of lake Michigan at the present time, and he replied that they were taking 1,500 cubic feet per second.
As I said a moment ago, we are diverting into the St. Lawrence river watershed 5,200 cubic feet per second which God Almighty never intended should go into that watershed. If we deduct the 1,500 cubic feet being taken out at Chicago, we find that an additional
3,700	cubic feet, are pouring into the great lakes watershed every second in the year. The farmers along the whole lake front in Ontario will have a right to sue this government and the Ontario government for any destruction of their property as the result of this diversion. I fear it will not be long until every farmer along the shores of lake Ontario, lake Erie, lake Huron and Georgian Bay, and on the American side as well as on our side, will be suing the governments because of loss of riparian rights. A total of
3.700	cubic feet is pouring into this watershed every second and the water levels have been raised. I looked at the record of the levels this morning, not anticipating that this vote would be discussed, and I find that the general levels in these lakes have risen until they are not far short of the highest average levels before the forests were cut down.
I am afraid that this government and the United States government may be in for a series of headaches because of suits by property owners along the shores of the great lakes. In my judgment they have an absolute claim. In this case man has deliberately peured into the St. Lawrence watershed a vast volume of water from an outside watershed. We are told that it means an increased power production, but if that is so, should those who are producing the power reimburse the farmers fronting on lake Ontario, fronting on lake Erie, and fronting on lake Huron? I am sure the department must have been appalled at the multitude of letters they have received because of the breaking of the dikes in Essex county. I was up to that end of the province this last week-end and I know what the people are thinking. Those dikes were never intended to withstand the level of water that there is now in the summer time.
I do not want to be misunderstood about this. I am quite in accord with water levels being maintained, and I realize that something had to be done when Chicago was taking from 10.000 to 15.000 cubic feet per second; but according to the information I got from Chicago a few days ago, that is no longer being done. As I said before, they are now down to 1,500 cubic feet per second. I think the Department of Public Works should take close notice of what is happening in the great lakes watershed. Every second a total of
3.700	extra cubic feet is being poured into our great lakes. That is bound to be felt along the shores of lake Ontario, lake Erie and lake Huron. It will not affect the shores of lake Superior particularly because there is a dam at Sault Ste. Marie which controls the level of that lake. By raising the gates they are able to let the water out and maintain the lake at a static level, but there is no such control for lake Huron, lake Erie or lake Ontario.
At times there are many advantages in an increased level of water, but to-day, we have had a just presentation made by the hon. member for Peel. I believe the farmers in his county will have a just claim for protection again erosion caused by lake Ontario water being kept at such a high level at certain seasons of the year, a level at which God Almighty never intended it should be kept.

Supply-Public Works


William Irvine: I think the hon. member has rendered a great service by bringing this question of erosion to the attention of the government. The hon. member has referred to erosion caused by the diversion of water, but I should like to refer to erosion generally. I warn the government that they must assume responsibility for this erosion because in the near future it will be one of the greatest problems that Canada will have to face.


Thomas Reid: How large is the fund which is maintained, in connection with the New Westminster bridge? Is it the intention to carry out the agreement reached some years ago that an engineer would be asked to find out the advisability or otherwise of putting a small span on the railway bridge?


Alphonse Fournier: The balance on account as at February 28, 1946, was $182,651.29. The complete figures are as follows:
Balance on account as at February
28, 1946	 $182,651 29
Less unliquidated balance *-rail replacement by
C.N.R	$60,000 00
Over-expenditure on maintenance and opertion, Vote 281	 2,201 19

 62,201 19

Plus estimated revenue for last half of year	 50,000 00

Less transfer of estimated expenditure-Vote No. 281 for full fiscal year 1945-46. This is transferred at end of fiscal year....	$36,000 00
Estimated free balance	 $134,450 00


Thomas Reid: Does the minister contemplate making the survey that was promised years ago?


Alphonse Fournier: We have entered into a contract with an outstanding engineer, a Mir. Pratley, who is investigating the matter and will make a report.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: Is the government taking any part in the building of the 65-mile link between Atlin and the Alaska highway?


Alphonse Fournier: That would not come under this department or this item. If I am well informed, it would come under Mines and Resources.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I see that the dry dock subsidies come under item 313. I do not just get that.


Alphonse Fournier: No; that is by statute. It was under a special statute of 1910 and the amendments thereafter that we undertook to pay for twenty-five or thirtydive years
	. u2f*81Ii
an annual amount to companies which put up these dry docks. Probably the hon. gentleman has in mind the Prince Rupert diy dock. We have completed the payments to Canadian National railways, who are the owners, or-built, this dock. We have paid the amount which we undertook to pay some years ago.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: And do you contemplate putting it on again?


Alphonse Fournier: That cannot be done unless a special statute is passed, to provide for it.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I suggest that the minister do that.


Alphonse Fournier: It is Canadian National property. I do not know why Public Works should ask for money to pay for the Prince Rupert dry dock.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: You have other subsidies down there, for instance for the Bur-rard dry dock, owned by a company which has all the money in the world with which to expand. Prince Rupert dry dock cannot compete in putting in bids on these boats which are being built.


Alphonse Fournier: Of all these dry docks there are only three left to which we pay annual subsidies for a time. Our payments in respect of all the other dry docks have ended; these are the three remaining ones, and we are just following the agreements by which we undertook to pay annual amounts.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The information
given to the committee just before the luncheon recess was very interesting. I should like to have _ an explanation from the minister as to just what effect 5.200 cubic feet per second of water pouring into the great lakes has on the level of the lakes. I made a rough calculation during the recess, and I found that 5,200 cubic feet per second would raise 6,600 square miles one inch in a year; in other words it would raise lake Ontario, if the extra water did not run out, about -875 inches in a year. This increase, which comes with extra rain flow, goes on year after year. I think an explanation is due to the hon. member for Davenport as to just what effect that water coming into the lake has had.

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: My -information on this subject is that there flows by that Ogoki diversion 5,000 cubic feet per second. On the great lakes that would hardly have any effect on the raising of the water; it would be a rise of only three-quarters of an inch, and that water continuously flows down to the St. Lawrence, where there is a flow of 185,000 cubic feet per second. I am no expert on these matters, but my information from experts is that this diversion of water has hardly any effect on the level of the great lakes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wonder what
calculations have been made in -that connection. According to the Canada Year Book, lake Ontario, for instance, has an area of 7,540 square miles. As I said, in a year that flow of 5,200 cubic feet per second would raise the level of lake Ontario by -875 inches. Where does the water go which comes in- this added amount of water?


Alphonse Fournier: It flows down
the St. Lawrence.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I can see that as
regards lake Erie and so on the water would go on over the Niagara falls, and probably some water is used in the power houses on lake Ontario. But with that amount of water coming in year after year by rainfall I cannot help thinking that there would be a considerable difference in the levels. I do not know whether any careful calculations -have been made as to just what the result would be. Probably it is an advantage to keep the water up in the lake. But I wondered what actually did happen,.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand
that an exhaustive survey of the situation has been made, and the figures I have given the hon. members are from those studies. There is hardly any effect in the raising of the water on the great lakes, because the flow continues on down through the St. Lawrence; furthermore, I am told that this raising of the water in the great lakes goes in cycles; some years it rises higher, other years it is lower. This is the natural flow of it. This is, in my mind, no excuse for not considering the repairing of damages done by erosion whenever they come under our responsibility.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I just happened to come in in time to hear the last few words of the hon. member for St. Paul's in reply to the minister. I want to warn the minister that it is a very serious matter, and he should not be misled by those who are not thoroughly conversant with the situation. This morning I received from the department which sends out these reports a bulletin of water levels, and I 63260-293J
notice that at Goderich, where there is a registering station, reports that in the month of July the water level of lake Huron is 1-11 feet higher than the average stage of July for the last ten years. More significant than that is the statement on the next line that the water level of lake Huron at Goderich is only 0-18 feet lower than the average stage of July for the last eighty-six years-which is the period they use: During the last few years the water level has been so much below what it is to-day, that if to-day it is only 0-18 feet lower than the average stage during eighty-six years, one can picture what it will be when the full effect is felt of pouring an additional 5,200 cubic feet of water eveiy second of the day every day of the year into the great lakes watershed.
I know what I would do if I were minister. I fought this thing from the very beginning. I warned the country here at Ottawa, and the government of Ontario also, as to what the result would be. As far as lake Erie is concerned the water level in July at Port Col-borne on lake Erie is 0-80 feet higher than the average stage of July for the last ten years, but much more significant is the fact that the water level at Port Colborne is 0-29 feet higher than the average stage of July for the last eighty-six years. That is a significant statement. As far as lake Ontario is concerned, at Kingston, where the measuring instruments for that lake are located, the water level for July is 0-82 feet higher than the average stage for the last ten years, and 0-42 feet higher than the average stage for the last eighty-six years. The hon. member for Peel can grasp at a glance why that higher average is maintained on Lake Ontario: the water level has been maintained and materially increased in the last few years, and all along the shore line of Peel the higher waves dash up against the southern shore with a very disintegrating effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch-Construction, repairs
and improvements-harbours and rivers-
Silt. Nova Scotia-
Boudreauville-breakwater extension, $9,000.
Breen's Pond-harbour improvements (revote $10,000), $32,000.
Bridgewater-repairs to railway wharf, $23 000
Brooklyn-dredging, $210,000.
Canso-wharf reconstruction, $27,000.
Caribou-waiting room on wharf, $10,300.
Clarkes harbour-wharf, reconstruction and extension (revote $35,000), $84,000.
Cow Bay (Port Morien)-towards breakwater reconstruction and dredging, $170,000.
Culloden-repairs to breakwater (re\ote $6,000), $13,000.
Digby-repairs to piers (revote $4,000), $22,000.
Dingwall-towards harbour improvements, $300,000.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Glace Bay-towards wharf reconstruction and dredging (revote $75,000), $350,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, and for repairs and reconstruction due to extremely heavy storms during 1944 and 1945, no new works to be undertaken, $715,000.
Ingonish ferry-wharf repairs and improvements, $33,000.
Iona-wharf reconstruction, $101,000.
Little Anse-breakwater replacement, $52,000.
Little Judique harbour-improvements, $6,000.
Loekeport-wharf reconstruction, $16,000.
Metegham-towards breakwater replacement, $100,000.
New Harbour-towards breakwater reconstruction, $100,000.
Parker's Cove-harbour repairs and improvements, $125,000.
Pictou island-breakwater-wharf replacement (revote $25,000), $75,000.
Port Beckerton (west)-wharf reconstruction, $17,000.
Port Hood island-w'harf (revote $4,000), $10,000.
Port Maitland-breakwater reconstruction, $100,000.
Sandford-breakwater extension, $110,000.
Ship Harbour-wharf replacement, $15,000.
Three Fathom Harbour-causeway, $50,000.
Trout Cove (Centreville)-towards breakwater reconstruction, $100,000.
Upper	Whitehead-wharf	reconstruction,
[Stage Direction]
West Head-wharf reconstruction, $62,000.
Total, $3,058,300.
Mr. STANFIELD:: In looking over these estimates I do not notice any appropriation for the wharf at Windsor, Nova Scotia, which ' is in need of some repairs. Could the minister say where in these estimates provision is made for this item?


Alphonse Fournier: That would be taken out of this vote under "Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services and for repairs and reconstruction due to extremely heavy storms, $715,000." That is in the general vote.


Mr. KIRK:: In this item there are two amounts of, respectively, $170,000 for Cow bay, (Port Morien), towards breakwater reconstruction and dredging, and $350,000 for Glace Bay, towards harbour improvements. Is any part of this taken from the $700,000 odd under item 299 for dredging in the maritime provinces?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


James Ralph Kirk: None of this will be taken from that item?


Alphonse Fournier: That is a specific vote for a specific purpose, and the money will not come out of the general vote.


James Ralph Kirk: I wish to say just a word or two in connection with dredges, and perhaps I should have brought this up under 299. Members from British, Columbia referred to the condition of dredges on the Pacific coast;
(Mr. MacNiool.l
I wish to discuss the dredges on the Atlantic coast and make a requisition for some money for the provision of new equipment in that part of the country. There are plenty of dredges there now, but their condition is simply terrible and it is time we got new equipment. Dredges cannot be built' overnight, and money ought to be appropriated now for the purpose so that we may have suitable dredges of light, medium and heavy type. The department informs me that there are dredges there, but no dredges are available for the kind of work needed, and as I say, they cannot be obtained at a moment's notice.


Alphonse Fournier: We know the condition of the dredges in question. During the war we had but the very barest necessities for the work that had to be done, and this year we are increasing the amounts not only for our own dredges but for the purpose of giving private contracts. The hon. member may rest assured that if I can get the consent of the government I will increase still further the appropriations to meet the needs of the fishermen on the coast.
Mr: KIRK: My contention is that the dredges of the Department of Public Works are not fit to do the work. The department has numbers of them, but what good are they? Proper dredges are needed for the work that has to be done in Guysborough county.


Alphonse Fournier: We admit that our dredges are not in good condition and that is why we are giving contracts; and we also realize that bigger dredges are needed. The question is being considered by the department, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are not holding back in public works just to penalize people. We find it difficult to get the money to do all the work that is requested by members on both sides of the house.


James Ralph Kirk: I fear the people in those parts are under the impression that large dredges will be constructed for heavy dredging operations in centres like Saint John harbour, but something is badly needed for these little places where our fishermen have small motorboats.


Mr. WINTERS:: In my constituency there are one or two localities that need either new breakwaters or extensions to existing breakwaters. I have had this question under review with the department and they tell me that no new work is to be undertaken at present because of Shortages of labour and materials. In one or two oases in particular,

Supply-Public Works
these works have been badly needed for some years. Could the department give an estimate now, or give me some idea as to when new works or extensions to existing works will be undertaken?


Alphonse Fournier: In the preparation of next year's estimates I will certainly make requests of the treasury board to increase these amounts. If I ca& convince my colleagues, I shall be the first to get real satisfaction from the undertaking. Hon. members can rely on my good will at every turn, but if they will look up the estimates they will see that during the war my department got no estimates, or hardly any. This year we got a little more, and I hope that next year we shall be more successful.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I am in the unique position of having no complaints-at any rate, no major complaints- to make against the Department of Public Works in the matter of appropriations for my riding. I have returned from home, however, to find that whereas several generous appropriations have been made, the work cannot be proceeded with because the government is not buying lumber at black market prices. Will the minister make inquiries to see whether the works contemplated in my riding can be proceeded with by securing priority for the necessary materials?


Alphonse Fournier: Priorities are not granted by the Department of Public Works. If they were, I would keep all the timber for our own work.


James Sinclair: Will the minister make inquiries?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes. I have been doing so through my officials. I have a good many contracts ready now, but I cannot get the timber. I will do my best for British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: That seems to be the particular problem I have in mind. I am not criticizing the department for not appropriating money. They are aware of the situation and have done their best to make money available, but they state that the materials cannot be procured. That is the reason for our particular grievance. Can we be given some idea as to when these new projects will go ahead, having regard to materials and labour?


Alphonse Fournier: The general policy seems to be to keep all the timber and lumber that is available for the housing situation, and every time I have asked for priorities I
have been told that our work ha9 not a first priority, that they must think first of housing the veterans and the general population. That is the answer they give me. However, as soon as there is relief in the housing situation I am sure I shall get all the timber I need.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: With regard to the
wharf at Windsor, I cannot find the item to which the minister has referred. Has any money been appropriated for that wharf?


Alphonse Fournier: It will be taken out of the general vote for harbours and rivers generally, $715,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
315. Prince Edward Island-[DOT]
Charlottetown-towards wharf reconstruction and improvements (revote $50,000), $275,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-'For maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $80,000.
Montague -wharf reconstruction. $30,000.
Naufrage harbour-retaining wall, $6,000.
Red Head-harbour improvements (revote $3,500), $11,500.
Rocky Point-wharf reconstruction (revote $20,000), $47,000.
Souris-breakwater repairs, $45,000.
Summerside-repairs to railway wharf (revote $18,000), $18,000.
Tignish-repairs to breakwaters, $45,000.
Wood Islands-wharf improvements, $30,000.
Total, $587,500.
Mr. McLURE:: I notice a vote here for Charlottetown wharf reconstruction and improvements, $225,000, and also a revote of $50,000. I should like to find out from the minister how far that work has progressed and whether it will be continued sufficiently this year to take up this entire vote. The work is very much needed. I would point out to the minister that we had been promised a survey of the harbour for regular improvements, and among other things there was the definite promise that a survey would be made to see whether it was possible to build a railway marine slip there for the repairing of our ships. This promise has always been made prior to an election, and it is something that would be of great benefit to the unemployed. The building of this railway marine slip at Charlottetown would give us the opportunity of repairing our own ships. As the minister knows, and as the Minister of Transport in particular knows, there is serious delay in our transportation on account of the necessity of sending these ships to other places for repairs. We know also that in 1941, as a result of having to send the S.S. Charlottetown out for repairs, the government lost a $4,000,000 ship.
I would call attention to a vote of $27,000, which is included in this item, for the Rocky Point wharf. Wlio owns the Rocky Point
Supply-Public Works

wharf? Is it the federal or provincial government, or is it dually owned? There is a great deal of trouble over what I consider to be the dual ownership. If the federal government had complete ownership of it, we should not be constantly facing the great problem which always exists there. When the federal government starts to do repair work on the part of the wharf which is assigned to them, the provincial government ceases its work until the federal work is completed. Then the provincial government starts to do its repairs; consequently the wharf is never in a good condition and is seldom, if ever, passable. I should like the minister to tell the committee who owns this wharf.


Alphonse Fournier: The first question put by the hon. member concerns the railway wharf at Charlottetown. A contract was awarded on January 24, 1946, to J. P. Porter and Sons, for $374,627. That was the lowest tender. There were two other tenderers, the Diamond Construction Company Limited and the Foundation Maritime Limited. According to the contract the date of completion is July 28, 1947.
As to the second question, who owns Rocky Point wharf, I am informed that this wharf belongs to the federal government. It was completed under contract by the department in 1915 at a cost of $30,334.84. The contract for the reconstruction of this wharf was awarded to H. J. Phillips and Son, of Charlottetown, at $43,634.50.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SI 6. New Brunswick-[DOT]
Caissie's Cape-towards breakwater reconstruction and dredging. $50,000.
Caraquet (Young wharf), dredging (revote $5,000), $40,000.
Cocagne cape-wharf extension and repairs, $18,700.
Cocagne church-wharf extension and repairs, $16,900.
Dalhousie-wharf reconstruction and dredging (revote $7,500), $30,000.
Dipper Harbour-breakwater improvements, $45,000.
Grande Aldouane-wharf repairs and improvements, $11,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken $130,000.
Leonardville-wharf reconstruction, $50,000.
Little Cape-towards breakwater replacement. $50,000.	*
Lorneville-towards wharf replacement, $50.000.
McKachren's Point-wharf extension. $9,000.
Miscou-wharf repairs and extension, $13,000.
Neguac Church-wharf	(revote $5,000).
[Stage Direction]
Richibucto Cape-repairs and improvements to harbour works. $20,800.
Welchpool-towards wharf replacement, $75.-
000.
Total. $635,400.
LMr. McLure.J
Mr. HAZEN:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a letter which I. received a short time ago. It was written by a clergyman who lives at Lorneville, New Brunswick, and reads as follows:
I have been asked by the Lorneville community club to inquire of you about a new breakwater.
The local fishermen are working under great difficulties at the present time, with no protection whatever. Wreckage of the old bre'ak-water is still strewn about, and the lightkeeper is- obliged to hang the light at the very end of the remnant. This duty he cannot carry out at high water. These few facts will give you some idea of the seriousness of the situation and the real need of a new breakwater at the earliest possible date.
Could you tell us if any steps have been taken to meet this need? We earnestly solicit your assistance in the matter.
I was pleased to be able to inform the gentleman who wrote me that the estimates provided for a sum of money to be used for the replacement of the wharf at Lorneville. Will the minister have this work undertaken as soon as he possibly can? As the letter points out, the situation is a serious one, because the fishermen there have no protection whatever.
I should also like to say to the minister that the people of Dipper Harbour will appreciate the fact that in this vote there is an amount to improve the breakwater or the wharf at that place. In connection with these wharves may I say that I have been along the shore there and have seen the fishermen unloading their catch in the late autumn. There is no lighting whatever on the wharf or on the breakwater, except the light which is put up at the end of the wharf by the lightkeeper when darkness falls. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Fisheries might give some consideration to providing lighting for these wharves. They would be of great assistance to the fishermen when they bring in their catch and start to unload, particularly in the late autumn and winter months.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. In this vote I do not see any amount set aside for work on the Chance Harbour breakwater. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister a few nights ago when the bill to provide for $300,000 a year and an expenditure of $3 million to beautify and improve Ottawa was before the house. Is the minister in a position to tell the committee whether any work is to be done at Chance Harbour to maintain the wharves, or for new works in the harbour? Out of the amount to be voted, is any money to be spent at Chance Harbour? The breakwater there is in a bad state of repair. I have had some correspondence with the minister

Supply-Public Works
about it at different times. I understand that last year a petition was sent to the Minister of Fisheries, or to the Minister of Public Works, I do not know which, by the residents of Chance Harbour about this breakwater. It is imperative that some work be done there. Can the minister tell me whether it is proposed to do any work there under this item?


Alphonse Fournier: With regard to the Lorneville wharf constructions, I understand that plans and specifications were prepared, and we have called for tenddts. I do not think that we have received any tenders as yet, but we are to proceed with the Lorne-ville project. It will amount to about $100,000. Part of that amount is in the estimates here.
As to the second question of the hon. member concerning Chance Harbour, we are looking into that. I cannot give a definite commitment at the moment, but we expect a report from the engineer down there in the very near future, and that will be taken care of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S17. Quebec-
Bagotville-wharf	reconstruction (revote
[Stage Direction]
Beauharnois-wharf reconstruction, $15,000.
Bonaventure, wharf extension, $10,000.
Grande Riviere-wharf reconstruction (revote $25,000), $195,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $345,000.
Isle aux Coudres-improvements to wharves, $137,000.
Isle Verte-wharf repairs, $17,100.
Kamouraska-wharf reconstruction. $40,400.
L'Anse St. Jean-wharf repairs, $25,000.
Matane-reconstruction of west breakwater (revote $25,000), $235,000.	.
Mechins-wharf repairs and reconstruction, $50,300.
Miguasha-wharf improvements and breakwater (revote $10,000), $52,000.
Quebec-completion of the reconstruction of the intercepting sewer-to implement the agreement entered into in 1939, $1,140,000.
Rimouski-towards reconstruction of old wharf. $200,000.
Riviere du Loup-towards wharf reconstruction. $125,000.
Ste Felicite-wharf repairs (revote $5,000). $47,000.	,
St. Simeon-wharf reconstruction (revote $40,000). $190,000.
Sept lies-rectification work. $15,000.
Sorel-harbour repairs and improvements, $61,000.
Total, $3,144,800.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I have just one observation, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the very first item. I am glad to see this item for the improvement of the dock and wharf at Bagotville. I doubt whether anyone could see a more beautiful sight anywhere than is to be seen at night time when g-oing up Ha Ha bay and approaching the dock at Bagotville. I would say that with the proper development it
should be one of the finest tourist routes in the world. Anything that will tend to improve the lighting of the Bagotville docks-they are beautiful now-and therefore make them more beautiful, will be all to the good.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SIS. Ontario-
Bronte-reconstruction of pier (revote $30,000), $115,000.	.	,
Cobourg-reconstruction of harbour works (revote $35,000), $95,000.
Collingwood-towards harbour reconstruction and improvements, $250,000.
Fort William-dredging (revote $22,000), $190,000.	.
Grand Bend-repairs to north pier, $50,000.
Griffiths Island-extension to Groyne, $8,000.
Gull Bay-wharf, $6,300.	.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken, $275,000.
Hudson-wavebreak boom, $6,500.
Kenora-repairs to wharves, $30,000.
Meaford-revetment wall, $36,000.
Midland-harbour	improvements (revote
$60,000). $165,000.	.
Oakville-reconstruction of east pier, $123,000.
Oshawa-breakwater reconstruction (revote $10,000), $33,000.
Ottawa-(Rideau river)-repairs to walls, $18,500.
Parry Sound-wharf (revote $5,500), $8,500.
Pelee Island-wharf improvements, $20,000.
Port Bruce-reconstruction of pier, $25,000.
Port Hope-harbour repairs (revote $20,000),
[Stage Direction]
Port Arthur-dredging, $26,000.
Port Arthur-repairs to breakwater, $200,000.
Rainy river-wharf reconstruction, $17,100.
Sault Ste. Marie-wharf reconstruction (revote $10,000), $35,000.
South Baymouth-wharf reconstruction and extension, $34,200.
Thames river-redredging, $60,000.
Tobermory-wharf and dredging, $91,000.
Total, $2,028,100.
Mr. SENN; Under harbours and rivers generally, is any part of the $275,000 earmarked for the harbour and port of Maitland and the extension of the retaining wall or other works?
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull); I have not the report here, but I can get an answer for the hon. gentleman very shortly, and I shall let him know personally, by letter.
Mr. FRASER:: This item includes an
amount for repairs to the walls of the Rideau river here in Ottawa. Where is that? Is that within the city limits, on the canal? I ask that question because for the last two years I have noticed, coming in on the train, that the wall of the canal, which is surmounted by an ornamental railing, is gradually bulging out, and in another six months I am afraid it is all going to drop into the canal.


Alphonse Fournier: This item _ of $18,500 is to provide for the reconstruction of the walls on the east and west side of the
Supply-Public Works

outlet of the Rideau river where it empties into the Ottawa river, which are in a bad state of disintegration. That would be closer down to the Ottawa river, where the Rideau flows into it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But not on the canal itself?


Alphonse Fournier: No. That would not come under my department; that would be Transport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On Saturday in Chatham I met an engineer with whom I discussed the trouble they recently had in connection with the Thames river overflowing between Chatham and its mouth. He suggested, and in drawing up the estimates, I imagine the minister must have expected such a suggestion, that the river be thoroughly dredged out so the water would have a rapid flow into lake St. Clair; and in addition, that where the river enters lake St. Clair the sand bar be taken out in order to permit the water to run rapidly into the lake.


Alphonse Fournier: That will be under harbours and rivers generally.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I notice the second last item in this vote is 860,000 for redredging the Thames river. I believe that is important, and should be commended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
319. Manitoba-
Gimli-wharf reconstruction (revote $10,000). $85,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $40,000.
Hecla-wharf reconstruction, $50,000.
Hnausa-wharf reconstruction (revote $25,000). $100,00.
Selkirk-Towards wharf reconstruction (revote $10,000), $100,000.
St. Andrews-river	breakwater (revote
[Stage Direction]
St. Andrews lock and dam-straightening west approach, $65,000.
Total, $447,500.
Mr. BRYCE:: I am in a rather peculiar position this time; I want to thank the minister for what he has done. I have certainly parked on his doorstep for a considerable time; I got better acquainted with the genial minister, and I am certainly pleased that he has looked into the situation at Selkirk constituency and decided to undertake this work at Gimli, Hecla, Hnausa, Selkirk and the St. Andrews lock and dam approach. Of course I do not want any hon. member to think Selkirk is getting something it is not entitled to. We were prepared to wait until the war was over before having these things attended to, and again I want to say to the minister, 
many thanks for what he has arranged to give us. I should like him to let me have a letter setting out the position in regard to these works; those on which tenders have been received, those on which tenders have not been received, how much of the work he expects to finish this season, and so on. If the minister could get his department to do that I shall be pleased to show it to my constituents when I go back and tell them what a fine fellow he is.


Alphonse Fournier: We will send you a letter.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I am happy for my hon. friend from Selkirk, who seems to have something the rest of us in Manitoba do not have. Practically all the money being spent in that province is being spent in the constituency of ' Selkirk. No doubt the work needs to be done, and I congratulate the hon. member on his good luck. I should like to ask the minister if he is contemplating any work on the government pier at Winnipegosis, and also on the pier at Dauphin lake. The situation at Winnipegosis was brought to the minister's attention earlier this year; the pier is in a very bad state of repair, and I believe some representations have been made by the board of trade. With regard to the pier at Dauphin beach, a request has been made by the local council of women that it be removed because of the danger. I believe it is beyond repair, and I do not think it is needed any longer. Since that time I have not heard what has been done, except that an engineer was to look over the situation. Perhaps the minister could give me any further information he has.


Alphonse Fournier: My information is that when the representations were received we gave instructions to our resident engineer in Manitoba to visit the locations and make a report on what should be done, whether we should tear down the pier at Dauphin and what repairs are required on the other pier, and I am expecting that report in the near future.
* Mr. ZAPLITNY: It has not been received yet?


Alphonse Fournier: Not yet.


Mr. SINNOTT:: There is quite an item here which comes in between the hon. member for Selkirk and myself; that is the straightening of a bridge at a cost of 165,000. I should like the minister to say when he expects that work to be started. The situation there is a very dangerous one; several people have been killed at that bridge, and I should like some idea as to when the work will be commenced.

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: The contract was let last week, and I expect the work will be started immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S20. Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-
Great Bear river road, N.W.T.-completion of extension, rebuilding old section and purchase of maintenance machinery, $425,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $25,000.
Waterways-wharf (revote $10,000), $15,000.
Yellowknife-improvements to navigation (revote), $7,200.
Yellowknife-wharf, $41,000.
Total, $513,200.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The first item here pertains to the northwest territories, and provides $425,000 for the Great Bear river road. I am strongly in favour of anything that can be done for transportation up in that country. Just where is this road?


Alphonse Fournier: A road extension thirty-five miles in length is being built by the Northern Transportation company, who are to be reimbursed for the amount actually expended. The old section of the road, approximately ten miles and a half in length, requires reconditioning and reconstruction of bridges and culverts thereon. This work was started in 1945; there was an item in the estimates of 1945-46. In 1946-47 we are repairing the old section of the road at a cost of $20,000, and are spending $18,000 for the purchase of maintenance machinery. The balance is for the completion of the forty miles of the road.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to know where that road is. Is it along the Bear river between the Mackenzie river and Great Bear lake?	_


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was primarily constructed around a rapids, was it not?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it run the whole distance from the Mackenzie river to Great Bear lake?


Alphonse Fournier: I understand they are rebuilding forty miles at the rapids section.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the rapids are quite short-nothing like that in length. The whole distance would not be much over forty miles.


Alphonse Fournier: That is the description of the road they are building there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not opposing it; I am strongly in favour of anything that can be done to improve transportation in that 63)360-294
country. The way it is now, the boats ascend the Bear river until they come to the St. Charles rapids.


Alphonse Fournier: It is said that
it extends from the easterly end of the old road, past St. Charles rapids, to the source of the Great Bear river at Great Bear lake.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. Well, then, they
are running the road now from the west end of St. Charles rapids, where the present portage is. At the present time when the boats ascend to that point they unload on to trucks, to continue by truck up to Great Bear. That would help the transportation, and I am in agreement with it. Why does it cost so much money? Will it be a concrete road?


Alphonse Fournier: Forty miles of
new road is being put in there at about $10,000 a mile.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would favour anything
that would help that country.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to
ask a question on this item, covering as it does Saskatchewan, Alberta and the northwest territories. While I am not in the habit of asking for expenditures, I believe that every attention should be given to expenditures on self-liquidating works. On previous occasions I have referred to the necessity of having something done to preserve Long lake in Saskatchewan, and I have referred also to the projected diversion of part of the waters of the Saskatchewan river at Elbow, Saskatchewan. While some preliminary work has been done, and this is appreciated, I would ask for a report from the minister. I believe it is placed under either the Department of Reconstruction and Supply or the Department of Agriculture, through prairie farm rehabilitation. But once the work is proceeded with, will it be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, and will the construction work be done by that department?
By way of an aside I should1 like to say something with which I know the minister will be in agreement, particularly after listening again to the 'hon. member for Davenport display his great knowledge of Canada. We in Saskatchewan, and in western Canada generally, appreciate highly -what he has done to develop in all parts of Canada an interest -in irrigation and prairie development. When or if it becomes the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works to name the project, concerning which the preliminary work of surveying and diversion of water is now -under way, I suggest that no better name could be given to that project in Saskatchewan than

Supply-Public Works

the John R. MacNicol dam. No man has done more for the cause of water conservation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The applause from all parts of the house indicates that, without regard to party, his contribution is recognized throughout the western provinces.
Are the preliminary operations and survey parties under the direction of the Department of Public Works? If not, once the work begins will it be the responsibility of that department?
There is some unemployment in the west to-day, and it has been increasing of late. It appears to me that this is a time when self-liquidating public works-not wasted public works-should be proceeded with.


Alphonse Fournier: Last year the
hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned this project, and I was not sure whether it came under my department. Upon inquiry I found that it came under the departments of Reconstruction and Supply, and Mines and Resources. I cannot say to the hon. member whether, when the work is proceeded with, it will be done by the Department of Public Works, because so far I have not received any request from other departments.
As to the choosing of a name, nothing would please me more than to have Mr. MacNicol's name identified with this project. Everyone admires his knowledge of the whole country. I have a further reason for wanting to see his name perpetuated, and that is that we were elected on the same date to the House of Commons and have been close friends ever since.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have one further word, because I know the minister is sincere in what he wishes to do, and I should like to help him. I note that there is an item here for a wharf at Yellowknife. The difficulty at that point is in connection with the unloading of heavy machinery off the boats. I suggest that the department consider equipping the docks at Fort Smith, Fort Fitzgerald, Waterways, and Yellowknife with cranes. The United States government had that type of equipment on those docks during the war, but I believe it has been removed. The equipping of those docks with cranes capable of lifting giant pieces of machinery from the boats on to the docks woidd be useful.


Alphonse Fournier: In view of the fact that works in that , district are increasing, recently we opened a new office in Edmonton, with a resident engineer who is looking into

these matters, and reporting regularly. As to the cranes the hon. member would like to see at these points, let me say that I shall take the matter up with my officials to see if it is practicable. I would be in sympathy with the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
321. British Columbia and Yukon-*
Bamfield (West)-repairs and improvements to float and approach, $10,000.
Bella Bella-wharf renewal, $34,000.
Bella Coola-wharf repairs and improvements (revote $10,000), $95,300.
Brownsville-harbour improvements (revote
[Stage Direction]
Brunette river (Sapperton)-approach and float (revote $7,000). $10,000.
Capilano river-channel protection, $8,500.
Fraser river-improvements, $175,000.
Fraser river-protection work on Lulu and Sea islands, $40,000.
Fraser river-reconstruction of North Arm jetty (revote $50,000), $225,000.
Fraser river-survey launch, $15,000.
Gibson's Landing-wharf reconstruction. $50,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $325,000.
Horseshoe bay-wharf reconstruction, $24,000.
Ladysmith-float and breakwater (revote), $7,700.
Xahun (Caesar's Point)-wharf replacements,
[Stage Direction]
Nanaimo-harbour improvements. $60,000.
Nanaimo

replacement of crane on assembly wharf, $52,500.
North Galiano-wharf, $6,000.
Port Alberni-harbour improvements (revote $9,000). $15,000.
Prince Rupert-renewal of fishermen's floats (revote $5,000). $22,000.
Prince Rupert (Digby Island)-wharf repairs, $18,000.
Queen Charlotte City-wharf repairs and extension (revote $5,000). $16,000.
Refuge Cove (Redonda Island) float (revote $5,900), $6,000.
Stewart-wharf repairs (revote). $32,000.
Ueluelet West-v'harf improvements. $8,500.
Vananda-wharf extension, freight shed and repairs (revote $4,200), $7,900.
Victoria-towards dredging. $100,000.
Victoria-fishing harbourage, $67,000.
Westview-harbour improvements (revote $20.000), $35,000.
Westview-replacing fishing harbourage (revote $25.0001. $305,000.
Winter Harbour - improvements (revote $5,000). $24,000.
Total, $1,825,400.
Mr. STIRLING:: Has provision been made for the control works at the south end of Okanagan lake, both in connection with repairs, if such are needed, and the keeping open of the channel of Okanagan river to take away the flood waters from the lake?


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed by my deputy that these works are taken care of under the general vote for harbours and rivers.

Supply-Public Works


Grote Stirling: Does that apply also to the renewing of the timbers on the protection breastwork at Penticton? That is a small breakwater erected for the purpose of providing shelter for boats on the lake.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not sure about that item.


Grote Stirling: I took the matter up with the minister earlier in the session, and I understood from a note I received that this was being taken care of. I presume it will be done out of the general vote.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that if the hon. member received a letter from my department stating that we would proceed with it, we will do so.


Grote Stirling: Two other small breakwaters have been asked for at Peachland and Summerland. Okanagan lake, like all mountain lakes, is subject to sharp squalls coming on without notice, and the rough water created by such squalls makes it hazardous for boats. There has been a most interesting development in recent years, both for tourists and for residents, when they have been running a competition called the Okanagan fish derby in connection with which prizes are given for the biggest fish taken. It so happens that many of those large fish are taken on the west side of the lake in the vicinity of Peach-land and Summerland. The consequence is that if boats are fishing along that piece of exposed shore, and a sharp squall springs up, there is no place to which they can run for safety. This is a matter of great interest to all the inhabitants of the interior, because they come from there and from the south as well. Since the war the tourist business has increased and there are many boats on Okanagan lake. I am afraid we are going to have trouble if some assistance is not provided when these squalls come up. Furthermore, boats which are too large to be taken out of the water in the fall and are placed on chocks require some kind of breastwork to protect them from the winds which surge down the lake from the north. Something should be done in this case similar to what was done some years ago at Penticton.


Alphonse Fournier: Would this be a new work?


Grote Stirling: I think it would be.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think we could use this vote for that purpose; it would require a special estimate. I am trying to recall if I have received any requests for these two projects.
63260-294^


Grote Stirling: I passed them on to the minister, and received the usual acknowledgment that consideration would be given. I do not see the names on this list.


Alphonse Fournier: We have not received the report from the engineer, but we will look into these two projects.


Grote Stirling: I hope the minister will give due consideration to them, because they are well warranted.


William Irvine: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the need of reconditioning the wharf at Seaton lake. I approached the department last April and was told that the district engineer had been instructed to examine the wharf and submit a report. Has the minister received the report of the engineer, and could some of this vote be devoted to reconditioning that wharf? I notice it is not mentioned specifically, and I wanted to be sure that some provision was made for it.


Alphonse Fournier: If it is an existing construction and the report received from the engineer warrants immediate repair, it will be undertaken under the general vote. I do not believe the report has been received concerning this project, but I shall look into it.


William Irvine: There is money for that purpose, provided that the engineer's report is favourable?


Alphonse Fournier: We have $325,000 to cover repair and maintenance projects.


William Irvine: That will be enough.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister received a report on the project at Revelstoke which the department was looking into? This concerns the construction of a wing dam on the Columbia river to prevent the erosion of the bank some half a mile below Revelstoke. When I was last in touch with the department I was informed that they were awaiting the report of the engineer. In this connection f think it is appropriate for some member from British Columbia to pay a tribute to the work of Mr. Morton, the departmental engineer. I have heard nothing but the highest praise of that gentleman. I think he has far too much work to look after, with the staff at his disposal, and the result is that when we bring matters to the attention of the minister it takes too long for a report to be made. That is not Mr. Morton's fault, because there is more than he and his staff can do. I asked that the work on the dam at Revelstoke be undertaken before high water
Supply-Public Works

in order to prevent erosion, but as I understand it the investigation did not get under Way until the high water stage had been reached. I hope this work can be done before the next high water period. I hope also that the minister will consider giving his office in British Columbia the necessary staff to enable it to do the good work of which it is capable.


Alphonse Fournier: We lack staff in the engineers' branch, and I doubt if there is one of our offices which has not had men leave the service or go on superannuation. We are trying to replace these losses, but there seems to be a lack of engineering talent wishing to come into the government employ. We have made applications to the civil service commission to increase the staff.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister say anything about the work at Revelstoke? While I am on this subject I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West in connection with the dredging of the Arrow lake system, and to repeat my request for the replacement of the dredge on Shuswap lake. This is needed to do the work there and on the Thompson river. The dredge that is there now is some thirty years old, and is constantly in need of repair. This is quite a water system and there is an increasing amount of logging being done. Will the minister consider placing a new dredge there and getting the work under way as soon as possible, so that it may be completed before the next high water?


Alphonse Fournier: I nearly committed myself on Saturday to a new dredge on the Fraser river and on another river, and I do not know if I could commit myself to-day to another dredge on the Thompson river and one on the Columbia river. I understand that the life of a dredge is over forty years, and so if this one is only thirty years old, it should be good for another ten years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to need extensive repairs.


Alphonse Fournier: If it needs repairs, we will attend to them. As at Revelstoke, we are proceeding to have surveys made before the next high water period.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Is the vote for Bella Coola to cover the extension and repairs of the existing wharf?


Alphonse Fournier: It is to cover repairs and improvements to the actual wharf, the moving of the existing approach and float, the addition of a ICO by 200 feet wharf-head, and the construction of floats.
IMr. Fu'.tev..]


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I have spoken to several of the oldest residents in this area about the condition of the existing wharf and its relationship to the river, which goes on the rampage quite often. The mouth is silting up, thus necessitating an extension to the wharf. I have been told that if the wharf were moved further out along the point, or even in the lee of the point it would1 provide shelter for the large fishing fleet which winters there. This would be better than to continue to extend 'the existing wharf and dabble with the river, because the whole mouth is filling up. When the tide goes out the whole fleet is left on the beach; the boats pile up on each other, and a lot of damage is done. I should like the minister to consider moving the wharf out farther. I think this could be worked out *between his engineers and the people in the locality.
An interesting development has taken place in recent years in the movement of cattle from the Williams lake country down the Bella Coola valley and thence on to Vancouver. However, the cattle men up in that country can do it at a more costly rate by taking them into Williams lake and shipping over the Pacific-Great Eastern when they land down in the Bella Coola valley they get their cattle all caught up in this mud flat where the silting takes place, and if a barge wharf were put in there they could load without any difficulty. The cattle coming in through the up-country via Bella Coola have plenty of natural feeding, and1 there is no cost to the cattlemen, whereas they have to buy feed when they ship out the other way. Several ranchers are actively interested in this, and>
if this facility were provided I am sure there would be more interest in shipping out by that route. At the same time this work going on in Bella Coola also affects Ocean Falls. As you know, that is a growing pulp and paper centre, and the people there suffer climate handicaps. It rains practically all the time.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Up British Columbia!


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Well, I have to tell the truth once in a while, so help me. The only place where these people can have a real holiday and get out of the rain belt is Bella Coola, forty miles away. Yet when they go there to spend a holiday they run against this business of tying up their boats, and if there is a wind blowing the boat gets all smashed up. That is why it would be a benefit to the workers of Ocean Falls as well as to the people of Bella Coola.

Supply-Public Works
I have to 'bring to the minister's attention the extent to which these communities are dependent upon these wharves. Very often their whole livelihood depends on a decent float. Further to that, at one time $3,500 was voted for a float at Hunts Inlet; I. do not see it there now. The float was condemned a couple of years ago. There again is a fishing village which is completely isolated as regards getting to it or out of it, except for that float, and yet it is in such a condition that they cannot depend on it. Oona River is in the same position, and also Skidegate. The float at Skidegate is half sunk. As to getting lumber to build a float, I know I could scrounge enough off the beach to build one. So the material is right in the bay as far as building a float at Skidegate is concerned.
Speaking of the interior, there are quite a few independent loggers working along Babine Lake, and they have no wharf facilities. It would be in the interests of producing lumber if the department would heed the representations of the board of trade of Burns Lake and install that much-needed facility at the point.
I bring these various items to the attention of the minister not as a means of having money spent in the district, but rather to impress upon him the fact that these facilities, especially on the coast, are the only means of getting in and out of that area, and the fishermen whose whole capital is often tied up in one boat, are absolutely dependent upon decent facilities for tying up and landing. It is not a case of waiting until future years; the work should be done now, or there will be a menace and a serious handicap to the production of fish and the much-needed food which the world is demanding at the present time.
I leave these various matters in the hands of the minister, except that I should like to ask him one question: has the department considered the objections of the people of Port Essington to moving the float from Haysport to Tyee?


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry that I could not get the information this afternoon, but the question will be noted and I will have the officials give that information to the hon. gentleman.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: When I was home last winter they were complaining of the plans to move the float from Haysport to Tyee. The people of Port Essington did not want it moved, and a majority of the citizens signed a petition to that effect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to compliment the minister on his staff in British Columbia, and particularly those who have worked in the Kootenay district, some of whom I have known for thirty years or more. They are efficient, hard-working and courteous, and the service they give is generally recognized by all people in the district regardless of political beliefs. I say this because I think that very often the services rendered by civil servants distant from Ottawa are not given sufficient recognition in Ottawa.
The people of my riding are pleased at the expenditures proposed in connection with the Arrow and Kootenay lakes; but I want to bring to the attention of the minister one or two matters connected with this vote. I speak for a riding which last year produced one hundred million dollars' worth of minerals, lumber and agricultural products, so it is a riding of some importance. I am not suggesting that the things which are desired by the people of the district can be done immediately, having regard to the shortage of material and of labour. But I do ask the minister and his department to give consideration to the provision of a very necessary float at Trail, in view of the increased navigation on the Columbia river. I am informed that during the last month or so we had more than forty boats come from Boulder dam and Spokane to the head of the lakes. There should also be extension and improvement to the present accommodation at Nakusp, Lardo and1 Nelson and when the time is ripe a float, built for St. Leon Hot Springs.
I do ask the minister to give some, consideration to these matters. Although we do not expect the work to be done while labour and materials are in short supply, we hope these projects wall be set on foot as soon as possible.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I should like to ask the minister when he is going to call for tenders for the fishermen's float in Victoria. That was, I think, promised in June last. We have been waiting for definite word for some time. I might tell him that in a letter I received this morning it is stated that at the present time there are 344 fishing boats and packers operating out of Victoria and they have no place to tie up satisfactorily. These boats last year brought in to Victoria over 22,000,000 pounds of fish; therefore the industry is a pretty substantial one. A good many of them go out into the halibut and tuna beds. The boats they are using are fairly expensive, and a proper place is needed to moor them. We are particularly anxious that this work be proceeded without any further delay. As a
Supply-Public Works

matter of fact it will not do much good this season, but a good many boats will want to winter there this coming winter..
The other item here is $100,000 towards the dredging of the harbour. I am glad to notice the words "towards" the dredging of the harbour. That sum will take care of some of the loose dirt from the inner harbour, but it will not take care of the outer harbour, where the work will run into a considerable amount of money. In addition to the dredging of both the inner and the outer harbour we have also to look after proper dockage to have it ready for the time when the. large boats get back on the run. Prior to the war the Empress boats, running between the orient and Victoria and* Vancouver, used to make Victoria a regular port of call. They went away during the war and they have not been able to get them back. I understand the Canadian Pacific are preparing other boats to take their place, but they will not be able to dock at Victoria unless a proper wharf is available. I am not afraid that we shall not make progress in .getting this settled. I have spent a good deal of my time in the last four or five years discussing it with the minister's predecessor and also with his present deputy, and I am quite satisfied that the negotiations that are going on at the present time will eventually lead us into a satisfactory position. Therefore I am not asking the minister to make any specific promises in this regard, but I do ask him to let us know when he will go ahead with the building of the floats for the fishermen.


Alphonse Fournier: We received the plans this morning, and we shall be asking for tenders this week for fishermen's floats.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Will the minister be calling for tenders for the dredging at the same time?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know whether we shall be calling for tenders right now. The hon. gentleman knows the extent of this project for dredging Victoria harbour.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, I know it.


Alphonse Fournier: It is not a $100,000 job.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I understand that.


Alphonse Fournier: It is quite a large amount. We thought of starting the work this year and proceeding next year. I could not get enough money this year to do that work.


Thomas Reid: I hope you will not take away the old dredges from the river for the purpose.


Alphonse Fournier: It will be contract work.
[Mr. Mayhew.l


John Lambert Gibson: I am sorry I was not here on Saturday when the discussion took place with regard to Ripple Rock. I do not propose to go over the ground covered then, because according to Hansard there was a rather acrimonious debate.


Alphonse Fournier: Quite a ripple.


John Lambert Gibson: I believe the minister was under criticism in that regard. Usually we British Columbia members agree with one another, but in this case I commend the minister for closing down that work. He used excellent judgment when, he closed it down. As it is in my riding, I may say that I was a little nervous about going around that country because the people seemed to think I was the Minister of Public Works and was responsible for the work going on there. We have spent $800,000 there and have learned that the system that was being tried was entirely wrong. Ripple Rock will always be a great hazard. As a matter of fact, there are a great many marine hazards in British Columbia-Ripple Rock is not the only one -and it is interesting to note that during the war many thousands of ships, Russian, American and others, all strangers, went through there without one being wrecked on Ripple Rock. The only one that was wrecked was our own government Ship, and I think the captain or whoever was in charge would be the first to say that he committed an error in judgment when he got tangled up with the rock. The minister said that he had $1,900,000 available for its removal. I would like his assurance that he will start making that money available if someone comes along and offers a no-cure, no-pay proposition. Will he undertake that?


Alphonse Fournier: I would do a lot for my hon. friend, but I would not mingle in the Ripple Rock discussion. I see that my hon. friends are not all of one mind on the project.


John Lambert Gibson: We are all of one mind on the necessity for t'he work.


Thomas Reid: We all want it removed.


Alphonse Fournier: I hear one partisan saying that it cannot be done, and another that it should not be done. I do not think I should repeat what I said on Saturday; it would only start another long discussion. What I said, then was that the last estimate we received from the contractor was $1,900,000, and we tried to find out whether we could get a guarantee that he would execute the project for that price and give us an assurance that the work would be done.

Supply-Public Works
But that is what we could not get from any contractor, and we therefore decided not to proceed on that basis. As I explained on Saturday, we were sorry that we could not do the work under the present methods known to the department. I repeat, however, that we will continue to study the project and if any other method is found I think the government will be disposed to undertake these works. I do not say they will be done this year, or even next year. We do not want anybody to say that the officials of the department do not wish to go ahead with the work. There is nothing to that. We are ready to undertake it; it is a danger to navigation. Before we undertake the work, however, we want to have something definite as to price and completion of the work.
'Mr. PEARKES: It is not only a menace but a very serious hindrance to navigation, in that vessels have to tie up and wait for hours until the tide is favourable so that they can go by. The vessels that tie up, waiting for hours, losing valuable sailing time, need the removal just as much as the smaller vessels to which it is a danger.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone services, operation and
maintenance-
325. Land and cable telegraph lines-'Lower St. Lawrence and maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels for cable work, $170,000.
Mr. LANGLOIS:: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone services, operation and
maintenance-
327. Alberta and Saskatchewan, $120,500.
John Oliver Probe: As a member for Saskatchewan I find it a little difficult to sink my teeth into any specific item in the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. Out of a total appropriation of some $36,000,000 expected to be spent in the current fiscal year by the Department of Public Works I find that in connection with public buildings my province has an amount of $46,500 assigned to it. There are various other smaller items, and then there is one we are now discussing which is linked with Alberta under telegraph and telephone services, operation and maintenance. This item amounts to $120,500.
When the estimates of the. Minister of Fisheries were before the committee last year the hon. member for Saskatoon City drew attention to the fact that out of $3 million to be expended across the country some $13 or $14 was allotted to my province. I do not know whether we should get the scientific instrument called radar working to find out where the moneys of the country are being spent in our province. I am'not asking for anything specific for my province, but I feel that the Minister of Public Works is operating on a pattern which is common throughout all the departments with respect to placing necessary services within Saskatchewan.
Dealing with, the item we are now discussing, I should like the minister to give a comprehensive statement as to what telephone and telegraph services are being conducted in Saskatchewan, in what areas and for what purpose. Is it something which is beyond the capacity of the local provincial department of telephones to handle, or is it a supplementary service, or is it in some area in which the provincial government system does not function? I should like to have a statement on this item because it is the only one of any size in Saskatchewan. Would the minister be good enough to give us a statement at this time?


Alphonse Fournier: These are telephone lines operated by the federal government in outlying districts where the ordinary telephone company does not operate or, as in Saskatchewan, where the province would not undertake to put up lines because there
4G68
Supply-Public Works

is always a deficit in the operation. This amount is provided to try to help these people who are out of the way and to give them communication with the larger centres.
In Saskatchewan there is the Meadow Lake to Pegasus, a four-mile line between these two places; Pegasus to Barnes Crossing, fourteen miles; Island Hill loop, one mile; Buffalo Narrows to Peter Pond lake, thirty-five miles. We have fifty-four miles of telephone lines which we operate and which are provided for in this vote. The hon. member's province is better organized with a telephone system than others, I presume.


John Oliver Probe: I am not complaining about the outlay. I want to know where the moneys are being expended, the amount expended for the telephone and telegraph services, the number of persons employed on this work in my province.


Alphonse Fournier: I have given the mileage for the telephone lines. In Saskatchewan we also have 291 miles of telegraph lines from Lloydminster to Onion Lake to Meadow Lake and lie a la Crosse. I am sorry that I have not the breakdown- of the whole for the two provinces. This system applies to the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The total vote is $120,500. This amount is to provide for the working expenses of the telegraph and telephone lines of the Alberta-Saskatehewan division and consists of $84,016 for salaries, $11,200 for cost of living bonus, $6,000 overtime for operators, $6,000 for repairs and $12,684 for supplies and sundries. I believe that makes up a total of $120,500. The lines of the Alberta-Saskat-chewan division consist of 1,934J miles of land lines and ninety offices for operating purposes, of which twenty-seven are on a salary basis and sixty-three on a commission basis.


John Oliver Probe: The minister cannot break that down?


Alphonse Fournier: I can give the names.


John Oliver Probe: I do not want that. I wanted to know what the approximate amount was and the number of employees we have in our own province.


Alphonse Fournier: As I understand it, this system is operated in one place; it is a division. I would have to take name after name and give the salaries out of the $84,616 paid for salaries; then the cost of living bonus, and so on. It is not divided between provinces. It is one division comprising all these lines.


John Oliver Probe: The headquarters of that division is where?


Alphonse Fournier: Edmonton, I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone services, operation and
maintenance-
328. British Columbia-Northern and Yukon districts, $171,000.
Harry Grenfell Archibald: I have two or three points to bring up under this item. First of all, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the telephone line between Massett and Port Clements does not work at high tide. Therefore, in a crisis or any thing like that, the thing would be a complete washout. During the war there was a D.O.T. station operated out of Massett. Has the government or the department considered taking over that installation and operating a radio telephone up there?


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed that we have put in the best system known. The hon. gentleman says it does not operate?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: That is the information I received from a reliable source. They say it does not work at high tide.


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed that we cannot understand why it would not operate at high tide. I am no expert-


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I suggest that the
minister check with the residents of Massett, because the latest word I received is that it does not work at high tide. They are vitally interested in radio telephones, and I shall give the reasons. There is now an aeroplane service-


Alphonse Fournier: I know there is a radio telephone service up there.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: If the minister has a radio telephone service there he must have installed it since I came down.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member has been here a long time.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I do not think you have a radio telephone service. .


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps not; I shall have to inquire and I shall let my hon. friend know.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I should like to inform the minister that they now have an aeroplane service. If they had a radio telephone service in the event of a crisis they could get in touch with the plane at Rupert or Massett or at Queen Charlotte city, as the case may be.

Supply-Public Works
They have no doctor there; therefore it is vital to have this service. Inasmuch as the machinery is there, we cannot see why the government cannot operate the service in the interests of the people.
There is one other question. Down at Skide-gate and Queen Charlotte city there is a line ' from the old R.CA..F. station which was situated at Alfred Bay across from the village of Skidegate. This plane service lands at Alfred Bay, yet the telephone has been disconnected on the Skidegate side of the bay, and they do not know when the planes are landing or anything about them. They have missed planes there because the planes left before the people knew anything about it. Would the department consider hooking up that existing line so that they could telephone? There would be no great cost; I imagine one of these old jangle phones would work.


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly we shall consider it, if we can help the people in the outlying parts of your province. The object of these votes for telephones and telegraphs is to help these people who have no other means of communication. No one else will undertake to give them these facilities, and certainly we shall consider what my hon. friend has said.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: There is another point I want to bring up in connection with the telephone service running from the Yukon down through Hazelton. The people of the Kispiox valley, which runs forty miles out of Hazelton, are hooked up with that system. They have been paying $2.50 a month or $30 a year for that service ; that is the charge for each individual phone. As I understand it, only five families live up in that valley, and you are going to charge them anywhere from 10 cents to 20 cents a call in addition to the $2.50 a month. This is in a frontier area, but you are going to put- the whole load on them. Quite often when the service breaks down those people go out and spend days working on the line, but they have never charged the department for fixing it. The line is practically hanging on the branches of the trees at the present time, as I get the picture, and they would like to be allowed to call through the exchange at Hazelton to their local store without being soaked that additional 10 to 25 cents per call.


Alphonse Fournier: Who gave you that information?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I do not want to give the source of my information in public, but I am getting it straight and I can assure you it is reliable.


Alphonse Fournier: I have not that information.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: That is what I get, that they are being charged for each call, and I have it from absolutely reliable sources which I shall give the minister later. There is an Indian mission up in that valley in addition to these ranches, and this telephone line is their only way of communications with the outside. Part of the year they are absolutely sewn up because of muddy roads, and must depend upon this telephone service. Then up in Hazelton you have two telephone operators in the office who are paid $720 per annum or about $60 per month. They cannot make a go of it at that rate, with the present cost of living.


Alphonse Fournier: They are
appointed by the civil service commission.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: They are hired by you, are they not?


Alphonse Fournier: We make a request to the civil service commission and they find the employees. That is the system under which the government works.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Then through you, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whom that comes under?


Alphonse Fournier: The Secretary of State.
Mr. 'ARCHIBALD: Also in connection with this rural telephone set-up, in the town of Burns Lake the switchboard is not operated twenty-four hours a day. That is a divisional point as it were, for a wide area with a scattered population, and they would like a telephone operator on duty twenty-four hours a day. I understand it is hooked up with the police station, and has not been found reliable in case of emergency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch-Reconstruction, repairs and
improvements-
SSI. Maritime provinces and lower St. Lawrence, $12,000.
Robert Henry Winters: There are two islands off the coast of my constituency, La Have island and Tancook island. The department has been good enough to make a survey with a view to improving telephone facilities there. Are any improvements at those points included in this item?


Alphonse Fournier: This is the general vote, and those two islands would not be included here. This is required for general repairs and improvements to telegraph and telephone lines on Cape Breton Island, New
Supply-Public Works

Brunswick, north shore lower St. Lawrence river and gulf and the larger islands situated therein; also repairs and replacements to the telegraph and telephone cables located in the bay of Fundy, Northumberland strait and in the coastal waters around the province of Nova Scotia. I shall look into the matter mentioned by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
339. National Gallery of Canada, $80,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say a word about this item. Perhaps it is a delicate position for one who has talked about economy as much as I have now to question economy, and I am not so sure I am questioning it, but I should like a little information as to policy in connection with the national gallery. I see there is a decrease in this item of $22,000, and I feel this is just one of the places where we should be cautious before we practise retrenchment. It seems to me that in these days, which are so difficult, when we have so many things to disagree about, we should not- disregard the things we can all agree are worth while. Therefore without giving a song about it I should like very much to have a brief statement as to general policy. Perhaps I should know more about it myself, but I am ignorant and I should like to know those who are in charge, just what plans are afoot and what is the policy that is to be followed.


Alphonse Fournier: The members of the board of trustees to-day are Mr. Harry S. Southam, of Ottawa, chairman; Mr. E. B. Hosmer, of Montreal, and Right Hon. Vincent Massey of Toronto. The board may be composed of from three to five members, and at the present time we are considering the appointment of one or two additional members. As to the decrease, last year we had $50,000 in the vote for the purchase of works of art. This year that amount was brought down to $25,000, but I think there will be a supplementary estimate to reestablish it at $50,000. Sometimes it is difficult to have people understand that a vote of this kind should be increased. During the war years, of course, it was brought down to provide simply for maintenance and staff, without making any outside expenditure. If I personally were to decide on the amount I would increase it, because I think following the war would be a good time to purchase some works of art. But it is always the same thing; when we request increased amounts we are told to try to economize, so this year the officials said they would try to get along with 
the $25,000. I do not think I can get along with that this year, and I hope to be back with a supplementary estimate to restore the original amount. There is no doubt the national gallery is doing a wonderful work in the country, and 'it is one of the places always visited by those who" come to Ottawa. There was even a suggestion during the discussion of the federal district commission bill that we should have a real national gallery in Ottawa instead of using the museum, which is an imposing building, but does not meet all the needs. This year we are putting up a building, not at very great cost, as a storeroom for some of the works we have, and I am not losing faith that as the years go on we may increase the estimates for the national gallery.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just one more thing. Do we not get an annual report of any kind from the trustees?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes; that report has been tabled in the house, in English and in French.


Mr. BOUCHER:: There is a matter about which I have spoken to the minister once or twice, and as to which I believe he has some sympathy. I have not the full details before me just now, but I should like to bring it to the attention of the committee. As we enter the main hall of the House of Commons and proceed toward the library, hanging both to the right and left are two excellent pictures depicting the last war. On many occasions I have heard guides extol to guests visiting the house the beauties of these two pictures.
I understand that they were painted shortly after the last war by a lady now living in Ottawa and have been lent to the government by her. She is now in a position where she would like to dispose of them, and I believe they could be purchased by the government at a reasonable cost. I feel that if the pictures are worthy of hanging in the main hall of this building for such a long time, on loan, it ill befits the government to continue their use without purchasing them. I would urge that the lady be approached and the pictures purchased by the government. I believe there is a history behind them which no doubt the minister knows. If he does not he would have no difficulty in finding it out.
I believe they were painted at the suggestion of Sir Arthur Currie during the last war. This arrangement was agreed to by Sir Robert Borden, the then prime minister. The work was done at high cost by a skilful artist. I believe there are some reasons why the national art gallery have not purchased them. However, I feel that as a member of the House of Commons I ought to bow my head in shame

Supply-Public Works
each time guests are shown these pictures, which are pointed out as one of the great things in our parliament buildings, realizing all the while that they are there only on loan, and that she who painted them at great cost, and at great pains and effort, has not been compensated for her work.
Time is rolling by. I suggest it is not fitting that the works of an artist should appear in the central hallway of the houses of parliament at Ottawa so long as these have been, without the government's offering to make a purchase, particularly when the pictures have such artistic value and attraction.
I am sorry I am not sufficiently well trained in art to describe the beauties of these pictures, nor do I know their value. But I do know that anyone who looks at them must appreciate that they are fine pictures, and must have required great effort on the part of the artist who painted them.
I am sure that if the minister inquires into the circumstances he will realize that there is much more could be said, and that I have made but a poor fist of presenting the whole case. I would ask him, however, to give his attention to the matter to see if something can be done.


Alphonse Fournier: 
George Russell Boucher: Although the House of
Commons does not purchase them directly, I would point out that there is an appropriation for the House of Commons. The trustees at the national art gallery could be asked to purchase the pictures.


Alphonse Fournier: The request will be considered.


George Russell Boucher: I suggest that the minister as a member of the government should ask the national art gallery to purchase these two pictures. If they are good enough to hang in these halls for such a long time, and to be the pride of those of us who have seen them hanging there, surely they are good enough to merit purchase from the artist who painted them.


John Oliver Probe: Would the minister state how the works contained in the national art gallery or those owned by the gallery are made available to citizens of Canada who are not fortunate enough to come to Ottawa to visit, and to admire those works? Have we a system of travelling libraries of prints of masterpieces which would be available to clubs? If so, what statistical information has the minister respecting those facilities?
I regret that the item is being cut, but I appreciate the minister's statement that there is likely to be a generous supplementary allotment.


Alphonse Fournier: I have here a report from the chairman of the board of directors of the national gallery. It states that in the home field the national gallery has had the most active year in its history. Six major channels of art education were vigorously employed with highly satisfactory results. In Ottawa special and regular exhibitions were held and these were attended by nearly 150,000 visitors; thirty lectures, attended by a total of more than 3,000 students and interested listeners were given.
The trustees continue to regard their work for other parts of Canada as of major importance. Loan exhibitions to points outside Ottawa were in greater demand than ever before and were sent out in larger numbers. The cumulative effect of these exhibitions is apparent in the steadily growing interest in art centres and increased attendance at individual galleries.
The distribution of good colour reproductions of Canadian paintings, whereby some of the benefits of the national gallery are carried to the remotest settlements has grown beyond the capacity of the present staff to cope with satisfactorily. Extra space and assistance must be provided if this useful work is not to be handicapped. During the year 163,210 prints were sent out, which is quadruple the number distributed last year, which in turn was double the total of the year before. The reproductions include the well-known silk-screen prints which are proving of inestimable value for school use.
The national gallery has originated a new plan to make the gallery more widely effective as an educational institution. With the cooperation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a series of broadcasts to schools on outstanding Canadian artists was commenced last year. The broadcasts make use of the small colour prints issued by the national gallery, which are sent out in sets at a nominal price. Thus the school pupil or interested individual in any part of Canada
Supply-Public Works

can have before him a facsimile of the picture being discussed as he listens to the broadcast. Approximately 120,000 prints were requested last year and the demand for the coming year may reach half a million. The notebooks of pupils and reports submitted by schools have been excellent and indicate the far-reaching effects these broadcasts are having on pupil and parent alike. It is one of the most effective devices for making known to Canadians everywhere the work of our own artists and developing in. them an intelligent appreciation of art. As the technique of this method develops, the scheme can be extended to include other schools of art and other periods.
The total number of lectures and film showings given during the year in all parts of Canada was 267, an increase of 100 per cent over last year.
That the demand for what the art gallery can provide does not arise only from a limited number of interested enthusiasts but has its roots in all parts of the dominion and in all levels of society, is, indicative of an ever-increasing standard of education in Canada.
Under the direction of the national gallery, an exhibition called "What the art centre can do for your community" was developed and ten identical collections were prepared. These ten exhibitions are in continuous circulation throughout the country, even to the smaller and more remote towns, showing what can be done to make use of the facilities of the national gallery and other government sources. In addition to these collections, 138 loan exhibitions were circulated in all parts of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
340. Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $5,000 to be expended upon any one work, $75,000.
Thomas Reid: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: 1918.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member is wrong, it is 1919. I challenge any hon. member to go there and try to figure out the little dots under the various letters. I took these down and tried to find out the key, but I could not. Finally I took the matter up with the Clerk of the house and I found that he had the key, I suppose having been here for such a long time. He told me that the first line was 552, the second, 1151; the third, 1; the fourth, 108, and the fifth, 107. If you add them all up together you get 1919. I suppose the architect simply left this riddle to be worked out by future generations. I am- going to suggest to the minister that he should have "1919" carved on that stone.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why not 1918?


Thomas Reid: The war ended officially in 1919. As I point out, no one would know what it means unless he added up all the dots under the letters and knew what they meant.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall tell my officials to read carefully what the hon. gentleman has said and, if there is no reason why this work should not be done, then I will give instructions that it be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
342. To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1946-47, $20,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to refer particularly to the item in connection with the Great Bear river road. The supple-mentaries last year, item 678, called for $371,000 for the extension of this road, and I should like to know if that amount was all spent.	_


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that from $180,000 to $190,000 was spent out of the supplementaries last year. This year we are asking for $425,000 to complete the work, which makes a total of about $580,000.
Mr. MacNICOL,: I understand that something like $35,000 was to go to the Northern Transportation Company.


Alphonse Fournier: We have a contract with the Northern Transportation Company to complete the extension commenced1 in 1945, which is approximately fifty per cent completed. This contract was for $387,000. Then there are repairs to the old section of the road, $20,000; purchase of maintenance machinery, $18,000, making a total of $425,000. There was an estimated $370,536.87 expended

Supply-Public Works
in 1945-46 and the amount asked for 1946-47 is $387,000, making a total expenditure of $758,000 to complete the whole work.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Northern Transportation Company is a crown company?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Any work we are doing to complete this road we would really be paying the cost to ourselves?


Alphonse Fournier: It is the cost,


John Ritchie MacNicol: The government is doing it itself, since it is a crown company?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-chief architect's branch -
598. Repairs, alterations, operation and maintenance of buildings, $2,000,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister give a breakdown of this large item, showing the various amounts that it is anticipated will be spent in each province during the coming year?


Alphonse Fournier: This is to provide for caretaking, heating, repairing, elevator service, lighting, et cetera, in connection with the buildings occupied by what are considered continuing war departments, boards, corporations, branches, et cetera. A ruling made by treasury board on January 4, 1946, designating continuing war departments for estimate purposes for 1946-47 in connection with telephones, is being applied to all maintenance items for 1946-1947. These departments are as follows:
Reconstruction and Supply.
National Defence (army).
National Defence (air).
National Defence (navy).
National War Services.
Wartime prices and trade board.
Purely wartime divisions and functions of other departments.
The estimates for 1946-47 are as follows:
Salaries and wages	 $1,150,000
Cost of living bonus	 150,000
Alterations	 210,000
Light and power	 200,000
Water and water rates	 40,000
Fuel	 200,000
Supplies for caretakers	 45,000
Sundries	 5,000


Mr. PEARKES:: Would the item for national defence (army) include the building of drill halls?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice that the amount of this item is $2,000,000 as against $4,280,000 for last year. Would that indicate that the money was not spent last year?


Alphonse Fournier: The estimates for wartime activities have decreased. There are fewer buildings occupied by the war-time departments and agencies and we need less money than we did last year for repairs, maintenance and staff. It has gone down $280,000.


Mr. FAIR:: When the regular items were
going through the other night I was out for a short time, and when I came back I found that the item of which I wish to speak had been carried. Perhaps I might have a chance to discuss it under this item. It is in connection with the char staff of the building here.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand
that the char staff of this building is under
the House of Commons item.


John George Diefenbaker: This seems to me to be a very large item for the coming year, covering as it does expenditures in connection with departments of war carried on in the past. I think we are entitled to further information.


Alphonse Fournier: Is that on item 599, rental of premises?


John George Diefenbaker: On item 598, upon which I was asking questions a moment ago. The minister says that this year, while there have been a number of reductions in departments, there will be an expenditure of $200,000 in repairs and alterations. That is a pretty heavy expenditure in connection with the surviving war departments. I should like to secure from the minister, first, a statement showing how much of this $2,000,000 will be appropriated by national defence, how much by reconstruction, how much by wartime prices and trade board, and the nature of the alterations which are anticipated. These boards have the necessary buildings, and those buildings were well equipped during the period of the war. As I look down the list of expenditures under the chief architect's branch I ask myself whether everything has been done by the department of the minister to cut to the bone these expenditures. After he has given me the information I have asked for, I may have some further questions on it.


Alphonse Fournier: This estimate is Dased on requests from all the departments I have mentioned. We act only as agents of these departments. We receive requests from the wartime prices and trade board for office supplies or for the maintenance of buildings and the supplies they need there. These requests are submitted to our resident architects and they make an estimate. Probably this estimate is not the exact figure which will be
Supply-Public Works

needed; it may be less or more, but it is an estimate for the fiscal year 1946-47. I have to rely on the reports and estimates which are given me from all over the country by our resident architects.


John George Diefenbaker: What do the wartime prices and trade board want this year?


Alphonse Fournier: That is one of the largest organisms we have in the government and all over the country from Halifax to Victoria.


George Russell Boucher: "Organism" is a good
word.


Alphonse Fournier: I have to take in the demands they make to public works, but I would rather see the hon. gentleman discuss this on some other estimate, because he needs more expert advice than I have.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give what information he has as to what the wartime prices and trade board want in each province, the expenditures they have asked the department to ratify, the particulars covering the Department of Reconstruction and the Department of National Defence, and in what provinces are these various departments asking for expenditures, the amount in each, and so forth?


Mr FOURNIER (Hull):: In every province and, especially, in Ottawa we have offices and buildings occupied by these departments of reconstruction and of national defence-the three branches-the wartime prices and trade board, and all other wartime divisions. These buildings we have under our control have to be maintained; their value is considerable. As time goes on, repairs must be done to them and they require painting. Take the case of these temporary buildings, on which most of the $200,000 mentioned by the hon. member will be spent this year. Every building we occupy we keep in a good state of repair. But I cannot tell the hon. member the amount which will be spent if we have an office in Prince Albert-


John George Diefenbaker: You will not expend anything in Prince Albert any more.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member does not want me to spend money there? He is one of the rare members, one of the odd members who are not requesting any expenditure: that is good news to public works. But wherever we have offices, as time goes on, we get requests for expenditures, and this money is provided for that purpose. That does not mean that if it is not needed we shall try to expend it.
	.
That is about all I can tell the hon. member, except that salaries and wages take $1,150,000; the cost of living bonus, which is not under my control, $150,000; alterations, $210,000.


John George Diefenbaker: But where are these alterations?


Alphonse Fournier: In every one of these buildings, when a request comes in. If the hon. member wants a list of every demand to date, I may have it, and can produce it to the hon. member. But every week of every month I receive requests from all over the country to repair this or that; and this is the estimate which we have been given for the year. I could not give the hon. member the definite amount of what will be spent, say at Saskatoon, on the public building which is occupied there by the wartime prices and trade board or any other wartime agency. However, the breakdown of estimates is quite complete. Take the fuel for the heating of these buildings, $200,000; we are actually purchasing the fuel for this purpose all over the country. I cannot avoid expenditures on light and power; we have contracts probably with most of the companies all over the country. As for salaries and cost of living bonus, I cannot do much about that.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the
$200,000?


Alphonse Fournier: I am trying to explain that it is an estimate of what repairs will be needed to these buildings during the year. If you ask me to-day for a list of all the requests from all over the country, probably with my staff I can provide it, but I cannot repeat it here from memory. Probably I could give the hon. member an idea of what has been expended since the first of April of this year. But these requests come into the office every day. Then we have our architects go over them and provide for these repairs either by day work or by contract. I should like to satisfy my hon. friend's mind, but when I put the same question to my officials that is the answer they give me, that it is estimated that upon the buildings under our control we shall spend that amount this year. That does not mean that all of it will be expended, but it is the closest we can get.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-chief architect's branch-
600. Furniture, et cetera, $300,000.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Surely we do not need to buy any furniture now, with all the furniture we had around during the war. Here we are asked to vote $300,000 for furniture.

Supply-Public Works
What are we doing with all we have bought during the war years-selling it, getting rid of it for nothing? Perhaps the minister can give us some explanation.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is asking me what I ask myself when he inquires about furniture for all these offices. But he would be surprised to know that every morning this department receives requests which have been passed by the director of economies whom we put up there some years ago, and got into the rug business. I make no decision on these requests which come in; they are all decided by the director of economies.
Mr. BOUCHER; We had better wrap another director up in that rug, eh?


Alphonse Fournier: When these
requests come to my office the only thing I do is to act as agent and ask for tenders for the purchase of this furniture which is requested. The government has this system. A department makes a request. It goes through the director of economies' office. He is an expert in these matters and, if he refuses it, it does not reach my office. If he approves the purchase, the work we do as purchasing agent is to try to get the furniture. I am not buying for public works but for every agency of the government.


Grote Stirling: Who is the director of economies?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Murphy, who was purchasing officer for the post office department years ago. He replaced Colonel Thompson.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is his relationship to the treasury board? Does it go there?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and it is far worse when it gets there.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That does not answer the question. Where is the furniture we purchased during the war for all these buildings we have all ever the place?


Alphonse Fournier: It is still in the buildings.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In spite of the fact that we have all that furniture which we purchased for these offices during the war, we now need $300,000?


Alphonse Fournier: That is the
estimate.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is beyond my comprehension.


Alphonse Fournier: I hardly understand it myself, but I get requests just the same.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think something should be done about the matter. This is one item that should be looked into. Are we still piling up furniture, getting more all the time?
I do not know how we can get information except through the minister. It is under his control.


Alphonse Fournier: Let me give one instance that may surprise hon. members. Every week I receive requests for filing cabinets. I tell my officials, "We have been buying so many of these cabinets that I do not see why they have not space enough for all their papers." I am told, however, that there is a continuous accumulation of records that have to be taken care of.


Gordon Graydon: Are they for orders in council?


Alphonse Fournier: Probably some, but not to the extent my hon. friend thinks. All these departments keep their records, and I am buying filing cabinets every week. Hon. members would be surprised how many I have bought, and none are empty.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In ordinary business you do not keep all these things in filing cabinets all the time. They are put away and can be brought out when required. I do not understand it. That we should need so much more furniture is something I cannot understand. There must be something wrong with the other departments-I do not say with the department of the Minister of Public Works. Something should be done about the matter.


George Randolph Pearkes: How much, if any, of this furniture has been obtained through War Assets Corporation? There must be a great deal turned in by the services as surplus.


Alphonse Fournier: The first thing the department does when there is a request for furniture is to send a letter to War Assets Corporation to see whether they have at their disposal what is needed, and then in some instances we purchase from them. When they have not in stock what we need we have to buy from outsiders.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does it mean that if, say the Department of National Defence has furniture in various temporary buildings, surplus as a result of the cutting down of services, that furniture has to be turned over to War Assets Corporation and resold to you?


Alphonse Fournier: Absolutely.
Supply-Public Works


Edmund Davie Fulton: And does the director of economies approve that? We have paid for that furniture once through national defence; do we have to pay for it again through this department?


Alphonse Fournier: Since the passing of the statute with respect to War Assets Corporation, they have disposed of any surplus in any department. Even the old salvage department under finance has been brought under that. Any surplus of any department is sent to War Assets corporation and is resold to public works if we need it, and we pay War Assets Corporation. We actually pay that corporation. For any goods they have sold they have to account, but we pay out of these votes.


Gordon Graydon: The minister must be misinformed on that point, because during the discussion on War Assets Corporation at the previous session, or perhaps it was earlier this session, the same point was raised by some hon. member, and there was a special exception, which the government indicated was always evident, when one department of government was buying from another. I understood at that time, and I believe the house understood, that such material did not go to War Assets Corporation to be bought back by another department. I am quite sure we were so informed, but it might be a good time now to have the matter clarified in the interests of the position of War Assets Corporation as a distributor between departments.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand from my officials that we do purchase from War Assets corporation what they have on hand and what we need for different departments. Whether the actual transfer of funds is made or whether it is a matter of bookkeeping, I do not know. I cannot say.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister had better utilize the advice given him in this committee with respect to the purchase of new furniture to see that the policy of the govern-men in future is so orientated as to meet conditions as they should be met. We should not be buying new furniture at this time, with the tremendous amount of furniture bought by the various departments-and high-class furniture, too, according to the evidence brought before the committee and the house from time to time. If you buy through War Assets Corporation, this is what happens. Many of the departments are holding back lists of what they should disclose as surplus. In the meantime, while they are held back, we are buying new furniture out of current revenue or from the consolidated revenue fund. Later on, this

will be sent to War Assets Corporation; we shall have purchased new stuff in the meantime, and the other will go at second-hand prices to the public. The government, in exercising the kind of economy it should, ought to make a special survey of what there is in all the war departments, which were in some way integrated by a war economy system. We would not have to be buying furniture for ten or fifteen years if a proper survey were made to see what we have on hand. The minister knows there is a disposition in the departments to hold on to their furniture and other surplus assets until pressure is brought to bear. It is the old story again, that the government is not realizing that the war is over and that we are in an entirely different set of circumstances. These departments ought to be wound up, and such supplies should be used for the ordinary civil work of the government. I do not wish to be unduly critical of the minister, because he himself is not too sure of the propriety of the whole business and I am far less sure than he is.
If there is one thing more than another that the discussion of these estimates brings out, it is that the minister can say to his department and to all these wartime mushrooms-essential ones too-which have grown up: "After all, these things are not needed now". If he does not do something about the matter the opposition will swoop down on him again, and I suggest that he use this to see that economies are effected. He can use the opposition in having economies effected, because that is one of the jobs we are here for.


Alphonse Fournier: Taking 840,000,000 out of a total of $3,500,000,000, there is not much in the. way of economies that can be effected in my department. You are looking at small things in my department. Public works, acting as agents for other departments, goes first to War Assets Corporation and if they have on hand what we need we purchase from them. If they have not what we request, or what is asked for we, go outside. If a survey is to be made I do not think it will be made by public works, and I do not know what interference I can have with all these government departments. When they request a desk and a chair for a new office we have our man look into the matter, and the director of economy sees that it is needed, because the person who is coming in is not going to work standing up. When that is done I have to go ahead.


Gordon Graydon: There may not be much standing done in some departments.

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps not. We have to try to find a desk and chair. The Department of National Health and Welfare has doubled or trebled in the last two years. The Department of Veterans Affair is another department which has increased its work. When these departments ask for all this furniture I look around to War Assets Corporation and then to private enterprise to get it. It is all bought after tendering by well-known firms or by agreement. We cannot always get what we are looking for. I do not think I can bring about much economy under this item, because when a request comes in from a department it is approved by the official, a report is made and sent to the director who is appointed specially to scrutinize these requests. It then comes back with approval and is later sent to the treasury board after we have accepted it. I do not know how I can change the procedure; it is the regular procedure.


Gordon Graydon: I would be content not to view this as a special criticism of the minister but rather as an indication to him of how the committee feels. If he will do his part in conveying to the proper quarters the remarks that he has heard to-day, and indicate to them that if this kind of thing is to continue these items will meet a forest fire of criticism at the next session, then I think we shall have done a job.


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps the minister will accept a suggestion with a little humour and a lot of common sense. If the minister knows that furniture is required in one department, and that another department 'which is closing up has a surplus, and if he will transfer the furniture from one department to the other we would have economy in the assisting of the one and the closing down of the other.


John George Diefenbaker: All the information that we have received' has not as yet cleared up anything. The Minister of Public Works is in the unfortunate position of having other departments make requests of him. He indicates that he does not know whether they are justified. He does not understand the circumstances; he does not know how much is purchased from War Assets Corporation. He has not the information, and it is not his fault because he essentially is in the position of representing a department which is the cats-paw of all the others. In order to bring this matter to the attention of these people, and having regard to what the hon. member for Peel has said with respect to the surplus of furniture which one sees on every hand, and also with a view of showing the attitude of
the committee with respect to a' policy whereby one department of government sends back this surplus furniture to War Assets Corporation, and another department of government purchases it from that corporation, a most uneconomical system, I am going to move that item 600, amounting to $300,000 in the estimates for the year 1946-47, be reduced to $10. I do that because nothing has been indicated to support the necessity of it.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know that I would admit everything which has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre. If hon. members wish to be fair to my department they could not reduce this amount to one dollar because up to date they have voted at least five-twelfths of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am reducing this item.


Alphonse Fournier: Five-twelfths of the item has been voted.


Gordon Graydon: I take issue with the minister on that.


Alphonse Fournier: Does the hon. member think that amount was not voted in interim supply?


Gordon Graydon: No. I would say to the minister that when the interim supply bills were before the house and were passed the definite undertaking was given by the Minister of Finance that nothing that was done with respect to that vote would in any way place us in a worse position than- we were before the supply bills were passed in connection with the individual items. That undertaking stands. May I say to the minister that he is quite wrong i,n his assumption that the five-twelfths item applies to any one individual item, all of which are left to the discretion and the decision of the committee itself. I think everybody will understand that.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps my hon. friend is right. When we voted interim supply it was understood that it took away no rights that the committee possess to decrease the vote; but on the other hand we have to face this situation. Having had at my disposal five-twelfths of this amount to buy furniture requested by other departments, I have proceeded on that assumption and have purchased furniture. I do not know who will be held responsible for the meeting of those payments. I am giving the real facts, because on that assumption my officials assumed that we could dispose of the five-twelfths at least; and when requests came in in the ordinary course
Supply-Public Works

of business they probably proceeded and asked for tenders or bought from War Assets Corporation.
If I have no estimate at all to pay for the furniture the committee will realize that I am in one of those positions where the public service will not be efficiently carried on. If I am requested to buy furniture for veterans affairs or any other department I cannot buy it. .


George Russell Boucher: Borrow, beg or steal from your neighbours.


Alphonse Fournier: I am trying to show what position I shall be in. I do not suppose the committee would accept the amendment, but if it did, on this item I would be in a quandary. I do not know whether I would be back in the house or whether I would be in the department looking to see where I could get the money, because I am sure I have expended -part of it. Probably the department has paid out that amount of money.
The hon. gentleman says that I have not proven that it is needed. Unless we change the whole set-up, how can I give any more information except to bring every file to the committee or answer any question which may be placed on the order paper or produce everything which we have done since March 31 of this year. That can be easily done because all the records are kept. I do not think it is quite fair to say that I have not justified this amount. I have explained to the hon. member that the government has this director of economies who goes over the whole thing. I cannot purchase anything before the Department of Finance or the comptroller of the treasury encumbers the amount out of the general vote. When it is encumbered and we decide to purchase, it has to go to the treasury board and be approved.
If the hon. member wishes me to bring down every purchase we have made under this vote I can do so. But in all fairness to my department I do not think the amendment to bring it down to one dollar would meet the case. What the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, if he is trying to impress these departments as to the purchase of furniture, will reach the proper authorities. With this explanation I might ask the hon. member for Lake Centre to withdraw his amendment. It applies not only to the Department of Public Works, but to every other department of government, since the money is expended for all departments. In all fairness to those who have made these requests, 
which are justified, they cannot be deprived of the things they require to do the work given to them under the law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have probably the keenest admiration for the hon. member for Lake Centre of anyone in this house. I have never been so amazed and astounded, so bemused and bewildered in my life as by the silliness of this amendment. The personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs has in-reased from some 2,000 to 15,000 or 16,000. We are establishing new offices across Canada to render service to those who rendered the finest service in the world to us. It is not the Minister of Public Works who is asking for this money. He is the agent, principally of my department, in asking for new furniture to be used by those looking after those service men who gave us the best service in the world. My hon. friend, a veteran himself and a splendid one, in moving to reduce this vote to $1, is insulting the intelligence of this House of Commons.


An hon. MEMBER:: That brings the hon. member for Rosedale to his feet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He never talks sense anyway, so it does not matter.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am not going to bother to ask the minister to withdraw that remark, but he mentioned the thousands of additional employees of his department. What happened to the dozens upon dozens of brass hats and junior officers all down the line? Why not use their desks and chairs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that what the hon. gentleman thinks of those who have saved Canada for freedom? Is that what he thinks of the service we are rendering to these men right across Canada?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What are you speaking of, anyway?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking of the service we are rendering the veterans of Canada. Will my hon. friend sit down? I have the floor.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. Hon. members must address the Chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre does not really mean this at all in his heart; I am sure it is purely a gesture. We need this furniture for our offices throughout Canada, for servicing the amenities and facilities for our returned soldiers throughout the land, not only in Ottawa but in every single village of this country. This money is not requested by the Minister of Public Works for his own department; it is asked by him for other

Supply-Public Works
departments of government, mainly for the ' Department of Veterans Affairs which has grown so greatly in the last year and will grow even more in the next twelve months. On reflection, I am sure my hon. friend will withdraw his amendment so that we may go ahead and do some work.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: May I ask the leader of the government what has become of all the surplus furniture in the many wartime departments, and if there is any arrangement under which the Department of Veterans Affairs can obtain the surplus furniture of these other departments instead of purchasing new furniture for these offices?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; we are getting some of it every single day of every week of the year.


James Arthur Ross: Is it true that the surplus furniture does not have to be declared surplus through War Assets Corporation and then obtained from that corporation by the Department of Veterans Affairs? You do not have to go through that procedure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, in some cases we do.


James Arthur Ross: Not in all cases?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


James Arthur Ross: Has a survey been made by your government-?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: -to ascertain what surplus furniture is available in these other departments, which might be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, definitely, by our department.


James Arthur Ross: In every case?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Veterans Affairs never ceases to interest me by the utterances to which he gives expression from day to day. On Saturday he was as critical of one of his brother ministers and that minister's department as he is of me. I sat here and never went to the defence of that minister, and neither did anybody else. My hon. friend now raises the sentimental appeal, and naturally that is something which appeals to me. Therefore I am going to ask the minister a very simple question. How much of the furniture referred to in item 600 is going to the Department of Veterans Affairs? Let us have all the requests, by departments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Quite a lot; I can tell you that.


Alphonse Fournier: I could not give you that.


John George Diefenbaker: No?


Alphonse Fournier: Wait a minute; this is an estimate. If the hon. gentleman was interested in past expenditures; if he had asked where money had been spent, that would be all right, but he is asking me how much of an estimate will be requested by one department or another. Only four months of this fiscal year have gone by. I could probably get the information with respect to those four months, but I cannot say what the requests will be from these departments during the next eight months. This is the estimated amount. You are talking of estimates; you are not perusing expenditures that have been made by the department. There is all the difference in the world between an estimate, what we think these departments will request during the year, and the expenditures that were made. They are not the same thing at all.


James Arthur Ross: I was just going to suggest that this item might be allowed to stand, because we are not getting a very clear story of the situation. With respect to -what was said by the Minister of Public Works, the last time interim supply was voted, which was on July 25, at page 3842 of Hansard, the Acting Minister of Finance said:
I think there is a proportionate amount to each department, yes, but it is not tied to a particular item.
I do not know whether the acting minister was sure of that at the time, but those were his words.
Mr.. FOURNIER (Hull): As I understand the procedure, the interim supply bill mentions a global amount, made up of one-sixth or one-twelfth of every item appearing in the estimates. As I understand it that is the procedure followed; they take one-sixth or one-twelfth of the total, and that amount is allotted to the departments under the titles and items shown in the estimates. If I am asked questions about specific projects under my department I can give all the details, but here we are estimating that during the year requests from these government agencies will amount to around $300,000. I cannot stand up here and say': well, the wartime prices and trade board is going to ask me for just this amount during the year. That is in the future, and until those requests are made I cannot give the amounts they will want during the year. I am estimating, and my officials
46S0
Supply-Public Works

are estimating, that during the year requests will amount to this total, and if they do not, the money will, of course, not be expended.


John George Diefenbaker: Then how much has the Department of Veterans Affairs requested for furniture so far this year?


Alphonse Fournier: There is more than one vote for furniture in these estimates, and I would have to ask the officials to look jp all the requests from veterans affairs from April 1 to date and bring that information.


John George Diefenbaker: And the various other departments, in the matter of furniture?


Alphonse Fournier: I can get that report. It will take quite a while, but I can send it to my hon. friend if he wishes it and then he can use it in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. The Minister of
Veterans Affairs made a sentimental appeal on behalf of his department, which he said is looking after the veterans and which needs furniture.


Alphonse Fournier: For public works this is a business proposition. I have to provide the moneys to buy this furniture. I ask the officials to make an estimate, for which I wild ask the approval of the house during the session. They give me the closest estimate they can find for these different departments, and in the present instance that is $300,000.


John George Diefenbaker: 1Thid" is good.


Alphonse Fournier: If hon. members want some specific information respecting some item in some department, then I am at the disposal of the committee to have that information prepared and to send it to the committee or to the hon. member. If more than that is asked, I do not know how anyone could give the answer.


George Russell Boucher: Break down the estimates of the department.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Has the Department of National Defence requisitioned for any furniture?


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot say that, without having a report from the officials. If the hon. member will give me a detailed item I will ask the officials if they are prepared to answer.


Mr. HANSELL:: I have been waiting for the minister to come to the end of this discussion, before bringing to his attention another matter.


Alphonse Fournier: Shall we complete the discussion on this item 600 before the hon. member makes his remarks? There are three more items to be passed.


Ernest George Hansell: It does not matter, so long as I have an opportunity to say something before these estimates are passed.


John George Diefenbaker: The information we have obtained thus far is worthless. As a matter of fact the minister quite frankly admits he does not know how the $300,000 is made up, and he does not know how much the various departments have asked. He says that if it were expenditures made in the past he could give the information. So I will ask him about the $600,000, which was the expenditure for furniture last year by his department. Will the minister apportion that money among the various departments?


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Is the opposition-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Is the opposition simply asking for a page from the public accounts? Why should we lose the time of the committee and the money of the people to read over the public accounts of this country?


James Arthur Ross: Where have you been all this time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the committee ready for the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before we vote on the amendment


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Alphonse Fournier: It has been said that these expenditures will be found in the public accounts. I can have the whole volume showing the expenditure of the $600,000 laid on the table, because if the committee asks me to give the amount for every item, from $10 up-


John George Diefenbaker: How much for each department?


Alphonse Fournier: which was comprised in that $600,000, it would take a staff of I do not know how many people a considerable length of time to compile those expenditures. But they are all in the public

Supply-Public Works
accounts, and will be seen when the auditor general lays his report on the table. They would form a large part of the public accounts I would lay on the table. I have been here for sixteen years, and I cannot recall one occasion when the Minister of Public Works has been asked to give the details of expenditures for furniture. But if any hon. member wishes any specific case, all he has to do is ask and we will answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has just asked.


Alphonse Fournier: The public
accounts are laid on the table in the regular way, according to law. I could stand here and read them, or ask my officials to prepare a list of them during the week, showing the amounts and names. I would do so, and with pleasure, but it would take a long time to get it ready. It would take some considerable time to get every item for furniture. But I am ready to give the information on any particular item which would be requested, and I am ready to have the whole thing tabled. But to read it in the house-why, it is a volume of several hundred pages.


Angus MacInnis: The committee is not asking the Minister of Public Works to give a detailed statement of every item in the S300,-000. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked for the division among the various departments of government.


John George Diefenbaker: Correct.


Angus MacInnis: In my experience in the house no minister has refused to give a breakdown of the items in his estimates. Hon. members are entitled to that information. We do not want every item-every screw, and nail and hook.


Alphonse Fournier: I think the hon. member is right, and in that connection I am trying to recall one item. Not long ago I bought about $19,000 or $20,000 worth of filing cabinets. These are kept in the stockroom of the Department of Public Works. We buy certain things in lots. I can hardly tell hon. members how many of these filing cabinets will go out in the next week or the next two weeks to this department or to that one. When the year is over and the accounts are made up, the information is in the public accounts.


Angus MacInnis: And that is what we are asking for, for the last year.


John George Diefenbaker: What about 1945-46?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think that at this time the compilation of public
accounts for last year^will be ready. When the auditor general makes his report, it will be tabled.
If we buy fifty or sixty desks they are put into the stockroom. When a department requests to have a desk of one type, we send it. We think we are operating on good business principles when we buy in quantities rather than singly, because in this way we buy for better prices.
How could we divide up those desks, and say what would be asked for, from month to month, to March 31? I am ready to answer any question, if it is at all possible to answer them. I shall try to explain how this is done, but I do not know how I can explain that these filing cabinets will be requested by one department or another.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I grow -more and more surprised that the minister is not prepared to give these figures. I wish to remind the committee that I think it is only fair to say it was the minister's own statement which first of all made us feel queer. In effect he said that these things were put up to him, but he could not do much about the matter. Then he went on to mention this committee of economy which, I am bound to say, seems a most extraordinary committee of economy, because apparently any evidence which is not very great, but any we have up to the present would indicate that it prevents the ordinary routine of common sense from taking place. That is to say, those who have shall give to those who have not.
Next we had an appeal from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in true highland style, in which he asked the hon. member for Lake Centre to withdraw his amendment on the ground that to a great extent this furniture had gone to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I submit it is a most reasonable request for us to ask for a breakdown, and I wish to say again that all of this really traces back to the minister's own obvious discomfort with the situation in which he found himself. That is the way I understood the import of the minister's remarks, and that is the way I think it is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is any of this money going to refurnish the new theatre the film board is putting up? They have two theatres. They are tearing down one and rebuilding one.


Alphonse Fournier: That is an outside corporation. I am not purchasing for the film board.
Supply-Public Works


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are purchasing for the different departments.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, but not for the film board.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Mr. Fulton : The minister said if we would make a reasonable request he would try to comply with it. He has been asked, if he could not give us the information for this year, to let us have it for last year. He was asked to state the value of the furniture supplied last year to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the value of the furniture supplied to the Department of National Defence. Surely there are files from which that information can be obtained.


Alphonse Fournier: My officials tell me that it would take some time to work out the whole breakdown. It is not done in that way in the department, but we can do it to please hon. members and I could give the answer as soon as I get it from the officials. Mr. DIEFENBAKER: This shows-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not worrying about interruptions. Some hon. members have been out of the Chamber all afternoon, but they are back now that there is a possibility of a vote. I am simply trying to find out the basis of this item, and the minister says that he cannot give me that information but that he can give me any information he has with respect to expenditure. Last year the amount expended for furniture was $600,000 and I want to know how that was divided among the departments. Two years ago there was a director of economy, but when he started to direct economy he found he had to leave his job. We now have Mr. Murphy as director of economy. I should like to know exactly how the system works. Apparently the minister receives chits from various departments, but he keeps no record because it is impossible to give that information.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes, we do; that is not fair.


John George Diefenbaker: All we are asking for is how much was spent for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I was greatly moved by the address of the minister, and I began to think that all the $300,000 worth of furniture was going to the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the purport of my hon. friend's most eloquent speech.
I am trying to find out how much goes to [MiJ. A. Fournier.]
these various departments, and I can make it even more simple. Up to date we have voted five-twelfths of supply, and I should like to know how much has been expended during the present year on furniture for veterans affairs, national defence and reconstruction. Surely we are entitled to that information. The minister says it is only a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars. That is the philosophy and psychology' against which we protest. We say, "carried, carried"; then we finally come to an item where we ask for some information and the answer we receive is that there is no information for us. Surely that is not good enough. We do not want particulars as to the number of desks, the number of chairs or anything of that sort; we just want the total amount for each department, and when we have that this item will, be carried as usual. Surely we are entitled to that much information; otherwise we can only conclude that tremendous expenditures are being asked for by the Department of Public Works when there is no information with regard to the necessity of those expenditures or no information as to how they are going to be disbursed.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said that $600,000 was expended last year.


Alphonse Fournier: I did not say
expended.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Where is that vote of S800.000 in the estimates of last year?


Alphonse Fournier: It is right in the book. Six hundred thousand dollars was the amount voted last year for that same item.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Where did we vote that money last year?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That can be found in the public accounts. This year they are asking for $300,000. This $300,000 worth of furniture may be purchased from War Assets corporation or any other company. It is all in the budget and I do not see any sense in asking useless questions.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Can the minister tell me where we voted the money last year?


Alphonse Fournier: In the war appropriation vote.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived. Item agreed to.
Genera]-*
60S. Contingencies, $10,000.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask the minister a question that has been bothering me a long time and I am sure it has been

Supply-Mounted Police
bothering a lot of other people. Some months ago I asked if anything could be done to improve the acoustics in this chamber and I understand some engineers were brought in to look over the situation. I wish to know what they reported and when we can expect that something will be done about the matter.


Alphonse Fournier: We have had experts in to see if loud speakers can be installed in the chamber or if the acoustics can be improved. We have sent their report to the Speaker with our recommendation that loud speakers should be installed. We are waiting now to get in touch with Mr. Speaker and expect to proceed in the near future to experiment at all events.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
350. Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $1,402,953.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I should have asked this question under item 348. The minister has been good enough to show me a report which I have not yet had time to read in full. Would he be kind enough to say something about this marine branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Before the war the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had a marine branch which was active in guarding the coasts and preventing smuggling in that manner. At the outbreak of war the members of this marine branch were incorporated in the naval services. With the surrender of the enemies and the diminution of naval war services, the necessity for resuming coast protection work reappeared, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acquired certain units from the surplus naval equipment and took over as they were demobilized the personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which during the war had been serving with the navy. The amount of this vote is detailed at page 208 of the book of estimates: pay, $376,951; housing and quarters, $76,700; clothing and equipment, $39,900; medical services, $7,000, et cetera.
With respect to medical services, the situation is that these services used to be provided to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by the
Department of National Health and WTelfare, and are now being provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs; but for the purpose of having the appropriations made to the departments that get the services the practice is being instituted of each department asking parliament for the amount it expects to require for the service, even though that amount is paid by it for the service to another department. It is thus that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do certain work for other departments and are reimbursed, because the cost of the service is provided for in the estimates of the other departments. We do likewise in connection with this item of medical services. There is also a substantial item which is in the demobilization and reconversion portion of the estimates and which provides for the cost of the equipment acquired directly from War Assets Corporation, but indirectly from surplus naval equipment. We were allowed to specify such things as we required and which were surplus to the requirements of the navy; for the purposes of accounting they were put through War Assets Corporation books, and we are asking parliament for an appropriation to pay the cost thereof to War Assets Corporation. The amount paid is really a bookkeeping transaction; it will go back to consolidated revenue. But the practice is being established of having each department ask parliament for the appropriation of the moneys required to perform the services for which it is responsible, even though it may apply to some other department for a part of those services.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are the conditions of service, specifically pay and allowances, mutatis mutandis the same for the police who are on the marine section as in the others?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are the same. They are classed by the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the proper categories, but pay and allowances are the same for all the classes, whether the work is being done on land or on sea.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I see the commissioner sitting over there advising the minister, and I hope that the few words I have to say will not make him blush so hotly as to make this chamber unbearable in the next few minutes. I do not know anybody who has given better service to his country than the commissioner. I know of no one who has been more sympathetic throughout the course of his official life; I do not know of anybody who has gained more respect for his conduct and achievements than the commissioner has. I rose for the definite purpose
Supply-Mounted Police

of saying these things. The commissioner has charge of a great force. In this country the redcoats still represent law and order and enjoy the respect of everybody. When people from the United States come to visit us the first people they look for are the redcoats. If anyone comes and needs assistance he can confidently rely on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not know how well they are paid, but I am sure that all of us hope their pay corresponds to their work. They are members of a great service with a wonderful tradition. The other evening, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs was telling us something of the history of our country, this is one force he forgot to tell us about. Their record is one of the greatest in Canadian history; but for them we never would have had the Canada which is ours to-day, with its high standards of law and order. Whenever new mining and other settlements were set up in this country the redcoats were to be found there. In this connection may I point out that Commissioner Wood is a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, a fact which indicates the sort of training given by that great institution.


Gordon Graydon: So is the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why bring that up? There is one more thing I wish to say. Commissioner Wood has to handle not merely people of one language or extraction but a varied humanity, and the manner in which he has dealt with people of foreign extraction during the war has made them all love him and has been of the greatest assistance to Canada in preventing sabotage. During the war we were all worried about sabotage, but the commissioner and his entire force are together responsible for our record in that respect. It is they whom we have to thank for the absence of sabotage during the war.
I could not allow this opportunity to pass without saying how proud ,we as Canadian citizens are of our great northwest mounted police and of all its officers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How does the marine service compare now with what it was before the war? This year the estimates of the R.C.M.P. are nearly $4,000,000 more, and I wondered how that service compared with what it was before and the reason for the big jump.
There is one more question. Before the war, did the R.C.M.P. have an officer in each public building as at the present time?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not marine service.


William Ross Macdonald: I would remind the committee that we are considering vote 350, marine services arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are quite right, Mr. Chairman, but owing to the fact that you called the item "carried" so quickly we did not have a chance to get up on it.
Mr, ST. LAURENT: The hon. member wishes to know how the marine section compares with what it was prior to the war. The establishment prior to the war was 236. The establishment that has been authorized, though we have not yet got the full complement, is 280. Before the war the branch operated 32 comparatively small ships. It has acquired new ships, some being of the Bangor and Fairmile type which are much safer and can operate on high seas much more effectively than the smaller units which were in operation before the war.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In consequence of having these more efficient ships, which can cope with rougher seas, is the R.C.M.P. covering a more extended coast line?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. It is covering more ground, and it is intended to have R.C.M.P. patrols on the great lakes for the protection of the revenue along that portion of the Canadian frontier.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That will be on lake Ontario, lake Erie, lake Huron, Georgian bay and right through lake Superior? Will there be one ship on each lake, or will one ship cover all the great lakes?	.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understand that there will be six posts. It is intended that the force shall be quite mobile, moving wherever requirements for the protection of revenue make it necessary.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are they Fairmiles or faster ships?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: These are three-man crew harbour craft on the lakes.
Mr. FRASER; Where would the ports be?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Cornwall, Kingston, Sarnia, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor-


Mr. McIVOR:: Fort William?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not yet-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No villages.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -and we trust that the people of that region will continue to be so well behaved that it will not be necessary to patrol it.

Supply-Mounted Police


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I thank the minister for his courtesy. We have mounted police at the head of the lakes, and the only word I have to say with regard to their uniform is that their red coats should be trimmed with green, or they should have green coats trimmed with red. The mounted police there are held in high esteem.


Mark Cecil Senn: Have these boats which are to be put on the lakes anything to do with policing the fisheries on the great lakes as between the two countries?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I understand that normally they will not be concerned with patrol for fishery purposes. It would be only on special request from the Department of Fisheries that they might be expected to give assistance.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Will the representatives of the R.C.M.P. in the various embassy offices wear that uniform?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are represented only in London and Washington.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are these figures of expenditures net or gross? The force does policing jobs for various bodies for which payments are made. Are these net figures, or would the payments made be deductible from these amounts?
. Mr. ST. LAURENT: These are gross figures and all payments received go into the consolidated revenue fund.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to magnify the point; but would it not be of interest, and give a better understanding of the position, if we knew what the net figure is? This expense is greater than the actual amount.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would hardly be relevant to this item, but I may tell the hon. member that the R.C.M.P. under contract with certain provincial governments, do the work of provincial police in Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and, in addition to that, have undertaken in the western provinces the policing of fifty-five of the smaller towns. The reason for that is not to centralize police work; but it so happened that the R.C.M.P. had to be represented in those districts and, by adding a relatively small number of personnel to that which it maintained to carry out its responsibilities generally, could take on the additional responsibility of performing provincial police work. The reason for the accounting being in that form is to follow the general practice. All 63260-295
receipts go into the consolidated revenue and all expenditure that passes through the department has to be voted by parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I assume that is the reason. May I venture to suggest to the minister that it would be illuminating in future years, if the government accounting will not let us get what I regard as the real figures, to have a footnote appended so that we should at least know what the actual amount is.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be glad to get that for the hon. member. The general form of contract is $1,000 per man. That, of course, does not cover what each man costs, but because it is only a relatively small number of men who have to be added to what we would have to maintain aryway, the amount of $1,000 per man charged to a provincial or a municipal government for the additional service is regarded as fair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I asked the minister a question regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the different buildings, and he was going to answer when I was interrupted.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Though it is not relative to this item, I appreciate that the hon. member would like to have the information. It was in 1920 that the police force took over the dominion police force which, prior thereto, had had responsibility for guarding the buildings. The R.C.M.P. still has that responsibility ; but, as I said on a previous occasion, there has been entered into recently with the corps of commissioners a contract whereby that work will be performed by the corps of commissioners under the direction and on the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because it was realized that it was not encouraging to the development of the qualities required from the active men of the police force to have this guard duty to perform. An effort is being made to have that part of the work done by the corps of commissioners which, I understand, has as its operatives veterans of our services who are glad to get work of a rather sedentary kind.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that under this section there is generally the enforcing of federal statutes, I was wondering whether or not, in the light of the statements in the press during the past few days relative to the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police against espionage, the minister would make a statement on the men. The hon. member for St. Paul's mentioned the magnificent record of the men during the period of the war. To-day the same work is being carried on to prevent espionage in our

Supply-Mounted Police

midst, and has been carried on ever since the end of the war and before that time. A day or so ago the Canadian Press dealt with one phase of the matter. They quote an unimpeachable source which points out that there was quite a racket in regard to hockey players crossing the frontier. In particular, they mention that the preliminary stages of the probe had disclosed that some of the fake passports were made out in the names of players supposedly going to England, in spite of the fact that hockey teams were not operating in that country during the war. The article also points out that in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police a similar investigation is continuing in the United States through the means of the bureau of investigation. Is the minister in a position to give a report on what the mounted police are doing in this connection; the extent, if any, of the ramifications of a racket in the matter of false passports and, generally, what measures are being taken by the minister's department to assure that this country shall be protected from the activities of communistic agitators?


Mr. LESAGE:: What has this to do with marine services?


John George Diefenbaker: Generally it refers to it, if the hon. gentleman will read the item.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Since that question arose, and before that, it was carefully, completely and diligently gone into, and I am happy to be able to state that to the credit of the sporting fraternity of Canada there is nothing whatsoever in any of the false passports which could be linked up with the travelling of our sporting enthusiasts. I was informed this morning, though the question had not come up, but because I was personally interested in it, that the police had completed their investigation and they could assure me that the skirts of all the hockey and other sporting organizations were quite clean and that they had not been used in any way to facilitate the obtaining of false passports.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
352. Grant to the chief constables' association jf Canada, $500.
Gordon Graydon: Some time ago I asked the minister a question with respect to a resolution passed by the chief constables' association of Canada regarding repeater criminals. The minister must find the resolutions passed by this association of considerable help in his administration, because of 
the experience they have had of the problems which come before the department. Has the minister anything further to add to the statement which he made at that time when he mentioned that this matter was being dealt with by the new penal commission? Is there anything further to report to the committee at this time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have only a provisional report which I can make. The penitentiary commissioner has been travelling about visiting the penal institutions and profiting by his travels to communicate with the officials of the attorneys general of the provinces. After ea'ch trip he has made a verbal report to me. As one would naturally expect, he has met with the most cordial reception everywhere and with the expressly stated desire to bring about closer cooperation among the enforcement officers of the country, whether federal or provincial, to deal with that aspect of the situation. He has not yet had an opportunity of visiting all Canadian centres, but he is, I think, fulfilling the hopes which had been placed in him as to the efficiency of his work in that direction.


Mr. MERRITT:: Would the minister permit me to ask a question about item 351 which went through so quickly that I missed it? I note that there is an item of 5295,000 for acquisition of aircraft. Would the minister, say how many aircraft the R.C.M.P. are to have and generally give us the purpose of this air service? Will these aircraft be bought from the R.C.A.F. and therefore will not cost the country additional money, or are they to be bought new from private sources?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As the hon. member knows, the mounted police had a small air arm before the war, which was turned over to the department of defence for air when war broke out. That branch of the service is being reestablished, and the -force has now five aircraft. It has not yet acquired anv large craft that would be available to transport a group of constables who might be required for special service at any point, but has an arrangement with the R.C.A.F. to provide it, naturally at the cost of the R.C.M.P., with transport planes when occasion may require. There are two Beechcraft, one Drummond Goose, and two Norsemen. The commissioner returned on Saturday from an extended trip which took him away up into the arctic region. In a period of not more than two weeks he was able to visit all the posts of the northwest, away up in the arctic circle, and I am convinced that a visit from

Supply-Mounted Police
the commissioner to these posts is of considerable value to the morale of the men who serve in those outlying districts.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have no doubt of that. I wondered, though, if this item provides for the acquisition of new aircraft, in addition to the five the minister has mentioned or whether it is to pay for those five, or what expansion is proposed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is $45,000 for one Norseman, and $250,000 for two Douglas Dakota C-47's, at $125,000 each.


Alan Cockeram: I should like an explanation of the item for allowances, including billeting, messing and provisions. In the three branches of the service there is for this purpose a total of something like $361,000. Why is that amount spent on messing in addition to pay and allowances?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the general living allowance at the normal rate for men living out of barracks.


Alan Cockeram: Do they run any messes with that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not in the aviation branch. I do not know why it is described in this way, but 1 am informed that this is paid at the established rate for men living out of barracks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
353. To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty, $12,750.	.
Mr. LENNARD:: It is my understanding that when, after years of service, a member of the mounted police is pensioned, after his death none of that pension is continued to his widow during the remainder of her lifetime. When a member of the permanent force is . retired on allowances, after he dies his widow gets fifty per cent of the pension for the remainder of her lifetime. It seems to me that this is very unfair, and I would certainly like a complete explanation as to the reason for this difference.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There was established in 1934 by chapter 40 of the statutes of that year a scheme for the pension of widows and dependents. That is part VI of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and it has been in operation since that year.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then my information was wrong, was it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I would have to qualify my acquiescence in that remark; it 63260-205^
was partly wrong. There are those who since 1934 have chosen to come under part VI of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and make contributions to a fund set up under that part. Quite a large number of the older members did not choose to come under that part and make the contributions required in order to get the benefit of it.


Frank Exton Lennard: How would those contributions compare with those made by men in the permanent force?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The contribution is five per cent, as it is under the Civil Service Act, and schedules were set up showing the back payments which would be required for those who did not commence to contribute when they entered the service.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is the same, then, for one who takes advantage of it, as the* civil service superannuation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am informed that it is, that it is modeled on the civil service superannuation scheme.


Eric Bowness McKay: We are discussing item 353, I believe?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Eric Bowness McKay: It has nothing to do with
pensions, as I understand it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then where would you bring up any question concerning pensions?


Eric Bowness McKay: Under the next item.


Frank Exton Lennard: Read that one.


Eric Bowness McKay: I am going to. Upon what basis are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police compensated for injuries? I think that properly comes under this item. It seems to me that this appropriation is very small. Is this in the nature of a workmen's compensation, or is it straight pension, and who determines the amounts?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The amount is determined by the officers of the force, but they submit the claims for recommendation to the pension board of the Department of Veterans Affairs. They submit a statement of the facts and get a recommendation as to what would be the assessment made by the pension board if it came under the Pension Act.


Eric Bowness McKay: The same as for a military pension?	.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Mr. HARKNESS:: When we were discussing the mounted police several days ago only one of the several questions I asked was not
Supply-Mounted Police

cleared up fairly satisfactorily by the minister. That was in connection with the position of men who, their time in the mounted police having expired, preferred to join the services rather than reenlist with the mounted police. I should like the minister now to tell the committee whether these men will be taken back into the service more or less automatically, or what is to be their position.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I cannot say anything more than I said the other day. They are being treated just as sympathetically as can be done without breaking the promises that were made to those who stayed with us. Everyone who has wanted to come back has come back, in the rank he held when he left. There are seven who have not been granted seniority over those who stayed and served us as we requested them to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I understand the
minister correctly, of the men who joined the services and who have indicated their willingness to come back, only seven have not been taken back?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They have been taken back in the rank they held when they left; but they have not been given seniority over those who did not go.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand correctly that only seven men of those who have applied to rejoin the force have been refused?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	No. What I am
saying is that there are only seven who, when their contracts expired, left the force and who have applied to come back and who, being fit to serve, were reengaged and have not been granted seniority over those who did not leave. They were all non-commissioned officers. They have been given back their rank, but not the seniority they would have earned if they had complied with the request made to them to continue in service here. The case of each one has been carefully considered by the commission, and I think the discipline in the force testifies to the fact that the commissioner gives his men a fair deal. I have never tried to overrule his decisions in that matter, and I think it would be harmful to the discipline of the force if the men felt that it was not the commissioner but rather the minister who was making final decisions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that there are probably seven special cases of men who did not get the seniority they might have, if they had stayed on the force. We will leave them aside because, after a considerable number of years in the army, I can readily imagine that cases such as that arise, and

there may be very good reasons for them. However, my question actually concerns the number of men who joined the forces rather than reengage in the mounted police force, who have not been accepted for reengagement, now that the war is over. How many men are there of that kind, and what is their fate?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All those, with the exception of a few whose records did not recommend them to the judgment of the commissioner, have been reengaged. No one has been refused because he went into the armed forces instead of renewing his contract. There have been no refusals on that ground. There have been a few whom, having left the force, whatever their reasons for leaving may have been, the officers of the force did not feel that they wished to reengage.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My information is that a certain number of men who joined the services when their time expired in the mounted police have been refused readmission to the mounted police, so far as I know without any proper cause.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member would give me the names of those who have been refused I shall confidentially communicate to him or, if he wishes, I shall put on the records of the house the reasons for which they were refused.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall be glad to give a few names. But my question was this: How many people have been refused readmission to the service after having served in the navy, the army or the air force?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: None has been refused because of having served in the navy, the army or the air force.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am afraid the Minister of Justice is begging the question. My question is simply this: How many people who did serve in the navy, the army or the air force and who have subsequently applied for further attestation or admittance to the mounted police have not been taken on strength?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The commissioner informs me that he recalls only two who have been turned down.


Mr. KIDD:: I would bring to the attention of the minister that there would appear to be a condition in the mounted police something similar to that which was found in the penitentiaries service. Both these services come under the minister's jurisdiction. I bring this matter to the minister's attention because he will recall a time before 1939, as far back as 1937, when the air force was asking for men.

Supply-Mounted Police
Those were trying times. Men left the police service and went to serve in the air force. Some of them were veterans of the last war, and they lost their rights to pension. I appeal to the minister, as I did in connection with those in the penitentiaries service, to see that when these men come back under his jurisdiction they receive justice. They should be put back and every consideration should be given to them for the services they have rendered.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under the present state of the law we are not allowed to count the war service for pension purposes, unless a man obtained leave and was still nominally on our books. But there was a provision made after the last war to enable that period to be included. It is my hope that when the military pension scheme has been disposed of it will be possible for me to bring forward a bill to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Act. I should think it might be agreeable to the house to do on this occasion what was done after the last war, and for the same reasons.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: That is what I want. There seems to be a feeling in the various departments that the men who left in the early days of the war and before the war to join the armed services did not receive very much encouragement from the senior men in their departments. They said, "We want to keep you in the mounted police service", or in the penitentiaries service, as the case may be. However, these men left to fulfil what they believed was their obligation to His Majesty. They proceeded overseas, and came back. I appeal to the minister to see that any men under his supervision get a square de'al. I believe most of them are prepared to pay to the pension fund, if accepted. I will not say there is an effort to draw a red herring across the trail, but they are not receiving the consideration they should receive.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They have been told that, under the law as it is, that period cannot be included. The only reason I did not have a bill at this session was that I understood there was to be a bill dealing with the military pensions, and I thought it would be preferable not to have the two bills at the same time, in view of the differences between them. I feel it is better that they be dealt with separately. There are things required in the military Pension Act which are not required in our act, and conversely there are things we think are necessary in our act which are not required in the military Pension Act. There will have to be a bill-I hope at the next session-to amend the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Act. When there was a bill brought in after the last war to amend that act there was a provision that the period of service, even for those who had not previously been connected with the force, would be counted for pension purposes in the force.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should be commended for his intention to have a bill such as he has indicated brought in at the next session. That is a change which will be most gratifying to the men in the mounted police who have had a certain feeling of annoyance at the law as it now stands.
I would add one other suggestion to the minister. Reference has been made 'to the men who, serving in the mounted police and coming to their period of retirement during the war, were requested to stay on in the mounted police force, but chose to join the army and go overseas to serve. While they were overseas, quite a number of these mounted police married. They came back from overseas and, when reinstated or accepted for reattestation, they were, as I understand the situation, taken in as single men. Having regard to the fact that they did serve and that, had they stayed in Canada in the mounted police, their time would have counted toward the period after which they could be married, I think these men should be permitted to count the time spent overseas in arriving at the period within which they are permitted to marry and receive the necessary allowances. I know the attitude of the minister toward the mounted police has been reasonable; I know that fairness appeals to him as it does io the commissioner, but this is one of those things that cause a degree of ill-feeling which cannot but interfere with morale. With the greatest of sincerity, I suggest that it is not a large matter and that these men who got married overseas should be permitted to count their time in the armed forces in the determination of the period within which the necessary allowances would be made to their wives.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure that the suggestion made by the hon. member appeals to all hon. members. The commissioner, as well as ourselves, realizes that in that respect the morale of the whole service must be taken into account, and the commissioner makes the kind of recommendation that is proper for the morale of the whole service. A substantial proportion of the R.C.M.P. must remain single for a certain period because there is much of the service that has to be performed by
Supply-Mounted Police

single men, and these men must be made to feel that the regulations are being applied justly to the whole force.
From my discussions with the commissioner, I know it is his desire to leave in the regulations no more than is essential for the performance of the work, and to apply them in such a manner that no individual will feel that discrimination is being exercised in favour of any other individual of his class or category. There has been some relaxing of the marriage regulations, and that relaxation is being carried to the greatest possible extent compatible with the services that the force is required to render. They are being applied as uniformly throughout the force as it is possible to do.
Mr. MeLURE: I understand that the compensation paid to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of their duties is set by the mounted police act, and the compensation is quite small indeed. I have in mind the case of a man in my province who joined the force some forty-six or more years ago. After having been in the service for some time, he lost his arm at the shoulder while on duty. For a few years afterward he received the small pension he was entitled to under the act. This man has been trying to farm all his life and has made a fairly good attempt at it. Last year we applied to the commissioner on behalf of this man and through the kindness of the commissioner a full pension was granted, but this amounts to only $365 a year. The man is now about sixty-five years of age. The minister has indicated that there is to be a revision of the act, and I hope he will keep in mind those men who have suffered serious injuries while on duty and see that they get pensions in accordance with those paid to other persons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
854. Pensions to families of members of the Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty-
Mrs. Mary Emma Bossange, $456.25.
Mrs. Margaret Johnson Brooke, $821.25.
Mrs. Margert Cox, $410.63.
Mrs. Victoria Desjardi ns. $411.
Mrs. Georgina Harrison. $676.50.
Mrs. Letitia Kennedy, $423.50.
Mrs. Nora Jean Massan, $300.
Mrs. Margaret Nicholson. $547.50.
Mrs. Catherine Mildred Balls, $675.25
Mrs. Vera M. Ryder. $907.50.
Mrs. Doris Freda Sampson, $816.
Mrs. Amy Lillian Searle. $406.98.
Mrs. Madelaine Mary Shoebotham, $810.
Mrs. Eunice Waimvright, $602.50.
Mr. McIiAY: I notice that one of the items in this vote covering pensions to widows of men killed while in the service of the mounted police is for only $300. A pension of $25 a month to a widow is quite small.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: These are recurring votes that are made from year to year. The pension granted is one-half the pension the husband would have received had he retired at that time. Some are quite small; but, as the hon. member knows, there has been no increase in the superannuation rates to civil servants or their dependents, and we do not feel that we could ask for an increase for dependents of R.C.M.P. men unless an increase were made in all superannuation payments.
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
CIS. To provide for increased activities of the force. $2,599,728.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the strength of the force at the present time, and what was it in 1939?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The whole of this amount will not by any means be expended this year. When the estimates were prepared we had hoped for an establishment of 690 additional constables, but we have not yet been able to get more than 100 to 120. We want to build up the force to the authorized establishment, but we want to build it up out of the proper material. Four months of the year have gone and we have succeeded in getting fewer than 120 additional men.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many men are there at the present time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are 2,464.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the strength in 1939?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The authorized establishment was 2,500.


Alan Cockeram: How many men were taken on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the course of the war, and how many have failed to reengage now that their term of service is up?


An hon. MEMBER:: All those who have died.


Alan Cockeram: More than that, if you look into it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry I have not the figures here, but the commissioner informs me that only a small percentage have not reengaged at the expiry of their period of engagement.


Alan Cockeram: What I was getting at was this, that a number of men enlisted in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the war who would have been called up for military service, and I want to know how many of these men, now that the war is over, are out of the R.C.M.P.?

Supply-Mounted Police
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think the facts would justify the impression the hon. member has. During the war we conscripted men for service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but we did not take men who were fit for military service. If men volunteered for service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police they w'ere not taken on unless they were considered fit for our service and were not fit for ordinary military service.


Alan Cockeram: I should like to ask the minister if, as a result of engaging men in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the war, he lowered the standard of physical fitness?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. Hon. members will realize that there was a pretty arbitrary system of determining military fitness for the armed services, and that system has not been adopted for the determination of the fitness of men to join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; but I think their appearance justifies the feeling that generally the medical fitness of the R.C.M.P. is good.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Is there anything in this amount pertaining to the increase of our forces in regard to counterespionage?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The whole of the force is available for any of the operations which have to be performed by it, and we are aiming at an increase of 690 in the establishment.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is the marriage limitation in the case of new recruits to the mounted police?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: New recruits are not allowed to get married status in the force during the first five years.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Am I to understand, from what the minister said, that men who were formerly in the force, and had leave of absence to enlist in war service, found, when they returned, that their service years-four, five, or even six-would not count against the marriage limitation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Those who got leave of absence were still carried as on the strength of the force and the war period would count in their favour for all purposes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The question we were discussing then was with regard to men whose term of enlistment with the force had expired.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: And who then, on their own, enlisted in the war services and now have reentered the force and find that the marriage
term does not run during their war service.
I may just add that, while there may be some strict legal rule in connection with the administration of the force to permit that proceeding, it does seem to me a grave hardship on a man who, first of all, must serve five years before he is allowed to be married, then serves the country in an equally dangerous, if not more dangerous form of service, and finds, having spent five or six years in war service, that still he cannot marry. I hope, the minister or the chief of the force will realize that there are many of us, and I think the great majority of the people of Canada, who feel that these men should not be unduly delayed, as far as the marriage restriction is concerned, because of their war service.


Frank Exton Lennard: Item 613 covers clothing allowances, and I would suggest-though some may think it a foolish suggestion-that service ribbons be supplied as part of the clothing allowance, because these men in the R.C.M.P. who have to put up many service ribbons need to renew them every three months, and in some case the cost amounts to $15 or $20 a year, which is quite an item in the pay of mounted policemen.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that we do issue our own service ribbons. We do not supply the ribbons for decorations won in other services than our own.


Frank Exton Lennard: You mean, other than the R.C.M.P.?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: That issue amounts to probably no more than one decoration.


Alan Cockeram: A few minutes ago, in reply to a question of the hon. member for Calgary East, the minister stated that there were seven members of the forces who had returned and been reengaged but were not given their seniority, and I wondered why there should be a difference in the practice in the government service, because in industry when a man comes back we are compelled to give him his seniority in the industrial organization.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The reason is that a circular was issued at the beginning of the war explaining to all the men that this service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was essential to the safety of the state, and stating to them that as many as could be spared would be given leave of absence, but as to the others they were requested to continue in the service of their country in the R.C.M.P. force. They were told at
Supply-Mounted Police

the time that those who did not get leave would forfeit their seniority if they left, and the others who remained were told that those who left would be forfeiting their seniority and that it would go to those who remained. It is that promise that I feel I cannot interfere with and that it would be improper to break to those who did stay and whose services to the country at least coincided with the satisfactory situation which was maintained here.


Alan Cockeram: The minister has
explained that situation, but could he tell the committee whether or not that circular to which he referred was issued prior to the government regulation with regard to reestablishment in civil employment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am told that it was. I do not know personally; I was not here then.


Alan Cockeram: Then it seems to me, if that circular was issued prior to that, that the government in regard to reinstating their own employees should obey the law which was subsequently made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A few minutes ago, when I was asking the minister a few questions about this matter, he told me that there were only seven cases of men who had not been given the seniority they had in the force before enlistment in the armed services; that these were more or less, as I understood it, disciplinary matters, and that the commissioner or the officers did not think too well of these particular chaps. With that I was quite satisfied, because undoubtedly disciplinary cases do arise. But if it is a matter, as the minister has just explained to the hon. member for York South, that the authorities put out a pamphlet or something along that line and that now they are saying, "Because ve put out that pamphlet we will not restore anyone we do not feel like restoring", I am far from satisfied. As the matter stood before, I was satisfied with the explanation, but I am certainly not satisfied to be told that the government put out a pamphlet at the start of the war and that now they will cut off men who served in the forces because of that piece of red tape.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister whether the general law on the statute books in regard to reinstatement in civil employment does not override the departmental regulations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In my opinion it does not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Could we find out from the minister whether this particular-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can wait for a long time if you want to yell. May I ask whether these men are now being cut off from reinstatement in pension rights and so on because they contravened some desire on the part of the force, expressed in a pamphlet, and which should not exist in the force, or whether, as I understood from the minister a short time ago, it is on account of the fact that there is a small number of men who were not desired back in the force because it was not thought that their services would be useful in the particular rank which they held when they enlisted.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I thought I made it quite clear. As far as the commissioner can remember, there were two who were refused because he did not want them back on the force. As to all the others, they were taken back in the ranks they occupied at the time their contract expired, but they were not members of the R.C.M.P. when they enlisted. They had served the period for which they had contracted with the R.C.M.P. They left, their contract being at an end, and they now come back and say, "After we left you, we joined the forces and we would like to be taken on again in the R.C.M.P." With the exception of two, according to the information given me by the commissioner, they were taken back again. They were taken back with noncommissioned officer ranks they had before their contracts with the R.C.M.P. had expired, but they were not placed over the heads of those who had continued and renewed their contracts with the force. That is the whole situation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I understood the situation, there were seven of these men who were taken back but not given the time they were away, as far as right with respect to seniority was concerned, and so on. My question was simply this: Were these men discriminated again, because it was not considered by the commissioner and officers that they should be back on the force? The minister gave an explanation with which I was quite satisfied, and my question now is, were these men denied seniority rights which other men were given, because it was considered that they were not sufficiently valuable to the police to fill these other ranks, or was it because, as the minister said to the hon. member for York South, a pamphlet had been issued and these men had not accepted what was set out in the pamphlet, and, therefore, would now be. made to pay for it.

Supply-Transport
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Those seven were not given back seniority which had been acquired by others who had remained, and they could not be given back such seniority without its being taken from others who had earned it in accordance with the terms of their engagement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have now a third explanation. I am really getting more confused all the time. I think everyone would have been happy with the original explanation given by the minister, but now we have a third explanation and I still do not know what the position is with regard to these men. I do not know how many there were. I know there were some.


Alan Cockeram: Are these men given pension rights for the years they served in the army, the navy or the air force?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They cannot be given pension rights under the law as it stands.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister whether, when the term of enlistment of certain men in the R.C.M.P. expired during the war years, which was five years, if they had reenlisted with the R.C.M.P., they would have been free to join one of His Majesty's services.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then all I can say is this. Some of these men of the highest spirit in the R.C.M.P. saw fit to serve their country in a field which was at least equal to that in which they had been, and to many of us, it seemed, a higher field since they risked their lives in the service. Had they enlisted in the R.C.M.P.. they would not have been allowed to perform this higher service; but, having rendered that service they have infringed the desire, the discipline and the iron spirit of the R.C.M.P. administration and are prejudiced now when it comes to their present term of service. I think the matter is one in regard to which those of us who>
represent the people of the country should have a word1 to say; and if it differs from the views of those who happen to have the command of the R.C.M.P., I think we should at least put on record exactly how we feel. In my opinion these men who showed the higher spirit are discriminated against.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister give an explanation to end all explanations as to why these people are not given seniority?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have given all the explanation I can. If the hon. gentleman has not understood it, I am sorry. But I am unable to put it in any other form.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Which of the three explanations am I to accept?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No wonder you have not got reoruits.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Tory filibuster.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Tory fairness.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In the case of a war veteran who subsequently joins the R.C.M.P. but has not 'been in the service before, does he receive any credit in the way of seniority or pension accruing from service in the armed forces?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not under the law as it is. Those who joined, having had service in the first great war, get credit for that service because that was provided for by amendment made after that war. There has not yet been any amendment with respect to service in this last war.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it the intention to bring in such an amendment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have already stated a couple of times that I expect to have a bill to amend the Pension Act, and I said1 I thought it would 'be the desire of the house to do on this occasion what was done after the last war in that regard.


Douglas King Hazen: There were some members of the mounted police who were let out prior to the war for, presume, minor offences. When the war broke out they were taken on the strength again and I presume they are still on the strength. Perhaps the minister cannot say whether they will be kept on the strength, but if they are, when it comes to their getting pensions, will the time they spent prior to the war count towards pension?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The intention is to keep them on the strength as long as their services may prove to be satisfactory, and the whole of the time they will have served will count for pension purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 391. Departmental administration, $494,958. Mr. MERRITT: I wish to say a few words on this vote with regard to the port of Vancouver. On December 14 last, at page 3538 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vancouver South raised four points of importance to the port. They were, first of all, the refunding of the bonded indebtedness at a lower rate of interest; second, the question of the capitalization and the valuation of the assets of the
[Stage Direction]
Supply- Transport
[Stage Direction]
port which are considered to be very much overvalued; third, the matter of cargo rates on all tonnage passing through the port and what can be done to reduce them, and, fourth, whether or not a local advisory board could be appointed in line with the recommendations of Sir Alexander Gibb, who made a series of recommendations in 1932. To these four questions I should like to add a fifth: What is being done about the establishment of a free port on the Pacific coast? When the matter was brought up last session the minister replied that with regard to the reduction of interest, it was under consideration. Since that date I understand that one-fifth of the bonded indebtedness has been refunded at a rate of interest of 3i per cent instead of five per cent, but that $22,687,000 worth of debentures are still out, bearing an interest rate of five per cent.
With regard- to the question of overvaluation of assets, it is the considered opinion of many people in Vancouver conversant with these matters that the valuation of $25 million should rather be some $16 million, and that the combination of a reduction of the debt now borne by the port by a proper valuation of the assets and the refunding at a lower rate of interest would save the port a large sum of money every year. The amount estimated is $750,000. I also find that in the past ten years, despite the traffic going through the port, because of its overvaluation and the high rate of interest, the port has lost a sum in excess of $3 million.
With regard to the question of cargo rates, last December the minister again stated that it was under consideration, but nothing has been done since that time. His answer with respect to the local advisory board was to the same effect, namely, that the matter was under consideration but that the policy had not then been decided. It appears that consideration has been given to the problem of free ports by a federal committee headed by the vice-chairman of the national harbours board. I should like the minister to give the committee a statement on the whole question of Vancouver harbour. I wish also to compliment him on having carried out one of the requests made by the hon. member for Vancouver South last December, namely, to come out to Vancouver and see for himself. He did that last January. We were all pleased to see him, and I am quite sure that he got some useful personal knowledge of this matter from his visit However, I wish to say to him that whe. ae answers me I hope he will not say that ny of these matters are still under consideration, because, after the
[*Mr. Merritt. 1
minister's statement last December, and after his visit, there has grown up in Vancouver great impatience on these matters which have been before the government for a long time and which should now be resolved. It is felt out there-and I certainly agree with that feeling-that none of these matters is such that it should require an investigation longer than six months if, indeed, they need that length of time. If he cannot tell me now that all the things desired by the people conversant with the situation in the port are in his power to grant immediately, I hope he will be able to indicate that a decision will be come to soon.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: been asked about it since. At the time I think I said I would be glad to give consideration to the matter, and since then I have done so. I find that it might well be a mistake to set up local advisory boards under the supervision of the national harbours board. I do not see that there would be any objection to a board of trade setting up its own advisory board and discussing with the port manager the changes they felt should be brought about in the community. Some of the recommendations of Sir Alexander Gibb the government saw fit to put into effect, but I fear this is not one which would materially assist the administration of the national ports, unless it be a committee such as has been set up, for instance, in Halifax.
I think those are the questions with which my hon. friend dealt.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: With regard to the last point, concerning the local advisory board, I want to impress upon the minister a fact often mentioned in this house, namely, that out on the west coast we feel a very long way from Ottawa. What might apply to the other ports under the national harbours board does not apply to the situation in which we find ourselves, because we are so detached and on our own in that respect. Even though it might be felt that local advisory boards are not necessary in eastern ports, I want to urge the minister to give the question further consideration in regard to the port of Vancouver.
Just to illustrate that point, the minister mentioned that in other ports dockage rates were charged rather than cargo rates. It is a fact, I understand, that the port of Vancouver is the only port at which cargo rates are charged.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: When you say cargo rates do you mean dockage or top wharfage?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I understand it to be a rate on cargo by tonnage, passing through the port, whereas in all other ports payment is made as a dockage charge, which I understand to be a payment for the use of the facilities of the port.
Mr. LAiNGLOIS: We have that in Montreal, too.


Thomas Reid: We have cargo rates at New Westminster.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have some figures here of cargo rates in Vancouver, unfortunately only for 1944. Cargo rates for that year were
1470,000	as against the 1945 figure for Montreal-I have not the comparable 1944 figure- of $394,000, and, for Halifax, of $310,000.


Lionel Chevrier: The average cargo rate for Vancouver per year is $442,000.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I would point out that by charging these cargo rates apparently one arrives at a greater amount than by charging dockage rates in other ports.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, if you compare dockage with cargo. But that is not the only thing which enters into the structure of cargo rates. It is a complicated matter which would take some time to explain. However, there are a number of items which enter into the picture, and by comparison, when the totality of the changes is studied I do not think it can be said that the rates for one port are greater than those of another.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: While that may or may not be so-and I have no personal knowledge of it, so that I shall accept the minister's word -when we compare totals paid, the amount paid by vessels using the port of Vancouver, or by people bringing cargoes into or taking them out of that port, seems to be much higher than that paid in Montreal which, I will admit, is at least an equal port.
Then, it seems to me that this question of capitalization and refunding would be handled much more to the satisfaction of the people of Vancouver if the local advisory board were set up. If in Vancouver we knew that these . matters were being handled for us by an advisory board which would have more influence than a port manager might ever have, then I am sure the minister would find his task much easier when he deals with complaints about conditions which exist out there.
The last thing I wish to say is that, although the new Lapointe pier may have been given as a present to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver, the material I have seems to suggest that the valuation of the other large pier, namely the Ballantyne pier, is so high one authority has estimated that if its sheds were Silled for 365 days in the year it would not derive a revenue sufficient to provide a decent return on the capital invested in it.
I feel sure that if we did not have this feeling of remote control, and which we consider has worked against our interests, not only in this but in many other matters, the people would be much more satisfied with the port situation as they find it at the present time.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I should like to keep the record straight in connection with harbour dues. I do not know what the hon. member who just took his seat had in mind, because it would seem that he was using different terms from what we use in eastern Canada. But let me say that we pay harbour dues for the

Supply-Transport
harbours of Quebec and Montreal-and the hon. member can call them dockage, or anything he likes. However, we pay dues for any ship coming into the harbour, for docking it and tying it alongside. In addition to that, we pay twenty-five cents for each ton of cargo landed from or loaded on a ship at the jetty.
I believe the same applies to most ports in eastern Canada. One exception, however, is that section of the harbour of Montreal, including the Lachine canal, which comes under the Quebec canal administration, where the wharfage of twenty-five cents a ton is reduced to eight cents.
Before we proceed with the various items of the estimates of the Minister of Transport, I wish to bring to his attention a problem which is of particular interest to my constituency. For a good many years public bodies as well as prominent individuals of the Gaspe peninsula made representations to former ministers of transport regarding the urgent need for adequate communications for that section of the country. I do not intend to repeat here the various suggestions made thus far, with the many arguments presented in this respect. My aim this evening is simply to direct the attention of the minister and of the committee to the fact that the part of the country which I have the honour to represent has been, in my opinion, too long forgotten, and more particularly in respect of its transportation problems.
As I told the house upon the occasion of my seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the beginning of last session, and again on Saturday when speaking on the estimates of the Department of Public Works, the only means of transportation available to our trade are those supplied by transportation by water, by a second-grade highway and belt-road around the peninsula, thus rendering the economical development nearly impossible.
One of the suggestions made previously to the Department of Transport was that in order to remedy this lack of communication the government of Canada should acquire the railroad line running from Mont Joli to Matane, and extend this line at least for the time being as far as Ste. Anne des Monts, a distance from Matane of approximately fifty miles. This line between Mont Joli and Matane, which covers a distance of some forty miles, is now owned and operated by a * private enterprise operating under the name of the Canada & Gulf Terminal Railway. This line connects at Mont Joli with the Canadian National Railways line running from Montreal to Halifax.
I have perused the representations previously made to the government by public bodies,
more specifically those included in a report made to the government some years ago by la Chambre de Commerce de Matane; and if the minister refers to these suggestions, he will surely realize and appreciate not only the urgency of complying with these representations but also the importance of these proposals for the future economical development of that section of Canada.
The other day I was much impressed by the speech made in the house by the Minister of Transport in support of the bill seeking authorization for the building of a railway line in the Abitibi district, running northeast for a distance of about forty-five miles from Barraute. The minister then asked the bouse to authorize him to spend S3 million for the building of that railway, and in support of his bill he quoted a report made by experts of the Canadian National Railways in this respect. I noted more particularly that this report was based on hypothetical but very likely developments, more than on actual facts. I am convinced that the minister has reasonable assurances of these developments.
Moreover, the conclusions of this report were based upon another report made by the government of Quebec in which it was said that the provincial department of colonization of that province expected quite a substantial increase in the population of the region concerned owing to the high agricultural qualities of the soil. I do not want to criticize the minister for having accepted these possibilities of future development to support his request to the house; on the contrary, I wish to congratulate him upon having such high hopes of the future development of this country and upon having asked this parliament to spend money in order to facilitate and expedite such development.
It is not what we did when we built the Canadian Pacific through an almost deserted western Canada and when we built the transcontinental through an equally deserted Abitibi? What would this country be to-day without those two important communication links between these most important centres of wealth in this country? It is for this reason that I must regret that the same kind of forethought was not applied to the region which I represent in this house, and that is why I must strongly impress upon the minister the urgency of having this remedied without further delay. I am not asking the minister to recommend the building of a railroad through a sparsely populated area, because the territory through which the railroad would pass has an actual population today of over 31,000, with a prospective popu-
Supply-Transport

lation of three times as much. There are close to another 30,000 people in the areas immediately surrounding this one who are awaiting the benefits of this development.
There is no natural obstruction to the extension of the Mont Joli-Matane railroad to Ste. Anne des Monts, and the cost of building this extension would be relatively low. The necessity and urgency of expropriating, if needs be, the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway line and extending it to Ste. Anne des Monts have been previously established. If the department still entertains any doubts as to the possibilities of the area concerned I would ask the officials of the department to refer to an inventory made in 1937 by the Quebec department of trade and commerce entitled, "Inventaire des Res-sources Naturelles 1937, Gaspe," and to a private inventory made by Mr. Robert Rumilly under the auspices of the Quebec newspaper Le Soldi in 1943-44.
The minister will be able to find out from these publications the economic possibilities of the Gaspe.peninsula and more particularly the possibilities of the future development of its forests, agriculture, mines and fisheries. With reference to mines in the Gaspe peninsula and their possibilities, I would refer the minister to a publication entitled, "Possible future oil provinces of the United States and Canada", published in 1940 by the American association of geologists, in which it is said that the Gaspe peninsula is one of the richest regions of Canada and perhaps of America in petroleum fields.
There is no need for me to add anything more at this stage to the information given already in the official inventory and the publications referred to. In conclusion, I strongly urge the minister to ask his department to supplement the information already obtained by asking the Canadian National Railways to make a thorough and immediate study of this project. Speaking on behalf of those whom I represent in this house, I must say to the minister that we sincerely hope that at the next session of parliament he will introduce a bill which will at long last give justice to the Gaspe peninsula by seeking authorization to buy and extend the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway line as suggested.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, June 25, 1946, which reads:
Ship strike looms along B.C. coast
Possibility of a coastal seamen's strike, involving 700 to 800 crew members of 25 B.C. passenger-freight vessels, loomed to-day as seafarers' international union (AFL) hotly protested a national war labour board ruling on demands of the union.

In a letter dealing with that clipping which I received from the union, they pointed out that they are going to protest to the national war labour board for better terms than those which were given to them.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the date of the article?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: The Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, June 25. 1 have been sitting on the industrial relations committee, and from what one can make out the unions appearing there want a basic law so that they can get general treatment from the bosses on a definite basis. In the case of the Minister of Transport that power lies in the Canada Shipping Act. By overhauling this act, he would be able to bring relative stability and improve considerably the conditions under which the seamen of this country work.
We have just come through a war during which the merchant seamen of Canada showed more bravery and greater endurance without recognition than any other group that served during the war. It is about time the government recognized the fact that these men serve under the most antiquated shipping laws of perhaps any modern country, even those countries which we are feeding to-day. I am not going to present proposals that could be called fantastic or idealistic; I am merely going to compare the act under which our seamen serve with the act under which the seamen of the United States serve. It is repugnant to me as a Canadian to have to expose the conditions under which Canadian seamen work and compare them with the conditions under which those who serve under the stars and stripes work, but it is necessary to do this in order to bring these conditions to the attention of the people.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman and I have no objection to his dealing with matters affecting the Canada Shipping Act, but if he is going to deal with matters affecting labour and labour relations I think he should do so under the estimates of the Department of Labour. Everything he has said so far has had to do with the national war labour board and working conditions. Unless he deals with some other matter, I am afraid I shall have to ask i the Chairman for a ruling.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: 
Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, or to give him the idea that I object to his dealing with this matter, but section 191 deals exclusively with advances and allotment of wages. The Department of Transport has nothing to do with wages; it is a matter which concerns labour. I do not want to be unfair to him, but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter which does not concern us.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: The administration of this act comes under the Department of Transport, and when the bill came down the other day for compensation it was introduced through the minister's department.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree, because workmen's compensation is a matter which comes directly under the Department of Transport, but not the allotment and payment of wages.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Then I will deal with just this one section and then continue with the others.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman wants to deal with compensation I certainly will not stop him.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I want to thank the department for bringing in that law covering seamen with regard to compensation.


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask the hon. gentleman to deal only with matters which come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, not the Department of Labour.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I will continue then, and bring up a provision from the navigation laws of the United States which should be inserted in the Canada Shipping Act. The clause is headed "slop chest"; this has nothing to do with wages, and I should like to see this section incorporated in the Canada Shipping Act, and section 191 removed:
Every vessel mentioned in section forty-five hundred and sixty-nine of the revised statutes shall also be provided with a slop chest, which shall contain a complement of clothing for the intended voyage for each seaman employed, including boots or shoes,_ hats or caps, under clothing and outer clothing, oiled clothing, and everything necessary for the wear of a seaman; also a full supply of tobacco and blankets. Any of the contents of the slop chest shall be sold, from time to time, to any or every seaman applying therefor, for his own use, at a profit not exceeding 10 per centum of the reasonable wholesale value of the same at the port at which the voyage commenced. And if any such vessel is not provided, before sailing, as herein required, the owner shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $500. The provisions of this section shall not apply to vessels plying between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Bermuda islands, the Bahama islands, the West Indies, Mexico, and Central America.
As I have said, the seamen would1 like to have this section incorporated into the Canada Shipping Act and section 191 deleted altogether, because the main portion of section 191 deals with the action regarding those, say, who jump ship when they are advanced wages, and they would like to have that wiped right out and no advancement of wages given, but the proper facilities put on the boat so that they could buy their stuff right on the boat rather than be stuck with bills that are liable to discount in beer parlours and so on, when they want to get ready cash for advancement and are handed a slip. I think the minister will see that in dealing with this matter I am not dealing with wages, but it is a combination which fits into conditions on the boat rather than wages.
The section which I am about to read is R.S. 4530, page 213 of the navigation laws of the United States, known as "advances, amount, time, penalty for failure of master to comply". This section is in connection with cash draws when the vessel is in any port. And now again you could, if you liked,
Supply-Transport

object that it is a question of wages; yet it is more a question of conditions when they are outside Canada in some foreign port. There is no such section in the Canada Shipping Act covering this question, but seemingly the question of drawing wages especially in a foreign port is left to the discretion of the skipper. British seamen can claim only one pound a week when in port as a sub on wages.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not think
this can be discussed by the hon. member under the present item.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Mr. Chairman, this is not a case of wages as such, it is a matter of the conditions of work which exist when they find themselves in a foreign port. It is not, I say, a case of more wages or less wages; but when they are in a foreign port it is left to the discretion of the skipper whether they can draw any money at all, and there is no section of the Canada Shipping Act covering that matter, but there is in the navigation laws of the United States. It is not the wages, it is working conditions. My own brother-


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member is in order when he is discussing the Canada Shipping Act, but an amendment of the act with respect to working conditions would hardly be in order at this time.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I find it difficult to deal with this matter under the Canada Shipping Act. The only way I can bring out the inadequacies of the act is to relate it to something else. I do not want to get off on a metaphysical pipe dream.


An hon. MEMBER:: On what?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Go and look at the dictionary. Therefore I take the navigation laws of the United States as something concrete for the information of the minister, so that he, in bringing forward legislation on this subject, can point out that advanced nations are doing the same thing and that all that he wants to do is to bring Canada from her backward state up to the standard of other nations. As an illustration, I should like to read this section, or a part of it, which appears on page 213 of the United States navigation laws:
R.S. 4530. Every seaman on a vessel of the United States shall be entitled to receive on demand from the master of the vessel to which he belongs one-half part of the balance of his wages earned and remaining unpaid at the time when such demand is made at every port where such vessel, after the voyage has been commenced, shall load or deliver cargo . . .

There is no such law in Canada.
The next section I should like to deal with is headed, "provisions, health and accommodation", sections 224 to 229 inclusive of the Canada Shipping Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell my hon.
friend that questions of health are dealt with by the Department of National Health and Welfare, such as the sick mariners fund.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask the Minister of Transport on what particular item can members of the committee discuss matters affecting seamen?


Lionel Chevrier: Under the director of merchant seamen; that is the proper item.


Angus MacInnis: Well, that is the point that we should get on, if there is an item upon which the hon. member for Skeena can discuss this question.


Lionel Chevrier: There is.


Angus MacInnis: I think he should reserve it for that time.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Then, Mr. Chairman, I will skip that item, and now we are getting down to how inadequate this act is. It is scattered "all over the acre." It should be under the jurisdiction of one minister so that it could be properly administered. You will have trouble with the seamen if this keeps on. It is sawing one off against the other at all times and it cannot last forever without an explosion on the labour front. The next section is headed "shipping fees", 155.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member referring to the Canada Shipping Act?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Yes. I quote:
Every owner or master of a ship engaging or discharging any seaman in a shipping office, or before a shipping master or a deputy shipping master, shall pay to the shipping master or deputy shipping master the whole of the fees hereby made payable in respect of that engagement or discharge, and may, for the purpose of reimbursing himself in part, deduct and retain . . .
And so on. In other words, the seamen are charged fees for what amounts to hiring and firing. The practice of extorting fees from seamen in connection with articles of agreement is a practice which, in the opinion of the seamen, should be stopped. If such fees are necessary, then they should be carried by the ship owner. No other maritime nation follows this practice.
The next point is with respect to wages, hours of labour and local holidays. The navigation law's of the United States, section 2, page 202, dated March 4, 1915-

Supply-Transport


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Is that in the Canada Shipping Act?


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I will let it go at that. The navigation laws of the United States, in contrast to the Canada Shipping Act, carry a definite eight-hour day to be worked on ships.


William Ross Macdonald: I am under the
impression that, in reply to the non. member for Vancouver East, the minister stated that this question could be discussed under another item, the director of merchant seamen.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I said in reply to the hon. gentlemen; but on the question of wages and hours, that is a matter which certainly does not concern this department but the Department of Labour, and seamen went on strike for this reason. We have in the Department of Transport an eight-hour day on our ships and that should be an answer to my hon. friend. So far as transport is concerned, we have instituted an eight-hour day, and therefore I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: A comparable act in the United States carries the definite provision in it that men shall work an eight-hour day, and there is no commitment with regard to hours of work in the Canada Shipping Act. Before I proceed, I would ask whether this comes under the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: I submit with deference that it does not.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Well, we will let that point go.
I now come to manning scale, number of men on boats who carry lifeboat tickets, and so on. Is that under the jurisdiction of this department? I should like to deal with the question of manning scale, that is, the number of men required on a boat, depending upon size and the type of trade dealt in. There is no manning scale called for in the Canada Shipping Act, nor is there any regulation as to the number of qualified seamen who should be carried, nor how the seaman is qualified. In this connection, the navigation laws of the United States again are far more clear, as will be seen by reference to pages 197 and 198 of that act, headed, "requirements, qualifications and regulations as to crews", and directions as to what is required are given. There is also a section, section 13, on the same pages, headed, "certificates of service of seamen". They even make it more clear because there is a section dealing with undermanning, page 192, section 4516 of the navigation laws of the United States. On the British Columbia coast some of the crew might have lifeboat tickets.
Men can. be in the stokehold or in the steward's department and not necessarily on deck. Without manning laws, the companies can always beat down the demands of the seamen by hiring green crews without any qualifications whatever, and thus keep the seamen forever in an underpaid and overworked condition.
It is needless to point out the danger to life and limb of passengers on the coastal vessels. Granted that the skippers and mates are wonderful seamen-and their accident rate proves this-there are times, nevertheless, when in spite of these men and modem mechanical devices, qualified men are necessary when these other factors fail. Some day there will be serious loss of life on the coast and it could be that government regulations or lack of them may be the cause.
We were discussing to-day and the other evening the situation at Ripple Rock. There will be loss of life there, and yet these same boats, traversing those waters at all times, have no manning scale. There is no certificate of seamen, as it were. I have worked on these boats, and I know that when it comes to manning lifeboats it is more like battle stations than anything else because everybody gets in everybody else's way and some get hurt in the process, even in the experimental stages. The seamen would like to know the government's position in regard to the hiring of men of other nationalities on boats which are really Canadian, but which register in other countries so as to evade Canadian laws, and hire crews where cheap labour is available, even when Canadian seamen are on the beach.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the past have been notable for trickery in this respect. One skipper on a Canadian Pacific boat on one occasion stated that Chinese were superior to white men. This problem will arise in the immediate future. Will the government, then, take the attitude of allowing the situation to be repeated, especially in face of the fact that Canadian merchant seamen sacrificed so much during the war?
Another point that I would bring up if it is under the jurisdiction of the department is the continuous discharge book when seamen are signing articles on any ship. These discharge books contain the record of the seamen's employment and ability, and the book must be produced for the shipmaster's inspection before the seaman can obtain employment.
May I say to the minister that a boat is a very small place, so that hatreds and bitter feelings can flare up, under-conditions of confinement in that narrow compass, which would
Supply-Transport

not necessarily occur on land. One small mistake on the part of the seaman, written into his continuous discharge book by the skipper, can follow him the rest of his days and prevent him from obtaining employment and interfere with his way of life. The seamen would like to have that continuous discharge book done away with, and a single unattached certificate of discharge be recognized as sufficient for purposes of employment.
Lastly, if the manning pools come under the jurisdiction of the minister, I should like to say a few words, though at the moment I do not know whether the manning pools are still in operation, but the seamen on the coast claim that through their unions they would like in the future to have the authority to put their own men on the boats. If this were started, no matter what crisis occurred in the future this machinery would be in operation and would work efficiently in the interests of the state.
To sum up, I would say, though many members will not agree with the various points I have brought up, that the seamen are of the opinion that the Canada Shipping Act is antiquated in relationship to the living standards of other Canadian workers and is now definitely a detriment to the welfare of the Canadian seamen.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I intended speaking for a minute or two after the hon. member for Gaspe had finished. I was pleased to see that he was talking about the building of a railroad in his riding. I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the committee first to support his demand; second, to give him a friendly word of warning and, third, to draw the attention of the committee to a practically similar situation which exists in my own riding and of which I believe the Department of Transport is aware. I say that I give him my support because I am fairly well acquainted with the situation which exists in that section to which my hon. friend referred. I am fairly well acquainted with it because I lived near there at one time, and I have travelled there considerably. I believe that if hon. members were acquainted with the situation there, they would admit that the transportation and communication facilities are not in keeping with modern times.
However, I wish to give him a friendly word of warning. He should not insist too much for the Canadian National Railways to take over the already existing part of the railroad in that section, otherwise the people may find themselves in the same situation as they did in a part of my riding. That is, after the Canadian National Railways have taken it

over and have operated it for a short time they may come to the conclusion that it is not a financially sound proposition, and then they may ask the board of railway commisioners to stop the operation of the railroad and, a little later, to take away the rails.
This brings me to my particular problem of which, as I said before, the Minister of Transport is aware. He has sympathetically listened to my representations and to the representations of the people from that section. To make the matter a little clearer, I should explain that in the riding of Lotbiniere there are forty-six rural municipalities. Out of the forty-six there are fourteen which have railroad facilities. The other thirty-two have no railroads whatsoever. I am not talking about a part of the country which has been recently developed, but of a part which is the oldest and which contains the oldest municipalities in Quebec. I am talking about a part of the country where some of the municipalities are not over thirty and thirty-five miles away from the city of Quebec, which is the main centre of that particular region, and yet to-day these people have to travel from three to five to ten to fifteen and to eighteen miles to take a train to get into Quebec.
Quite a few years ago there used to be a railroad which had been built in 1896 with government subsidies for the purpose of bringing a line to the shores of the St. Lawrence, and which would permit the localities of that region along the shore to get some transport facilities. In 1931 the Canadian National Railways arbitrarily decided, as I said before, that it was not a good financial proposition and they discontinued operating the railroad. At that time the Railroad Act did not oblige the railway company to go before the commissioners and ask for permission to discontinue the operation of a railroad. The companies could do so by themselves. Therefore the Canadian National Railways proceeded to discontinue the operation of the railway. Representations were then made by the people of that particular locality, which is St. Jean Deschaillons, and by all the surrounding localities within the radius which was served by that station. Nothing happened as could be expected at that particular time.
In 1936, after the Railroad Act had been changed, the people went before the railway commissioners and asked that the railroad be reestablished. The railway commission decided that, since there was no legislation in 1931 to permit them to decide whether the Canadian National Railways was right in taking away that railroad, they had no jurisdiction. In 1941 the company decided that they were going to take away the rails. Again representations

Supply-Transport
were made; again we went before the railway commissioners. At this time they decided that, since they had given a decision in 1936 in the way in which I have just indicated, they had no more jurisdiction. There is no question of discussing the value of the judgment of the railway commissioners. I have no doubt that it was legally sound and according to the law of the land, but I say that in the middle of the winter as we have it here, with weather twenty below zero, it is difficult to be satisfied to go fifteen miles in a sleigh or in a snowmobile and to tell ourselves, well, maybe we are doing this in a sleigh or a snowmobile, but we have a sound judgment from the railway commissioners.
I know the minister understands the situation. The people of that locality' and I have made representations to him, and he has done everything within his power with the Canadian National Railways to try to solve this problem. I can only ask if he will again give as much consideration as he has given before and try to impress the authorities of that railway with the plight of the people living in that region.
I know the main obstacle brought up by the company was the building of a bridge which would involve the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. This bridge had been burnt shortly after the operation of the rail-Toad was discontinued. But I believe there is a solution to that problem whereby the railroad can be reestablished without the building of the bridge, and which would be satisfactory to the people concerned. I believe that the authorities of the Canadian National Railways are aware of the solution and that representations have been made to them in that regard. I feel quite sure that the minister will again be as kind and sympathetic to the representations which I have made on behalf of these people as he was previously. I want him to understand that I am not doing this from any personal consideration. It is not a problem which has been created by myself or during my time. I inherited the situation and more *o less had to adopt the baby after I found it on my doorstep. I am convinced that the representations of these people are justified, and I again ask him to make representations to the authorities of the railway. When he does that, which I am sure he will do, I wonder whether he would also impress them with the fact that the remaining end of the railway ha3 not been maintained for some time. According to the information I have received, the yearly maintenance on that part which still remains has not been done this year. We do not want the railway authorities to again .have the opportunity of going before the board of transport commissioners, saying that the railway is in such a condition, as a result of nonmaintenance, that the expenditure involved to repair it would be so great that they are sorry but they have to ask that the remainder of the line be abandoned also. If this should happen, the board will, I am sure, understand that this is a public utility which serves the whole community, and will decide accordingly.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may have just a brief word to reply to the representations of the hon. member for Gaspe as well as those of the hon. member for Lotbiniere-


James Ralph Kirk: At the same time would the minister deal with the famous Guysborough railway, which I have discussed with him on several occasions? Perhaps the same explanation will cover it.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Gaspe made a strong plea for the acquisition by the Canadian National Railways of the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway. I must tell him, as I told the committee of the whole during the discussion of the proposed branch line from Barraute to Kiask Falls, that the policy of the Canadian National Railways as a rule is directed toward three points when it considers the building of a branch line or the acquisition of a railway. The first of these is the natural resources existing in the country where the line is to be purchased or built; the next is the cost of the construction or purchase, and the last is the possible traffic to be derived therefrom. These are three important matters which must be kept in mind at all times. If the railways of this country, particularly the Canadian National Railways, with which I deal now, are to operate profitably- and I am sure that is one of the things the house wants them to do-then they must look at those factors first of all. In 1943 the Canadian National Railways set up a committee to deal with the subject matter discussed by my hon. friend, and I have a list of their conclusions. I do not want to burden the committee by reading all of them, but I think hon. members should note at least one. Here is what the survey says:
There appears to be little prospect of any future development in che country-
I refer now to the country being served by the Canada and Gulf Terminal railway.
-which would improve the earning capacity of the road. From experience which the Canadian National has had with other lines that have depended solely on the movement of forest products, the earning capacity will gradually disappear, and abandonment of the line will have to take place.
Supply-Transport

Then conclusion No. 6 is very much in point. It says:
Having regard to' the cost of operation by the Canadian National and rate reductions which would follow acquisition, the earnings valuation to the C.N.R. turns out to be less than nothing, based on the average of the ten-year period from 1933 to 1943 inclusive. In fact, if the line were given to the Canadian National, the system would be worsened by $33,000 per year.
I hope I have not hurt the feelings of the hon. gentleman by quoting this, but he may get some satisfaction when he realizes that this report was made in 1943, and he has made such a good case that I can assure him I shall ask the Canadian National Railways to review the position since the making of this report.
Dealing next with the representations made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere in connection with the St.-Jean Deschaillons railway, the position there is somewhat more difficult than that raised by the hon. member for Gaspe. It is more difficult because the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of that line were brought before the board of transport commissioners. According to the Railway Act, when a railway wishes to abandon a line it must get the approval of the board of transport commissioners. As my hon. friend said, the Canadian National did not do that at the time for the simple reason that this section in the act was not mandatory, so that of its own volition the Canadian National decided to abandon the line. At a later date, however, the matter was brought before the board of transport commissioners, who heard large numbers of witnesses from the area represented by my hon. friend; and having regard to all the circumstances they came to the conclusion that a portion of the line should be abandoned.
I say to my hon. friend that he and his constituents are not alone in that predicament. In my own constituency of Stormont the board of transport commissioners granted an application of a railway company for reduction in train service in an area which, with all respect to my hon. friend, was far more populated than the area in which he lives. As a matter of fact it is at the door of the capital city of Ottawa, and the train in question was the New York Central train which operates between the city of Ottawa and the city of Cornwall. I believe it was in 1938 or 1939 that, having regard to the fact that farmers and townsfolk were finding it more convenient to use their motor cars instead of using the train, the board of transport commissioners, having in mind also the financial position of the New York Central in regard to that service, decided in favour of the abandonment of two of those trains. If the 
board also decided in favour of the abandonment of a portion of the St.-Jean Deschaillons line, I presume that decision was based on somewhat the same grounds. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that I shall ask the Canadian National Railways again to explore the position.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough raised a question in reference to the Guysborough railway. That is a matter, I think, which affects the Canso project, in that a relocation of the lines would have to be considered if a causeway or bridge were decided upon. I am not sufficiently conversant with the position at the moment to speak from memory, though my recollection is that the Canadian National Railways have in view some changes in that locality, dependent upon the Canso project. I would not want to go any farther at the moment without having before me the particular details, but I can assure my hon. friend that the representations he has made will be carefully considered.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Gaspe and the hon. member for Lotbiniere on their presentations to the minister, and I hope he will be just as favourable in dealing with my case. I want to say a word about a new station at Kingston. I think the minister is fully aware of the conditions which prevail there. I wish to say to him and to his executive officers that not much progress has been made in the Kingston area since last fall, and I want to ask whether anything further has been done. Has the executive made any appropriation for that new station? Having in mind the locality *from which the minister comes, I know he is familiar with the situation in my city. These fast trains are still going through from Montreal to Toronto and on to Chicago, three and four times a day, in one or sometimes two sections. I am sure they pay for themselves; I believe the company gets good dividends from the Kingston area, but conditions there are not as they should be.
As strongly as I can I want to remind the minister that before the war we were promised a new station, after making three concessions to the railway board at that time. I need not repeat what those concessions were; they are on file and I am sure the minister is familiar with them. A person getting off a train at that station at any time from November to April, in the snow and rain, has an uncomfortable time of it, particularly if he gets off at the far end of the train. There is no shelter there, and particularly when trains are late the people have to wait under conditions which are not pleasant. This is particularly true when the trains are travelling in more than

Supply-Transport
one section, and when people are meeting friends. It is not known what section the friends will alight from. One may go to meet one section and be told to wait for the next one, or the first section might be filled up and there would not be sufficient room.
I hope the minister will be considerate and deal as favourably with Kingston as he has with other areas.


Lionel Chevrier: Notwithstanding that the hon. member sits on the opposite side of the house, I can say that I agree with everything he has said about the situation at Kingston, because I know it very well. It is just alongside my own city. I visited it since the hon. member spoke about it last year, and I know that the conditions are just as he describes them. In fact I told many of my own constituents who have asked when we are going to get a new station in Cornwall, that the position is such that I was afraid their request would have to wait until the condition at Kingston was rectified.
With reference to the building of stations generally, I do not think the Canadian National Railways will construot any stations in the immediate future, because of the shortage of materials and because of the housing situation. I believe that was made fairly clear by the president of the railways when he gave evidence before the railways and shipping committee. At that time he did say something about the situation at Kingston.
I am sure the Canadian National Railways have had it in mind, but in view of the present condition I do not think it is possible for the immediate future.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: I do not wish to add to what has been said by my colleague the hon. member for Gaspe, who referred to the conditions on the Gaspe peninsula, and the railway there. My good friend the Minister of Transport pointed out three questions, and said that the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways would be interested in any undertaking of the sort suggested, if natural resources were involved.
In respect of this first, question, I would refer the minister to the proceedings of the special committee on reconstruction and reestablishment which sat in 1944. I would refer hon. members to No. 11 in those proceedings, and particularly to page 391. This refers to the Gaspe peninsula, that part of the country we all cherish, the part which was first discovered, and which is the last to be served and helped. We will try to have it rediscovered.
In paragraph 5 on this page I find the following:
5. Mines-petroleum.	Minerals are to be
found, throughout the whole peninsula.
That is for the benefit of not only Gaspe, Matane, Matapedia and Bonaventure, but for the whole of the Dominion of Canada. Among those minerals is gold, something that is useful at times. The paragraph states:
They include gold, silver, lead, zinc and chrome iron. " Powerful companies such as ISoranda Alines Federal Zinc and Lead, National omelt-ing of London, Eng., British Metal, Mining Corporation, own mineralized areas and await means of access and outlet, in a word, proper transportation facilities . . . Gaspe is composed of sedimentary, very plicated strata -
What that means, I do not know.
-that are very indicative of the presence of petroleum. The American association ot geologists published in 1940, following a serious investigation, a book on the petroliferous resources of the various regions of America. The work is captioned "possible future oil provinces of the United States and Canada. Gaspe occupies a very good standing in the list of P9tentia.li-ties. Generally speaking, geologists believe that Gaspe, by reason of its twenty thousand feet or more of sedimentary rocks, is one of the best regions in Canada, and perhaps in America, from the standpoint of oil-bear,ng possibilities. Powerful companies, such as Imperial Oil, nave acquired rights to more or less extensive territories They have awaited the results of borings carried out by one of the companies Continental Petroleums Limited. The results of these borings may now be considered ve y favourable. But the companies are awaiting proper transportation facilities before launch inor nnprations.
The minister has referred to the cost of construction. I shall not answer him on that point, but I will say, as did the hon. member for Gaspe, that if this railroad were continued to Ste Anne des Monts on the same basis as the Canada Gulf and Terminal railway was continued from Mont Job, it would not be satisfactory. One has only to look a,t the record of this railway to see that it is the greatest scandal in the whole transportation
system of the country.
I must say, however, that I can see no reason why the Canadian National Railways could not build this line from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts, and from Ste. Anne des Monts to run up the Gaspe peninsula, thereby creating an opening for that railway system in the Matapedia valley.
When this stretch of railway was built, a stretch running thirty-six miles, it was built at a cost of 8800,000. It was given a grant of certain timber and bush limits which were sold to the Hammermill company at $1,100,000.
I am answering the minister's third point when I say that the company lately reduced its rates for carload traffic to the level of the
Supply-Transport

Canadian National Railways. I thought it was a good decision, because it was an indication of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. The figures appearing in their books set out the costs, which were amply revealed by the Hammermill corporation. According to one of the greatest experts in this country and this is the third point which I wish the minister would take into consideration seriously-the railway made $218,000 in profits. Their investments, presumably in government bonds, increased from $70,000 to $135,000, or an increase of $65,000. Their cash position rose from $12,700 to $25,500, or an increase of about $12,000. Their accrued depreciation increased from $375,000 to $426,000, or another increase of about $50,000. Their profit and loss, debit, decreased from $1,339,000 to $1,305,000. On top of that, the company was able to pay in 1943 and 1944-an interest of $57,000 on bonds outstanding.
The reconstruction committee has found that part of the country to be of national importance, but it cannot be developed with the present condition of transportation facilities. It is an imperative duty of the government to see that this wealth is brought out of the Gaspe peninsula. I do not care whether that is done by the Canadian National Railways or by a private corporation as long as it is supervised by the government and is done in the immediate future. With present conditions of transportation, there is no possibility whatsoever of getting out the wealth that is in the Gaspe peninsula. I am not a cost expert on transportation, and such things are up to the government and their officials, but one thing must be done. No government can last any time if it does not deal with the population living in that district. Millions of dollars have been spent on Churchill and the railroad is to be built up in northern Ontario and Quebec. I am all for that, but I want to know why it is that from 1534 to 1946 nothing has been done to help bring the wealth of the Gaspe to British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to say a word about our merchant marine, but I shall defer doing so until to-morrow. In so far as railroads are concerned, British Columbia is going to ask that it receive the same consideration as any other province. We intend to have our share of anything that is done in connection with the railroads of Canada.
(Translation):
I wish to say a few words about the railways.
If the C.N.R. is to take over the Gaspe line, why would it not assume the operation of the Peace river line?

(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: That makes my task very much easier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under this general item, I wish to say something about highway transportation and federal assistance to the Trans-Canada highway. My precedent for bringing up this matter under the estimates of the Department of Transport is the fact that in 1912 and again in 1913 a bill was sponsored by the then Minister of Railways and Canals to provide for federal assistance to the provinces for a programme of road construction. I realize that there is no other precedent, but that precedent was accepted at that time on all sides of the house. Inasmuch as roads are definitely one means of transport in the country, I think this would be an appropriate time to discuss this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Transport has nothing to do with the Trans-Canada highway. I am informed by my officials that in 1917 grants were made to the provinces to assist in its construction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was recommended in 1912 or 1913. I am simply suggesting that this would be an appropriate time to make a short statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I could not enlighten my hon. friend at all because it is not a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, nor could I reply to his statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister may change his view on the matter as I proceed with my remarks.


William Ross Macdonald: The Trans-Canada highway does not come within the limits of the Department of Transport, and I do not think it would be in order for the hon. member for Kamloops to discuss it at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was not going to discuss the Trans-Canada highway; I was going to discuss highway transportation in general and make certain recommendations, and it seemed to me that this general item of the Department of Transport was the proper place to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that the hon. member intends to discuss highway transportation, but again that is a matter which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the department; it is a provincial matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no department of dominion-provincial problems, and these

Privilege-Mr. Cote
problems of dominion-provincial relations must be discussed under one department or another.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt unduly, but there is no estimate in my department which would have to do with that in any way, and I do not see how my hon. friend could take it up on these estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I call it eleven o'clock so that we can both think over the matter?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I understand there is a report by a committee which should be tabled before eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
PRIVILEGE-MR. COTE (m.VTAPEDIA-MATANe)- SENATE AMENDMENTS TO BILL NO. 8, RESPECTING CANADA DAY
Antoine-Philéas Côté: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is after eleven
o'clock.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: I see that the order of precedence says that on Monday senate amendments to public bills should be considered. I have been sitting here for three sessions to-day; as a matter of fact I rushed six hundred miles to be here on time, at eleven o'clock this morning, expecting that bill No. 8, respecting Canada Day, would be called to-day. It was not. I should like to know from the government leader whether such a bill, after being passed in this house, and having received the sanction of the senate, even with amendment, is not as important as, for instance, bill T-ll, an act for the relief of Fania Pustopedskaites Sobolevicius, otherwise known as Fanny Pustopedsky Sobolevicius. Now the day has passed, and the bill was not called. I understand it may not be called until Monday next, and I have read in the paper that we may. adjourn on Saturday. Therefore it is a first-class funeral of a bill which must be in the minds of some people as important as this other one.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I have given some latitude to the hon. member, in spite of the
fact that it is after eleven o'clock. If he has any question of privilege I would ask him to state it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It' is already after eleven o'clock, but I should like to point out to the hon. member that it is not the importance of the legislation which determines the position it occupies on the orders of the day; that is determined according to the standing orders and resolutions of the house. To my amazement we have put ourselves in the position that since the 15th of April there has been no time for consideration of amendments made by the senate to a public bill introduced by a private member. The standing orders provide for consideration of such matters only on Monday, after private bills. On the 9th of April there was adopted by this house a resolution that on Mondays government orders would have precedence over everything except questions and notices of motions. I do not think it was intended at that time to shut out the consideration of amendments made by the senate to public bills presented by private members, but that has been the result. Until government orders are exhausted, such amendments cannot be called for consideration, and government orders are never exhausted until we arrive at the time of prorogation. The combined effect of the standing order and the resolution of the 9th of April is that there is no tirrie now at which this item of business could be called for consideration without the unanimous consent of the house. It happens to be a matter about which there is considerable division of opinion, and I would not anticipate that the house would wish to give unanimous consent to its taking a position that, under the orders and resolutions, it is not entitled to.
I am afraid that, as a consequence of what was done on the 9th of April, not intentionally but nevertheless as a decision of the house, there is no room for the consideration of these amendments at this session, and the hon. member will have to trust that the house, the country and the government will consider as to whether the matter should not be reintroduced as a measure having other precedence at the next session of parliament.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I just suggest to the minister that I have never heard a more polite burial service in my life.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.08 pm.

Privilege- Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)
Tuesday, August 13, 1946.