1947-07-14

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Fourth and final report of special joint committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms.-Mr. Ilsley.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland) presented the first and second reports of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the printing of parliament, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Mr. GREEN:: The report has just been tabled, and I think wre must have a chance to look it over before this motion is allowed to go through.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member has not the unanimous consent of the house, the motion will have to stand until the next sitting.



TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 455, to extend the term of office of a transport commissioner.
He said: Mr. Commissioner Stone reached the retiring age as a member of the Board of Transport Commissioners on June 30, 1947. Section 9. subsection 4, of the Railway Act provides that a commissioner shall not hold office after having reached the age of seventy-five j'ears. The object of this bill is to extend the term of Mr. Commissioner Stone so there may be a representation on the board, of the labour organizations and of the maritime provinces. Mr. Commissioner Stone sat during the various hearings held by the board not only in Ottawa but elsewhere, in connection with the applications for rate increases. He is fully familiar with the evidence that has been taken, and it would be unfortunate if there were no representation of both these bodies when the decision of the board is handed down. I have had a word with the various leaders concerning this bill, and I am hopeful that they will be able to give their consent to it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Mr. BRACKEN:: Perhaps the minister
would consent to leaving motion for second reading until the afternoon.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Very well.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	With what provinces have agreements been reached for the provincial department to handle family allowance investigation work?
2.	What are the financial arrangements with each province in the carrying out of this work?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1. Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia.
Negotiations are currently under way for similar arrangements to be made with some of the remaining provinces.
In the province of New Brunswick, arrangements were made with the local children's aid societies1 to handle family allowance investigation work.

Questions
2. Nova Scotia-at a fixed rate of $5 for each completed report, with a guarantee of a minimum annual amount of $12,600, payable at the rate of $1,050 per month.
New Brunswick-for the payment to public and private agencies and organizations of the sum of $5 for each completed report furnished at the request of the regional director, family allowances, in that province.
Ontario-at the fixed rate of $5 for each completed report.
Manitoba-at the fixed rate of So for each completed report.
British Columbia-at the fixed rate of $5 for each completed report.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-LINCOLN AND WELLAND COUNTIES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many persons in Lincoln county (a) on May 31, 1947; (b) on June 26, 1947, were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments, and how many job vacancies were listed in that county on each of these dates?
2.	How many persons in Welland county (a) on May 31, 1947; (b) on June 26, 1947, were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments, and how many job vacancies were listed in the said county on each of the above dates?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1 and 2.
On Jobs On Jobs Benefits Available Benefits Available
May	May	June	June31/47	31/47	26/47	26/47St. Catharines ..	317	602	159	592Welland 	190	719	170	499Fort Erie	96	91	67	98Niagara Falls ...	91	378	75	434Port Colborne ..	132	119	123	92


APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP-PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How many applications for citizenship have been dealt with under the new citizenship regulations by each of the district courts in each of the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as of June 1, 1947?
2.	How many have been refused in each of these courts?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1. The information is not yet available. Under paragraph 24 of the regulations under the Canadian Citizenship Act, clerks of courts are required, half yearly, immediately after the 1st January and July in each year, to transmit to the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada a statement of all applications for decisions that applicants are qualified and fit to be granted citizenship, setting out separately the cases in which applications were approved and those in which applications
were rejected. The half-yearly returns for the period January to June, 1947, have not been received as yet from all of the courts in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Many of the cases dealt with by these courts may have been applications which were filed a year or more ago under the Naturalization Act but were dealt with this year under the Canadian Citizenship Act. Under the circumstances, it would be impossible at this time to give from the records of the Canadian citizenship branch a complete and accurate report of the cases dealt with by these courts.
2. Answered by No. 1.


APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP- INSTRUCTION BOOKLETS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Have instruction booklets been issued to applicants for citizenship in Canada other than to the Polish veterans?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: No manuals have been issued to any applicants for Canadian citizenship by the Secretary of State Department. The pamphlet "How to Become a Canadian Citizen" is at present in the hands of the king's printer and should be ready for issue to clerks of the court within the next few weeks. In order to meet the needs of immigrants recently arriving, including the Polish veterans, part II of this manual was translated into Polish and Dutch and mimeographed for distribution. In this mimeographed form so distributed it was called "Facts About Canada."


CONFISCATION OF MILK POWDER
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1. Did the government acquire rolleT process milk powder under confiscation order No. 88 passed August 1, 1946? If so, from how many persons or firms?
_ 2. What were the names of such persons or firms and what was the amount of milk powder taken in each case?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	By order No. 88 of the Dairy Products Board, 75 per cent of all roller process dry skim milk manufactured for human consumption on and after the 1st of August, 1946, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, was requisitioned for export to the United Kingdom ministry of food. Supplies were obtained from 34 firms.
2.	(a) Names and addresses of the firms which shipped roller process dry skim milk through the board are as follows:
The Borden Co., Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Malcolm Condensing Co. Ltd., St. George, Ont.
Inquiries of the Ministry

Purity Dairies Ltd., Windsor, Ont.
Les Produits Laitiers "Cartier" Ltd., Gron-dines, Que.
Central Dairies Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.
The Marshall Dairy Co., Jarvis, Ont.
Canada Packers Ltd., Harriston, Ont.
New Dundee Co-op. Creamery Ltd., New Dundee, Ont.
Cremerie Drummondville, Drummondville, Que.
Vermette & Fils Ltd,, Danville, Que.
Villa Nova Dairy Products Co-op., Waterford, Ont.
Sawyerville Creamery, Sawyerville, Que.
Sutton Milk Products Ltd., Sutton, Que.
J. J. Joubert Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Dominion Dairies Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Cremerie South Durham, South Durham, Que.
Laiterie St-Joseph. Enrg, St-Joseph, Que,
Cow & Gate (Canada) Ltd., Gananoque, Ont.
Champlain Milk Products Co., Ltd., Stan-bridge. Que.
Fordwich Creamery, Fordwich, Ont.
Beilechasse Dairy Products Ltd., La Duran-taye, Que.
Caledonia Creamery Ltd., Caledonia, Ont.
Stacey Bros, Ltd., Monkton, Ont.
Cremerie St. Hvacintlhe, St. Hyacinthe, Que.
United Farmers' Co-op. Ltd., Guelph, Ont,
Dalpe & Frere, Vercheres, Que.
Soeiete Co-op. Agric. du Canton. Granby, Que.
Ault Creamery Ltd., Winchester, Ont.
Pleasant View Dairy Ltd., Pembroke, Ont.
Lower St-Lawrence Dairy Prod. Ltd, Mont-Joli, Que.
St-Bonaventure Creamery, Co. Yamaska, St-Bonaventure, Que.
Tillsonburg Creamery, Tillsonburg, Ont.
Ste-Sophie Creamery, Co. Megantic, Ste-Sophie. Que.
The Borden Co, Ltd, Ottawa, Ont.
(b) Total amount shipped 6.231.332 pounds.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	What orders in council have been passed in reference to importation, export and price of fertilizer ingredients and/or fertilizer mixes, since 1939?
2.	Have any of such orders in council been rescinded and, if so, at what date?
3.	What wartime prices and trade board orders have been made concerning price, sale, distribution or mix of fertilizer or fertilizer ingredients since 1939?
[Mr. E. Bertrand.!


FOREIGN EXCHANGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Could
the Minister of Finance make a further statement on the gold situation, the parity of the dollar and the sterling area?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: No; it is not my intention to
make any further statement.


BINDER TWINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on complaints I have received by air mail over the week-end. Will the minister give the necessary direction so that binder twine on which the subsidy has been paid by the government will be sold to the farmers at the old price?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had no notice of this question.
I shall look into the matter.

1944 PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE PAYMENTS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have received today your resolutions from farmers in the drought devastated areas of Saskatchewan inquiring whether the minister could not speed up the distribution of the 1944 participation certificate payments. Could not something be done to have distribution made in areas where there has been a great diminution in crop prospects?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I intend to announce some
day this week that the barley payments are in the mail, and immediately afterward the 1944 participation payments will be proceeded with. I shall take note of the situation referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre. As a matter of fact, the wheat board are anxious to see that the first cheques that are issued shall go to the drought areas or the areas, where they are needed the most.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a real demand for them.

Trust Companies Act


EXCISE AND SALES TAXES-PETITION FROM BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I believe the Minister of Finance has an answer to the question I asked a week ago today which he did not have an opportunity of answering then.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I have received the representations which were referred to. and they are being given the usual careful consideration in the department.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 417, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford. City) in the chair.
On section 1-Corporations.
Mr. IRVINE:: I was one of those who asked that this bill be sent to the appropriate committee for consideration. There is nothing in the bill which under the present way of doing things is particularly objectionable, but personally I oppose the idea of mortgage and insurance companies having full control of all the investment funds of Canada. However. perhaps this is not tihe moment to fight that.
There is only one part of the bill to which I take objection, and I want to register my protest now. It is covered by a certain section of the bill which I suppose I cannot refer to now' because we are not on that section.


John George Diefenbaker: What section is it?


William Irvine: Section 7, subsection 2,
permits companies to split their shares. I have always been opposed to that, and I cannot see any need for it with companies of this kind. It may well be, as was pointed out by someone in the committee, that this provision will not be used, but the fact that these companies are permitted to do it is something to which I want to take objection. Everyone knows that once shares are split there is an immediate tendency for the price of the shares to increase. The excuse is put forward that this is done in order that poorer people may make investment. If they do make investment, under these circumstances 83166-354
they are buying at a higher price, and if they are ever to receive a profit on their investment, higher charges will have to be made to the public who borrow money. Moreover, this may be used as a cover-up for higher profits; I understand that that kind of practice is not uncommon. I just want to say that I am opposed to that section of the bill and to the principle which allows private corporations to manage the whole investment of Canadian funds.


Thomas Langton Church: This matter came up the other evening in connection with the amalgamation of two existing trust companies which I opposed on account of the lack of any public control of these trust companies in their methods of handling these. The time has come when the definition should be changed because these trusts and combines and restraints of trade are flourishing like a green bay tree in Canada at present. The objection I have is that the changes in definition in the act do not go far enough. Trust companies in the different provinces are being united and large splits of capital are being made for the benefit of the existing shareholders who haire advance notice of what is going to be done. This has been happening very extensively in recent days. I know I have seen advertisements in the newspapers giving notice of this action by mergers of these trust companies soon to become a monopoly. They are handing out stock split up at par and sold to the public at 125. There should be further legislation to give more control of these national trust companies. 'The board of directors is being increased from twenty-one to thirty by this act, and when the number of directors is increased like that, the directors do not direct at all and control is under one central management. The trust company business has been a great success in this country and no doubt is a more efficient method of handling estates, but the time has come when there should be more regulation of this business in the public interest. There should be control of mergers and the issue of capital stock, which often permits the cutting of a huge melon running into millions, for the benefit of the few.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to take note of my hon. friend's observations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division, and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Militia Pension Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Militia Pension Act to provide that the governor in council may grant an annual pension to a member of the forces who has contributed to the consolidated revenue fund under Part Y of the act and who has served in>
the forces for ten years or upwards but less than twenty years, and who is certified by a bofird composed of not less than three medical officers of the forces as being disabled or incapable of performing his duties as a member of the forces.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. FULTON:: What scale of pension will be proposed by the bill to follow this resolution?


Mr. CLAXTON:: Exactly the same scale as would have been provided under the act before it was amended. Section 47 of the Militia Pension Act provides for the payment of a pension of one-fiftieth of the average pay and allowances of the officer or soldier for the previous six years of service multiplied by the actual number of years of service. It is the intention after the bill has been distributed to proceed with second reading today, if we can get unanimous consent.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Claxton thereupon moved leave to introduce Bill No. 456, to amend the Militia Pension Act,
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR CREDITING TO C.B.C. GROSS AMOUNT OF MONEYS RECEIVED FROM LICENCE FEES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Saturday, July 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann for the second reading of Bill No. 453, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned on Saturday 1 had just indicated some reasons why we were opposed to the granting of this $544,000 to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One of the reasons I gave was that I feel that the C.B.C. in its present set-up is

too much subject to political interference, and I want to enlarge on that for a moment.
It is not only the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself but the whole sphere of radio broadcasting, the issuing of licences and the whole field of radio in Canada that I have in mind. In other words I do not merely confine my remarks or intend them to apply only to the chairman and board of governors as being subject to political influence, but I say that the complicated set-up we have of three departments all interested in radio and the various steps that must be taken between the application for a licence to broadcast and the granting of such licence, leaves room for political interference. As I said, I dlo not intend to let it rest there, because I do not think that would be proper. I will cite instances in support of my contention that this state of affairs exists and that it should be changed in any event, but certainly changed before we approve the granting of any further money to the corporation.	,
During the sittings of the radio committee it was alleged that in the choice of news commentators those favourable to government policy were favoured over those unfavourable to government policy, and that in the broadcasting of news by the C.B.C. there were occasions when political considerations were borne in mind. I want to cite an instance of that last statement.
On Tuesday, July 8, there was a very important debate in this house on the Civil Sendee Act. It was suggested that merchant seamen should !be given a preference under that act, and other veterans' benefits. A motion was made to that effect which led to a division of the house. In the debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and three other ministers of the crown intervened!. It was the occasion of one of the closest divisions of the session. The motion to extend these benefits to merchant seamen was rejected as a result-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: My hon. friend is
completely out of order.


James Horace King: Order. The hoE. member should not refer to a previous debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not going to refer to the subject matter. I merely want to remind the house that this debate took place, and of the circumstances surrounding it, because it enters into the case I am making.
On the same day the report of the radio committee was presented to the house. That report, was not discussed, Concurrence was not moved; it was merely presented. The report was favourable to the C.B.C. and t-o

Canadian Broadcasting Act
government policy. In the C.B.C. national news broadcast that night no reference was made to the discussion on the merchant seamen, but extended reference was made to the radio report. I looked up the Canadian Press news dispatches, because the C.B.C. gets its news largely from the Canadian Press, and is free to edit it, omitting such parts as it wishes. A full dispatch on the merchant seamen was sent out by the Canadian Press at 3.43 p.m. and it was marked with the code 95, which is the code they use to draw' these matters especially to the attention of news editors. It cannot be said that the matter was not drawn to the attention of the C.B.C. news editors by the Canadian Press. The radio committee report was also sent out. The fact of its presentation and a summary of it were sent out, but not until 7.30 p.m. because the report was not presented until the evening sitting, so that we have the case of one debate in which ministers of the crown intervened, which would certainly have been very' interesting to the people in Halifax, not referred to in the news broadcast. It would have been very interesting to them to know that the proposals to extend the benefits to merchant seamen had been rejected, by a vote in this house.


Mr. EMMERSON:: And that you moved it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not move it; I was not here myself. It would have been interesting to the people down there to know of this situation. No reference was made to that debate in the news broadcast, but extensive reference was made to the radio committee report, although it was not debated.
Mr. MeCANN: That is because the hon. member was a member of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And because it was favourable to government policy.


Henry Read Emmerson: Do not feel badly about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is one instance of political shading being given to a news report; but a more serious instance of political interference in the work of radio broadcasting was referred to in the proceedings of the committee itself, and it has to do with the granting of a licence for an Ottawa radio station.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member. On Saturday I called the attention of hon. members to the fact that on second reading of a bill only the general principle should 'be discussed. My attention was drawn to the fact that there was an agreement between leaders of the different parties that they could discuss the report of the radio committee. This is Mon-83166-354J
day. I wonder whether it is my duty to remind hon. members that they ought to confine their remarks to the general principle of the bill which is before the house. After all, it is very short and has to do with receiving licence fees. The explanatory notes read as follows:
Receiving licence fees are, at present, subject to deductions for collection and administrative expenses by the licensing authority. This amendment is to provide for the full licence fee paid by licensed listeners and private station broadcasting licences to be used exclusively for broadcasting.
May I ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the principle of the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, there was a complete understanding that there would be no limitation on the discussion of this measure at this time.


Mr. REID:: Hear, hear.


John Bracken: That was the arrangement made by some member of the government with those on this side of the house.


Thomas Reid: It certainly was.


John Bracken: I respectfully suggest,
therefore, that no limitation be put on the discussion at this time, in view of the understanding I have mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My opposition to this
measure is based largely on the fact that the present set-up is subject to political influence, and I am now seeking to support that statement. I go further than that and say that not only is it subject to political influence but when we seek the true reasons behind some of the decisions which are made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or the licensing authority, these reasons are suppressed and the full information is not made available to members of the committee-
During the proceedings of the committee on Friday, June 27, I made reference to the granting of a licence to station CFRA in Ottawa. The situation behind that, Mr. Speaker, is this. An application was made before June of 1945 for a licence for an additional radio station in Ottawa. That application was turned down. After June of 1945, which was, you will recall, the date of the last general election, three applications were submitted, amongst them one by the same man who had made .the previous application. After June of 1945 the application for a licence was granted to the person who had been turned down previously. I referred to this matter in the committee and asked for a copy of the
Canadian Broadcasting Act

briefs submitted in support of the application, because I had been given to understand that one' of the unsuccessful applicants had submitted the best brief that had ever been submitted in support of an application for a radio licence. Therefore I wanted to get the briefs, and I also asked the chairman of the board of governors if he could tell me why this individual who was previously turned down should, a few months later, be given approval of his licence to broadcast. I received no satisfactory explanation. I suggested in the committee that it was because this individual was the radio publicity manager for the Liberal campaign, particularly the Prime Minister's campaign, in the last election and had been the cheer leader at the Prime Minister's last meeting here in Ottawa on June 8. The fact was questioned, Mr. Speaker, by the chairman of the committee. He asked whether that was true or not. Since he questioned it I read to the committee a report of the meeting from the Ottawa Journal, which reads as follows:
Five minutes before Mr. King spoke, a Montreal man, Frank Ryan, explained to the crowd how to applaud "to make it sound good." They must, he instructed, start the applause with a short sharp burst, sustain the volume and then cut it off abruptly. "You must clap loudly," he advised, "to show that you have plenty of enthusiasm." At that one of the hecklers in the upper seats shouted: "But we haven't any enthusiasm, Bud." During the .early stages of Mr. King's address, and at its conclusion. Mr. Ryan "cued" the applause. To bring it up he swept his hands up from the floor and pushed them above his head. And to cut the applause, he flattened his hands in the manner of a college cheer-leader "ending a ..stunt."
I asked the chairman of the board of governors whether these facts had any influence on the granting to Mr. Ryan of his licence. He said no, so far as the C.B.C. itself was concerned. I asked him for an explanation of why this man who had previously been refused his licence should subsequently be granted it, and in my submission, as is supported by the report of the proceedings, he was not able to give that explanation. I asked him for a copy of the briefs tabled in support of the various applications so that we might have an opportunity to compare them to see whether Mr. Ryan's application was a better one than the others. That will be found on page 497 of the committee's proceedings. I asked Mr. Dunton this question:
By Mr. Fulton:
Q. May I repeat my request for the other two briefs?-A. I have a copy of Mr. Freiman's brief which, again. I would ask to have back because it is the file copy. I have a copy of the endorsations for Mr. Shearer. I do not think Mr. Shearer had any written brief.
JMr. Fulton.]
Before I go any further I charge that the documents we asked for were, firstly, suppressed and secondly, when they were tabled they were distorted. I ask the house to listen carefully to the reply made by Mr. Dunton:
I have a copy of the endorsations for Mr. Shearer. I do not think Mr. Shearer had any written brief. He presented his arguments orally and supported them, with copies of endorsations from various organizations who thought there should be another station.
Q. You say he did not submit an engineering brief?-A. When I refer to a "brief" now, I am using it in the sense of arguments and reasons why a person should have a licence, not a technical brief. These briefs dealt with considerations as to why there should be a station and why these people should be the people to have it.
He said that Mr. Shearer had not submitted a brief, so we were not in a position to compare Mr. Shearer's brief, which I had been informed was one of the best ever submitted, with Mr. Ryan's brief. Mr. Ryan was the successful applicant for the reasons I have submitted. Shortly after that, when these proceedings had been printed and circulated, it came to my attention that Mr. Shearer had in fact submitted a brief in support of his application, and I have a copy of it in my hand. On reading it through-I shall be glad to show it to any member of the house- it seems to me to compare more than favourably with the brief submitted by Mr. Ryan,, both in its contents and when read together with the endorsations of Mr. Shearer's brief bv those who supported his application, and also in the general arguments set forth by him as to why he should have his station. It is clear that his was a better presentation than the presentation of the successful applicant. the one who was subsequently granted the licence.
Perhaps this might have been an oversight or an omission, a spell of forgetfulness on the part of the chairman of the board of governors. But it has come to my attention further that this brief of Mr. Shearer's was, when he presented it, an integral part of his whole submission. We asked the chairman of the board of governors to table copies of the briefs submitted by the three applicants. He did so, but in Mr. Shearer's application there is only the endorsation; there is no written brief.
It has come to my attention since that time that this brief of Mr. Shearer's,- a copy of which I now hold in my hand, was at the time he made his submission bound with and formed an integral part of the whole thing presented to the chairman and board of governors, Doctor Frigon and Mr. Manson. So

Canadian Broadcasting Act
that the only way this document in the black cover could have been tabled in the committee without the brief was by undoing the binding and taking out the brief and so tabling the document. The copy of the brief that I have is punched in such a way that it could be bound in, and it was bound in with this other document.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Where did you get it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hold your horses. I will come to that. In case anyone thinks I am only fabricating a case and that I should have brought it to the attention of the chairman of the committee or some other government official


Mr. MAYBANK:: I am not a government official.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I want the house to know that, when it was discovered that this was the situation a letter was written which confirms my statements. I have a copy of this letter now and I should like to read it:
61 Marlowe Crescent, Ottawa, 9/7/47.	'
Mr. R. Maybank,
Chairman,
Committee on Radio Broadcasting,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:-
On reading section 11 of the minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Page 497) I note that the chairman of the board of governors, Mr. I Linton, stated, in replying to a question asked by committee member Fulton, that he was under the impression that no written brief was presented by the writer on the occasion of appealing before the board to make formal application for a broadcasting license in the city of Ottawa.
In order to correct any misunderstanding on this matter I am accompanying this communication with a copy of the submission made to the board by myself on the above mentioned occasion. You will note that it consists of a brief together with letters of endorsation bound together in one folder. Copies were submitted to the chairman, members of the board, Dr. Frigon and Mr. Manson.
That letter is signed by the applicant.


Ralph Maybank: Will the hon. member permit one question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at this particular point. Wait until I am finished with this paragraph. So that by that letter an opportunity was given to make a statement to explain why the brief was not tabled. That explanation has not been given either publicly, to date, or privately, because I know that no answer has been received to that letter.


Ralph Maybank: This is my question, if the hon. member will now permit it. Am I to understand that there is any suggestion here that I withheld something from the committee that should have been presented to the committee? Is that his suggestion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Ralph Maybank: Thank you. That is all I wanted to know.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that this letter was addressed to the chairman of the committee so that it cannot be said that I have kept these facts secret and am now trotting them out without giving the government a chance.


Ralph Maybank: Nor does the hon.
member mean to suggest that the chairman of the committee had it and withheld it? Does he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Ralph Maybank: Thank you. That is all I want to be sure of.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was not suggested nor was it stated. The statement I make is that the chairman of the committee had this letter and had it on July 9, so that there was an opportunity to investigate the whole matter.


Ralph Maybank: That is just the point. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if the charge is that I had the letter which the hon. member has read, or anything he has now referred to, from Mr. Shearer, before the committee had closed, I say now that is not true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not say before the committee had closed.


Ralph Maybank: Before there was an opportunity of dealing with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the 9th of July.


Ralph Maybank: Well, all right-


Edmund Davie Fulton: This letter was addressed and left in the office of the chairman of the radio committee, so that there has. been an opportunity to explain, either privately or publicly, the facts I am now laying before the house, and that explanation has not been given. If the hon. member wants to give the explanation I shall be glad to have him explain it.


Ralph Maybank: How could I explain it privately to him when he was off in Haliax?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wanted to take this opportunity to make this explanation. I do

Canadian Broadcasting Act
not think there is much more to say on that point, but I suggest, in fact I state, that these facts indicate that there were political considerations present in the granting of the Ottawa licence and an attempt was made to keep the true facts from the committee, so that we could not assess the thing at its face value. With the brief we now have which was submitted in support of Mr. Shearer's application-


Ralph Maybank: On a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is clear that this brief-


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, I demand that so far as I am referred to in the remarks of the hon. member, they be withdrawn. They are absolutely untrue. They lack any scintilla of truth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have made no reference to the hon. member in my remarks, and, as far as he is concerned, I have nothing to withdraw.


Ralph Maybank: He made a reference to me and stated that there were political considerations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With deference, I submit that the hon. member is distorting what I said. I did not make reference to him and say that there were political considerations. I said that in the evidence presented to the committee there was a suppression of facts, which facts now being disclosed make it clear that there were political considerations in the granting of the licence.


Mr. McOANN:: By whom?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of
order. There are rules, as your honour knows very well, in regard to innuendo. My hon. friend (Mr. Maybank) was chairman of that committee, in complete charge and direction of its activities. The hon. member for Kamloops says there was a deliberate suppression of material evidence before that committee. That is a definite implication of motives and an innuendo, and I think is against the established rules of procedure of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I suggest that his opinion indicates that he has not been following the controversy very closely.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Too closely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that in the evidence submitted before the committee, the whole evidence was not tabled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I never listened to
such nonsense in this house in all my life.


James Horace King: Order. May I suggest
to the hon. member who has the floor that if hon. members do not insist upon his withdrawing what he has said, at least he should modify his statement. If I understood him rightly, he said that the truth was hidden, and that it was done for a political purpose. He knows very well that is against the rules of the house, which protect members. The rules say that hon. members must not impute motives. If an hon. member does not refer to another hon. member particularly but refers to a committee and makes subjective accusations, motives are imputed not only against one member but against many. I do not think it is fair for the hon. member to use in this house the expression he has just used. If hon. members do not insist upon asking the hon. member to withdraw, I think he should at least modify what he has said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to explain clearly what I have said. I did not say that the evidence was suppressed in the committee by the chairman or any member of the committee. Nor did I say that it was suppressed by the committee for political reasons. What I said was that political considerations entered into the granting of these licences.


James Joseph McCann: By whom?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, by whom?


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it was sought to establish-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By whom?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By the licensing authorities.


James Joseph McCann: What was the political consideration?


Edmund Davie Fulton: What we were seeking to
establish was the truth with regard to applications for and the granting of licences. This evidence was suppressed. That is what I said and that is what I maintain; .and I do not think I have anything to withdraw.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the hon.
member who suppressed the evidence?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know. I wish
someone would find out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend does not know, he has not any moral or parliamentary right to say what he has said in this house.

Canadian Broadcasting Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) thinks he can shout me down, he is wrong. I have considered this matter carefully and I repeat my statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is nothing but suspicion, surmise, and a sinister -mind.


Mr. FRASER:: That ought to be withdrawn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member
should substantiate what he says.


James Horace King: Order. I understand the hon. member for Kamloops to say that the accusation he made during his speech was not directed at the radio committee. If it was not directed against the radio committee, of course, it is not directed against any member of the house. That being so, it is not my duty to intervene. It is not my duty to protect strangers to the House of Commons.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: To whom it may concern.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have only this to say with regard to the matter: had I any reason to believe that any member of the committee or of the house suppressed this information. I would have made the same accusations, realizing full well my position.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is the hon. member looking for a black cat in a dark room without a candle?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He has found the cat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I am not. The Minister of Labour was in such a hurry to interrupt me that I did not hear him in full.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will repeat what I said: I asked if the hon. member was looking for a black cat in a dark room without a candle.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a clever remark.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He has found the cat all right. Hon. gentlemen opposite want to watch out that it does not scratch.
Mr. FULTON; I am looking for light in the dark recesses of what goes on when broadcasting licences are granted. If the Minister of Labour objects to that, perhaps he will look into the question himself and have it straightened out, because three other departments have not been able to do anything better with it so far.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two or three more
candles are required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I have had to say I have said because I feel there is political consideration and political influence in the operation of radio broadcasting, in so far as government control is concerned. What we want to see is the public control of radio broadcasting, and the granting of licences particularly, removed from the operating body and removed farther from immediate direct interference by ministers. In that connection I want to read a passage from the radio committee's report, because it does not accurately reflect the submissions which were made. At page 737 . . .


James Horace King: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member again, but his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of interruptions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who brought fhem on?


James Horace King: If the hon. member wishes to conclude his speech, with the unanimous consent of the house he may do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I should just like to say one or two things.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time!
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, which, as the house knows, can be taken up at any time according to the rules.


Mr. KNOWLES:: It must be with regard to a recent occurrence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In Hansard of yesterday, page 5546. the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saturday. We did not sit yesterday.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope my hon. friend went to church yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I hope the minister went to church with the hon. member for Skeena.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Skeena. in finishing his speech is alleged to have said, "Lon-g may your chimney smoke." That is an affront to the vocabulary of one of the most ancient countries of the world. The proper quotation- is, "Lang may your lum reek." The hon. member is misquoted; and I take up the cudgels on his behalf.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present when the radio committee report was before the
Canadian Broadcasting Act

house, but I have noted that there was a suggestion to the effect that some latitude might be allowed in this debate. I do not propose to speak at any great length, and may I add that I think no member of this house at this stage of the session should1 be accorded the privilege of speaking beyond the time allowed by the rules of the house. If I am in the house I intend to object to any such course; and I hope that if I exceed my time or attempt to do so, I too will be stopped at the appropriate moment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We will look after that.


Major James William Coldwell: I merely want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that the privileges which have been granted to the private stations over the years have accumulated to the extent of endangering the whole future of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I regretted that there were some recommendations in the report of the committee which made a further step in the direction of interference with the nationally-owned system. I have reference particularly to the extension of the licence for a period of three years. I think that is a mistake; I believe it places the private stations in a position which was not contemplated either when the Aird report was made or when the various parliamentary committees reported to this house from time to time. I feel that we are now suffering from an accumulation of weaknesses on the part of the broadcasting corporation to whom we entrusted the authority with regard to broadcasting in this country! Step by step, year by year, one can trace the granting of further bits of privilege; the kilowatt power of a private station increased, and so on, until today, contrary to the very fundamentals of the radio and broadcasting acts, the private stations believe they have an unlimited vested right in public property, that is, in wave lengths. That point of view has been placed before the public through advertising and various forms of propaganda during the sittings of the committee.
In my view the brief presented by the private broadcasting corporations was not a brief directed only against the method of operating the corporation under the departments; rather it was a criticism, a condemnation of our whole system of parliamentary and representative government, and I felt that the brief was written by people who had no appreciation of our British institutions and of the representative system under which we operate in this country. If we allowed the kind of organization to be set up which they propose in their brief we would be setting up in this country one of those organizations

which would lead us into what is popularly called throughout the world a fascist state.
So I regret that some of the recommendations by the committee were in the nature of giving further privileges. I am sorry, too, that the report seems at least to condone both multiple ownership, which I believe is a menace to freedom in this country, and the newspaper ownership of radio stations, which restricts the free control of news services. May I just add that I know from conversation'-and I repeat that-I know from conversation with at least two gentlemen who are members of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the private interests, that while they are members of that organization they did not agree with the brief or the recommendations contained in the brief. I have since learned) that there are other stations in much the same position; but in spite of their belief that the C.A.B. is more or less dominated by one or two powerful radio stations in this country, and because they need certain services which the C.A.B. gives them, they diid not like to come before the committee or to dissociate themselves from the representations wdrich were made mainly I believe on behalf of several large stations or groups in this country.
A moment ago I said I was not going to make a long speech. I have referred briefly to matters which I think are of fundamental importance in the radio field. I regret that something was not done to order the divorce of radio stations from newspaper ownership, and to break up those monopolies which are growing up in relation to multiple ownership. In this province we have one group owning or operating some six or eight radio stations, I believe; and the kind of service they give at Kirkland Lake, Timmins and other places, with the advertising all day long, the use of recordings, and the way those stations are operated, have caused the people in those districts to complain. And may I add that in this province of Ontario there is another very legitimate complaint. That is that we have one important part of this province where there is not proper coverage by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I refer to the Windsor area, where there is one powerful station, CKLW, wdiich is advertised throughout the United States as "CKLW, Windsor and Detroit" and is classified in United States lists of broadcasting stations as an American station. As I said to the committee when I was there on one occasion the people of that city resent very greatly the fact that over that station they cannot get the news summaries of the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora-

Canadian Broadcasting Act
tion, but they do get news commentaries from the American side. One of the reasons this broadcasting corporation was set up years ago, when the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was in power in this country, to some extent was to safeguard our radio from domination by our great, powerful and friendly neighbour to the south. I say to the minister and through him to the board of governors of the broadcasting corporation that they should make every effort to establish in the Windsor area a station that will give the service the people of that area require, and which will be a thoroughly Canadian station with sufficient coverage for the area that should be covered from that point.
I am not joining the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in his remarks concerning political interference, because I have no direct evidence of it, and I do not like to make statements without the evidence to back them up. But I do think it more than passing strange that in the last two or three years forums which discussed public affairs in a very broad manner and from many points of view have been discontinued. There is the labour forum, for example. I know there are difficulties in a country where you have two labour congresses involved, but two or three years ago when the labour forum was operating it discussed labour problems; and as the committee knows there are some stations in this country which have made it very difficult indeed under certain circumstances for labour to get its point of view before the public.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not the C.B.C.


Major James William Coldwell: No. I qualify that
statement to that extent; not the CJB.C. but private stations. I was going on to say that one of the reasons I believe we should make sure we have the labour forum on the C.B.C. is found in the restrictions imposed by certain private stations.


Thomas Reid: There should be some way
to correct the pressure groups that attend those stations. I do not know your experience, but our experience on the coast was that many speakers had a very hard time of it owing to the crowd being packed.


Major James William Coldwell: If the broadcasts are from public meetings and people are invited to attend, you cannot say to certain people, "You cannot come to these public meetings because you hold a certain point of view."


Thomas Reid: I realize that.


Mr OOLDWELL:: It is up to the people who want to get their own point of view supported at those meetings, if you like, to 83166-355
see to it that those who hold similar points of view are invited. I know of no pressure exerted on any groups of people to attend, but I imagine there are some people who are a little more interested than others in public affairs the year round, who are not only interested in public affairs when elections roll around. These people probably do attend the forums. The point I am making, however, is that because of the undue restrictions imposed and the difficulties placed in the way of labour getting time on certain private stations, the labour forum should be continued by the C.B.C. The farm forum is rendering a splendid service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why was the labour forum discontinued?


Major James William Coldwell: The reason that has
been given, I think, is that it was so difficult to organize them when you had a divided labour force; but I say to the minister I think that difficulty can be overcome.
I have noticed also changes in the corporation's broadcasts in other respects. Up to two or three years ago we had some fine programmes with social implications with which I sometimes found myself in sharp disagreement. However, I notice that that kind of dramatic presentation, Stage 47, Stage 46, Stage 45 and so on, has been replaced by programmes that are also excellent but different. I can think of the presentation of one or two Shakespearian plays and some Dickens stone* in drama form which were done most splei* didly last winter. I regret to note that we are losing to the Columbia Broadcasting System in the United States some of the personnel who undertook these splendid pieces of drama.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What does my hon. friend think of the idea of the radio committee of the House of Commons working out a tentative programme for the year?


Major James William Coldwell: I think that would be an infringement of the right of the corporation to decide on broadcasts for this country. I do not think a parliamentary committee or any member of the government or any member of the opposition should interfere with the plans of the broadcasting corporation. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said he can think of nothing which would be more inefficient than a parliamentary committee drawing up a programme. Obviously we are not well enough equipped to do that kind of job whereas the experts in the broadcasting corporation should be. I would like to see every attempt made to keep personnel here, and largely that is a matter of dollars and cents One of the reasons

Canadian Broadcasting Act

I am for the bill now before the committee is that it will give more revenue to the corporation and perhaps will enable them to do better than they have been able to do lately.
I regret to see the infringement of advertising on the time of the corporation's broadcasts. Some of these programmes give me, if I may use a colloquialism, a pain in the neck. When I hear some of these soap operas I can almost smash my radio, especially when I hear someone crying over the radio, "Rinso white" and whistling or something of that sort. Some of these advertisers underrate the intelligence of the Canadian people when they insult us with that kind of advertising and that kind of crooning over the radio.


Thomas Reid: You can include Sinatra in that.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I include Sinatra quite gladly, and I would include some other people I know as well.
I was diverted from what I was saying about the censorship exercised by private stations over the kind of programme that shall be given, the refusal to give time to labour organizations, and so on. I have run across a case

I shall not give the name of the station because they are doing a good job otherwise-in which a station took the position that when one spoke on the radio and discussed matters of public interest he must not name any company. For example, if I wanted to say that the profits of the Aluminum Company of Canada or of Canada Packers in a given year were so and so, I could not give the name of the company; I would have to say, "a certain company". That is carrying the law of slander to a degree which is utterly ridiculous.


An hon. MEMBER:: What station is that?


Major James William Coldwell: I said I did not want to say, because the station is rendering good service. I shall be glad to give the corporation the name if they desire in order that they may send out a memorandum to the station as to what constitutes the law of slander.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is permitted to ask where the station is?


Major James William Coldwell: If I tell my hon. friend that it is not in Vancouver, that should satisfy him. I hope hon. members from various parts of the country will not ask the same question.


Mr. HACKETT:: The charge of unfairness will rest against all1 stations unless the hon. member states where this one is located.


Major James William Coldwell: I suggested there was just the one station.


John Thomas Hackett: They all remain under that charge.


Major James William Coldwell: Let the corporation send but a general directive, because I imagine there are other stations which take an unfair position in regard to this matter. There is one other thing I should like to say with regard to stations. It was stated some time ago in this house that the national system of broadcasting meant that provincial governments should not own or operate radio stations. The province of Manitoba continues to own CKY at Winnipeg and CKX at Brandon. Some time ago the province of Saskatchewan, from which I come, tried to buy CHAB at Moose Jaw, but they were denied the right to purchase that station on the ground that henceforth no provincial government was to be permitted to own a radio station. I understand the radio act in the province of Quebec has never been implemented, but that act would permit provincial ownership of radio stations.
I am in agreement with the principle that there should not be two governmental authorities involved in the radio field because of the difficulties that might arise between them. I have supported that policy, but if we are to have that policy, let it be carried out. Let the government of Canada say to the government of Manitoba, "We have denied Saskatchewan, we have denied Alberta, we have denied Quebec the right to own and operate radio stations. On and after a certain date in the near future unless we can come to an arrangement with you or you cannot otherwise dispose of your station we shall have to take steps to expropriate the station in Manitoba." There is a present injustice to Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and any other provinces which desire to own and operate radio stations.


Thomas Reid: Would the hon. member be in favour of the recommendation of the Aird commission that provincial governments be represented in regard to the programmes?


Major James William Coldwell: That is a little different from owning and operating a radio station. I think representation by the provinces on the authority was a good recommendation by the Aird commission.


James Joseph McCann: There is geographical representation now.


Thomas Reid: Every provincial government acquiesced in and was willing to co-operate in connection with that suggestion of the Aird commission.

Canadian Broadcasting Act


Major James William Coldwell: Under the act that is a matter for the minister to decide. At the moment the contention is that we do have geographical representation. That is a matter we may discuss in the radio committee another year. I am not going to prolong this debate because I think I have made the points I had in mind. In my opinion and in the opinion of many thousands of people in this country, the majority of the people, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is performing an excellent service. Recently I spent a week in the west-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought you were in Halifax.	[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: I was in Halifax more recently. I was unable to get back to my constituency before because of the meeting of the assembly of the united, nations last year; I promised that I would go there the first week in July and I fulfilled my promise. I was interested in meeting a number of people and asking them casually about the C.B.C. I drew their attention to the fact that a public opinion poll had been taken by Elliott-Haynes which would seem to indicate that the people in rural areas preferred listening to private stations. I think I got an explanation of that. "Yes," they said, " we like the private station at certain times and would not like to do without it, because we get something over the private stations that we do not get over C.B.C. The C.B.C. programmes are fine and we like them. They are better as a rule than the programmes we get over the private stations, but we tune in at eleven o'clock in the morning to Saskatoon, Prince Albert or Regina and we hear how our neighbours are. They give us the hospital reports, and a little later in the day events that are coming off in which we are interested. Consequently when we are asked if we like the programmes over the local station our answer is an emphatic yes, but that does not mean that we dislike the programmes over C.B.C." Indeed, when you pin them down they will tell you that the best programmes they hear come over the national station at Watrous, but they tune in as well to the local stations to get hospital news and local events in which they may be interested. I think that is the explanation.
Speaking for myself as an inveterate listener to the radio when I have the opportunity, I think that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done a wmnderful service over the years in improving the taste for good music, good drama and. good literature, and I want to see it continued. I do not want to see mere money-making organizations utilizing the air waves to give to the people pro-83166-355 J:
grammes that will entice them to listen to all kinds of advertising. Amusement, entertainment-yes; that is part of the work of C.B.C., but not all of it. Part of the work of the broadcasting corporation, should be step by step to raise the cultural level of the Canadian people. I wish we could have two or even three national networks in this country giving the people a chance to hear what they want. They are doing that with great success in Britain now, but we are such a large country which presents so many difficulties that that cannot be undertaken. But this I do say, that the local community station does perform a service and should remain a local community station and no more. The C.B.C. also performs a great national service and parliament should do all it can to protect them in the national interest. I support this bill because it does go a little way in doing what I believe sooner or later we must do in a larger way, and that is provide the corporation with additional funds.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I am not. a member of the radio committee. I remember when I was a member of the House of Commons in 1936 the Conservative government under Mr. Bennett introduced a bill regarding this corporation. I object to the principle of the bill before us for three or four reasons and my objections are these. You are handing over this money to the government-controlled radio. The auditor general has no control over it because the corporation have their own auditors. As for the board of directors, they are a political board and always have been. The only one who was not, Fred Crawford, was one of our leading citizens in Toronto who was greatly interested in community and social work of all kinds, a sportsman and a good business man all combined, one of our most popular citizens.
What are you going to do by this act? If you pass this bill the House of Commons washes its hands of any control over this corporation. In the first place this corporation has not sufficient business capacity to handle the job. I got a return brought down in the house the year before last and last year as to the number of prosecutions, by provinces, for failure to pay the licence fee of $2.50. The fee should be abolished altogether. If you are going to have a monopoly corporation you should have a free system. That should have been done long ago. I can tell you this, that the return I got in 1945 and 1946 showed that 70 per cent of the prosecutions were taking place in our city; in Ottawa and Hull there were practically no prosecutions and few in
5,564
Canadian Broadcasting Act

any of the other provinces. When the money provided by this bill is turned over to the corporation we have no longer any control over it. Yet it is proposed to hand this money over to the C.B.C. board. In the dying days of thi3 session boards seem to 'be paramount. We are creating all kinds of boards. If you want a radio board why do you not have an independent board like the transport commission? You might just as well hand control of the C.P.R. over to the C.N.R. as to appoint a board like this.
Our city has been a dumping ground for employees of the broadcasting corporation since it was set up. I do not blame the present minister because he has a very likeable personality in my opinion-although I am only one. I do not blame him for what is going on. I blame nobody except the high court of parliament for taking control every session out of the hands of parliament. I remember what went on in radio before the war. Everybody who was a pacifist was hired as a commentator over the radio. It was ridiculous. All these commentators were political appointments.
I do not blame the C.C.F. for wanting this and for wanting these commentators, but I say to them that if we pass this bill we shall make the broadcasting corporation a public monopoly, and the auditor general will be nowhere. He will have no control over the expenditure of that money, nor will parliament; they will say it is statutory now and refuse to give us any information. They must be pretty hard up, this corporation, and they are going to get still further hard up. When I see the waste that is going on in their purchasing of property in Toronto, at this time when there is such a shortage of houses, I am shocked. They are bringing people into Toronto from all over Canada from Vancouver to Halifax. These people do not belong to our city. They are being given good big jobs and some of them have very little to do. I remember a man called John Fisher, being brought into Toronto from Halifax. He had been attacking our city for years because of its political leanings. He was brought to Toronto. He has nothing much to do. He can occupy his time with his private interests on the radio for advertisers, boosting advertising, and so on. He is not the only one. They are bringing them in by the dozen, but I do not know of a Toronto citizen who can get a position with C.B.C. I do not know any of the directors or top officials of C.B.C. except that one very good man to whom I referred a moment ago. I paid my .$2.50 and shut the radio off and did not turn it on for six months. It is 
simply ridiculous. I remember on a Good Friday they were putting on jazz and all that kind of thing, on one of the greatest days in the Christian church. But they forgot all about that. I do not criticize them so much because there is no doubt they have some good programmes, but they are Washington-minded.
With all the advertising we have they are going to have a dictatorship; there will be no public control. We have one or two private stations in our city. No one has spoken to me about this bill. I have not had one person speak to me. I went down to the radio committee one morning to see one of our members. There was a big sign on the door marked "private". A messenger came to the door and told me it was private, that I had no business to go in, so I did not go in. I did not even attempt to enter the room. That is what happened. I never saw such nepotism in my life as exists in Toronto radio. They bring in their sisters, their cousins, their aunts and their uncles; they come from Halifax and Vancouver. That is the kind of commission we have.
The same thing applies to sports on the radio. Some of the individuals were never sportsmen at all. If we adopt this measure you can say goodbye to any public control of radio by the high court of parliament. It is no wonder that people are criticizing the House of Commons. In the dying days of the session a matter like this is brought up. The same thing is true of foreign affairs and everything else. They are all brought up in the dying hours of the session and1 are given five minutes' attention. We might just as well not be here at all. The committee was appointed early in the session and did not meet until after Easter, and then this came on. I do not mind my friends to the left getting up and speaking in favour of it. I am not objecting to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaking in favour of this bill. I spoke to the Minister of National Defence one night, when the hon. member was going over to Moscow, to pacify Russia, and11 told him he ought to send a bodyguard to ensure that he would get back; I was afraid he might be kidnapped. I am glad to see him here today.
I am not going to say any more. If the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson) will second my motion I shall move the six months hoist to this bill. Since I should1 like to see the house close on Wednesday morning I shall not say any more at this time. I do not see how the Liberal party and a government which believes in responsible government can bring in a measure like

Canadian Broadcasting Act
this giving this corporation absolute control of radio broadcasting. The commission has done nothing about aids to education in our public, separate and secondary schools. In England the British Broadcasting Corporation have done a great deal along that line.
As I said a while ago, not one single person has spoken to me about this bill.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Mr. Church
moves, seconded by Mr. Henderson:
That Bill No. 453 be not now read the second time, but that it be read the second time this day six months hence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to apologize for rising to speak on this bill at this time because I regard it as a matter of importance. It is not the fault of anyone on this side that for the second year in succession this matter has been left to what we all hope are the dying moments of the session. I think it is a great pity; it is a matter of great importance, and at any rate I am going to have my brief say today.
I am against the bill, not because I do not want to see the C.B.C. get a good show. I do want to see it get a good show. I have no desire whatever to see it cramped or hampered or badly treated, but I think this is the wrong way to give the money.
In his statement the minister confined himself, and properly so, to a mere statement of the reasons for the need of money and the adequacy of this means of raising the money. The minister did not go farther afield and deal, as some other hon. members have, with some of the more important questions which I submit underlie this. I want to refer briefly to these and in particular to one of them. I am not going to deal with a wide variety of subjects.
To my mind it is of great importance indeed to have what the committee report calls a "separate regulating board." Up to the present in this debate I think it is fair to say there has been no justification even attempted of that stand. The two persons who have referred to it are the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart)-and if I do not do him an injustice what he said was that he thought it would be worse to have the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in control than to have the C.B.C. I would not argue with him on that point because so far as I know nobody suggests that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters should be put in control. All that is being suggested is that we should have an independent body, and that is what I want to speak about. The other person who referred to this was the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). While he did not commit
himself to an independent board-because he said his mind was open on the subject, he said there had been difficulties with regard to the transport board-nevertheless he did indicate great dissatisfaction with the report of the committee.
Incidentally may I draw particularly to the attention of the house the arresting statement which was made with regard to the hon. member for New Westminster. Somebody to my left referred to him as the one just man, in the Liberal party. I think he said the one just man in the Liberal party or the one honest man. I wish to point out that I looked up the book of Genesis yesterday and I found that Abraham in his trafficking with the Almighty got to the point where Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved had there been ten just men in those cities. It did not get any lower than that. I submit that the Liberal party is in very great difficulty if it has only one just man in the party.


James Joseph McCann: Make another count.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not making the statement myself; I am merely quoting the statement.


Ralph Maybank: There were other cities at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to make a brief reference to a separate regulating board. This is what the report said:
In the result, your committee is not prepared at the present time to suggest any fundamental: change in radio regulation. The national broadcasting system is still in the transitional and developmental stage and the principles underlying its institution have the same force to-day as when the decision to establish it was made. Notwithstanding arguments advanced we do not feel justified under all the circumstances ino recommending a fundamental change now.
I submit therefore that this, to me, very important matter, more important than anything else in this discussion, has not even been argued. There has been no reason given, so far as I am aware, against this board. My feeling is that the reasons in favour of it are more strong now, and that they are just as much in the interest of the C.B.C. as they are in the interests of the private stations, and that is why I am in favour of this independent board.
The report itself is a disappointing document; it seems an apologetic document. It says that there is not much competition and that the operators are making money. To me the whole tenor of the report is apologetic. We have further the definite statement from the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) indicating the very unsatisfactory manner in
55(56
Canadian Broadcasting Act

which the report was arrived at, and that to my mind greatly accentuates what to me was the unsatisfactory present situation, and which I think is quite properly described by saying that the CJB.C. at the present time is judge and policeman, and somebody said executioner as well.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to the Canadian National Railways. I want to carry it one step further. He said it would be very unfair if the Canadian National Railways should be not only an operator but should control and dictate the whole railway policy of Canada. I go further than that and suggest that nobody would suggest that the Canadian National Railways should be put in that position. I should be very much surprised if anybody would suggest that. Why is it we have this situation in broadcasting? Why is it that what ordinarily would be regarded as the fair thing is not being done?
I made some inquiries and as far as I can discover the only reason is that in the early thirties when this was instituted-and incidentally the name of the former leader of this party was extensively quoted a year ago as having favoured it, which I believe he did -I am informed that at that time the guiding reason was that it was feared unless we appeared as a government, unless it was a government monopoly, we might not get anything like a fair share of the wave lengths. That was the reason which directed it at that time. Whatever may or may not be the reason then, so far as I can understand the situation, that reason has disappeared. We now have some kind of judicial allotment of wave lengths as between the countries, and therefore I suggest that we can go back to what I believe is the fair way and the only way of dealing with this situation. As things are at present we run into the situation where you have many of the evils of a monopoly.
I submit that uncontrolled monopoly is a bad thing. It is a bad thing if it is private monopoly, and in a way it is worse if it is government monopoly, because then unfortunately no one believes, at least a great many people do not believe, that it is entirely uncontrolled by government. Therefore I submit that makes an additional reason for setting up an independent board.
To me it is a great disappointment that this "matter has not even been discussed. It is important. There has been no speech on the *opposite side apart from the minister's, except bv the hon. member for New Westminster, who was critical. We have had no expression of views from the other side, and I do not 
believe for a moment that there are not people sitting opposite who have a feeling in favour of an independent board. It seems to me therefore that the situation we have here is nothing but a running away from the discussion of this question. No serious attempt has been made to raise" any question. The member for Rosetown-Biggar made an interesting speech in which he referred to various abuses which he thought might creep in, and all the time he was speaking I was thinking the best way of removing that feeling was to have an independent board, so that there might be no suspicion at all that the government interferes with its creature.
I want to say a word as to the bill itself. I began by saying that I was the last person who would wish to see the C.B.C. starve. I want to see it generously dealt with. But I submit that for reasons already given this is the wrong way to go about it. This is an indirect way which can only lead to misunderstandings and difficulties of various kinds. If the government wishes to give them further money, as it very well might, it should make a grant in the ordinary way and not adopt this indirect way, which defies all laws of good business and good governmental procedure as well.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I intend to commend very strongly the address of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell) in this debate. Some of us were in this house when this act was passed, and I may say, with reference to a great gentleman now gone from us, that a finer speech in regard to public ownership of radio was never made than that made by the then leader of the government, R. B. Bennett. It was a sincere, a magnificent speech. However, sir. I must say this. In recent days, in recent years. I have, found something amounting almost to a sinister conspiracy to take away from the ownership of the people one of the great organs of public opinion in our land, and that is the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have no abjection to private stations but I have a tremendous Objection to the overwhelming infiltration of private stations in broadcasting in the dominion of Canada. I believe that the voice of the people should) be heard through an organization controlled-


Mr. CASE:: By the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not by the government, sir. I want to tell my hon. friend right now, and I defy him to prove me untrue, that ' the present Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is more anti-government than progovernment.

Privilege-Mr. Knowles


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I would not like to admit that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is certainly true and I know it to be true. I am not blaming them for that, because they are an independent corporation. Please remember that. They are not an organ of the government. They are subject of course to the revision and the judgment of the radio committee of this house from year to year, but they are not an organ of this government, never were and never will be. My hon. friend should try to learn some of the elementary lessons in political procedure before he affronts parliament by making such a peculiar remark as he has just made.


John Thomas Hackett: It is not a peculiar remark. It is true.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I am only expressing public opinion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Even my Tory friend from Stanstead cannot prove it true, with all his legal acumen. He cannot prove it true that the C.B.C. ever leans to this government. As a matter of fact, the opinion of the government, if I can be confidential with the house, is that they lean the other way.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Be that as it may, that is purely an aside. I was going to suggest, sir, that after these few brief remarks, possibly disturbing to the consolidated' toryism of Stanstead. and to the peculiar interpolationist habits of the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case), if hon. members can nurse their wrath and keep it warm, I would move the adjournment of this debate until a later date, possibly tomorrow morning first thing. I will tell the house later on.


Mr. HANSELL:: The debate on the broadcasting bill is likely to call for a vote. Is it understood that this bill will be proceeded with tomorrow?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will definitely go ahead either later this day or tomorrow morning.


Ernest George Hansell: That does not mean a thing.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



MILITIA PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 456. to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford) City) in the chair.
On section 1.
Brooke Claxton: I should point out that this applies to thirty-six men who would, under the existing legislation, be unable to get their pensions. The provision is to make it clear that we can find1 them to be disabled, so as to qualify them for pension, when they are totally and permanently disabled to perform their duties as soldiers. It is to correct an error of drafting when the amendment was made in the Militia Pension Act in 1946.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to. '
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the leader of the house accedes to the request of the leader of the opposition, may I say a word with regard *to what is really a question of privilege, and it will take only a moment. In the debate on Saturday, as reported in Hansard at page 5547, during the speech of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) there were certain interjections. It is obvious that the reporters were unable to get down all of the interjections, but one of the omissions leaves an inference with regard to myself which means that I must rise to a question of privilege. The report reads in this way:
Mr. Irvine:	That shows some wisdom anyway.
Mr. Jaques:	It does, of course, to the communist people and to their fellow travellers who make up the bulk of the C.C.F. party.
Mr. Low:	Including the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that after the reply of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) made an interjection that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was psychopathic. This does not appear, but the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was referring in his reply to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North had interjeoted, and said "including the hon. member for Winnipeg North." In other words, he sought to include my colleague in the remark he made about the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. The hon. member for Peace River agrees with me that he did
Redistribution

not make any inference such as that recorded in Hansard. I trust the proper correction will be made.


Mr. LOW :: Mr. Speaker, that is quite right. My interjection had reference to the interpolation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.
Mr. LOW7:	Which interpolation was
inadvertently left out.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock. REDISTRIBUTION



READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State, for the Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 18, to adjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Motion agreedi to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West); Mr. Chairman, in considering the report of the special committee on redistribution I should like first of all to pay a tribute to the chairman and also the members of that committee. While not a member of the committee myself I understand' the members worked together in a spirit of good will and a desire for fair play. The chief electoral officer has informed me that never in his experience has he seen such harmony as existed at the meetings of this committee; and I think this statement will be supported by such experienced members as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol).
As the report of the committee shows, the members were unanimous in their recommendations as to the amendments to sections 4 and 7 of the bill and. as to the schedules relating to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and. Alberta. The report, though not unanimous as to section 2 and the schedules of the other provinces, according to the report of the special committee represents a very substantial measure of agreement. For the benefit of the members of the house who were not members of the special committee I should like to outline the main changes that have been recommended in the various provinces.
fMr. Knowles.]
British Columbia receives two- additional seats under redistribution. The members of the British Columbia subcommittee unanimously agreed that these seats be created in the lower mainland area, one within Vancouver city to be called Vancouver-Quadra, and the other a suburban seat composed of the municipalities of Burnaby, Richmond and Coquitlam, now part of New Westminster and Vancouver North, and called Bumaby-Rich-mond. As the remaining part of Vancouver North contains no part of the city of Vancouver, it has been renamed Coast-Capilano, describing the two principal districts of the riding. The only other change in the British Columbia seats is the transfer of that part of the present Cariboo riding which is south of the 52 degrees 30 minutes parallel, to the Kamloops riding. The present Cariboo riding is the largest in the province, and lies on both sides of the Rocky Mountains. A measure of relief has been provided by the transfer of the southern part of the riding to the adjacent and much smaller Kamloops riding.
Saskatchewan loses one seat, and a seat was eliminated in the southern part of the province, which was the drought area. Since 1931 a large number of people have left this section and settled, to a considerable extent, in the more northerly part of the province. It was not only necessary to consider the elimination of one seat in the southern part, but also the question of moving the limits of most constituencies further to the north. The Saskatchewan sub-committee brought in a unanimous report.
There were no changes made in Alberta.
Manitoba loses one seat, but changes in population made it desirable to have a rather extensive alteration in the limits of the constituencies. The present ridings of Lisgar and Macdonald were combined and the present ridings of Portage la Prairie and Neepawa were also combined. This permitted the establishment of a new constituency out of part of Selkirk and the suburban area of Winnipeg to be known as Selkirk. The remainder of the former constituency of Selkirk will be known as Norquay.
The representation of Ontario is increased by one, and this seat was allotted to northern Ontario. In addition the committee decided to allot an additional seat to northern Ontario, and this was found by combining the district of Muskoka with the present constituency of Parry Sound, and by annexing the remainder of Muskoka-Ontario to the present constituencies of Victoria and Ontario. In order to reduce the population of Ottawa West, which was over 94,000, the southerly part of the

Redistribution
riding was transferred to the riding of Carle-ton. In order to reduce the population of Ottawa East the town of Eastview was transferred to the riding of Russell. One township now in Peterborough West was transferred to Northumberland, with a result that the whole of Northumberland county is now together for electoral purposes. The township of Markham and the villages of Stouffville and Markham were transferred from York East to York North. The town of Weston was transferred from York South to York West. The township of Burford was transferred from Brant to Brantford. The remainder of the riding of Brant was combined with the townships of Beverly, Ancaster, Glanford and Bin-brook from Wentworth to form a new constituency of Brant-Wentworth. The township of Logan including the town of Mitchell was transferred from Perth to Huron-Perth. The township of Biddulph and the town of Lucan were transferred from Middlesex East to Middlesex West. The townships of Tilbury West and Sandwich South were transferred from Essex North to Essex South. The township of, Oro was transferred from Simcoe North to Simcoe East. The township of Baxter was transferred from Muskoka-Ontario to Simcoe East. In northern Ontario, the present ridings of Nipissing, Timiskaming and Cochrane have been rearranged into five seats known as Nipissing, Timiskaming, Cochrane, Timmins and Sudbury.
Quebec gained eight seats on redistribution, and in addition to allotting these, it was necessary for the committee to readjust many of the existing boundaries in view of the changes in population. The committee recom-mendedi the elimination of the existing constituency of Laval-Two Mountains so there were nine new seats to be allotted. The committee has recommended that four of these be allotted to the island of Montreal, the new constituencies being known as Laval, Lafon-taine, Mount Royal and Papineau. The committee also recommends the creation of a new riding of Villeneuve out of the northern portion of Pontiac; a new constituency known as Lapointe out of the western half of Chicoutimi; the present constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay was divided into separate constituencies of Charlevoix and Saguenay; and the present constituency of Lac St. Jean-Roberval was divided into separate constituencies . of Lac St. Jean and Roberval. In addition, the Magdalen Islands are allotted a separate seat in view of the fact that these islands are 150 miles from Gaspe, to which they had been attached for electoral purposes.
In New Brunswick and. Prince Edward Island no changes were made.
Nova Scotia is entitled to one additional seat on redistribution. This was provided by joining the municipalities of Queens and Shelburne to form a constituency to be named Queens-Shelburne. No changes were made in the island of Cape Breton other than the joining of Hillside and South Forks, which previously formed part of the constituency of Cape Breton South, to the constituency of Cape Breton North-Victoria. It was recommended by the committee that the dual constituency of Halifax be divided into two separate constituencies. Since the bringing in of the report of the special committee strong representations have been received from Halifax that the city and county of Halifax be continued as a dual constituency. In view of these representations I intend to move at the proper time that items 8 and 9 of the Nova Scotia schedule be deleted so as to leave the Halifax constituencies unaltered.
The special committee has also recommended that under the provisions of section 51, subsection 2 of the British North America Act 1867-1946, that part of the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories lying west of 109th meridian of west longitude be added to the Yukon territory for electoral purposes to form a constituency known as Yukon-Mackenzie River.
While some of the members will find their constituencies altered, or in a few cases either combined or eliminated, I feel sure that they will realize that these changes have become necessary due to changed conditions, and in order to carry out the spirit and the provisions of the British North America Act. In conclusion I would move;
'That items 8 and 9 of the Nova Scotia schedule be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
"8. Halifax consisting of the city of Halifax and the county of Halifax, which shall return two members."
And that the subsequent items of the schedule be renumbered accordingly.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say a word about the proposed redistribution in so far as it affects my own province of British Columbia, and then go on to make a few remarks with regard to the other features of the proposed redistribution of electoral seats. The Secretary of State has intimated to the committee that British Columbia is getting two additional seats, bringing our total to 18. One of those new seats is to be in the city of Vancouver and the other in the suburban area surrounding that city.
At the present lime Vancouver has four seats, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver-Burrardi, Vancouver East and Vancouver South. The
Redistribution

changes that are being made are to cut off a small portion of Vancouver Centre and Vancouver-Burrard and add them to the present Vancouver East; then to take the southern portion of Vancouver East and add it to Vancouver South, which is the largest seat in population, and divide that into two seats, a new Vancouver South and a seat to be known as Vaneouver-Quadra. The feature about this division is that the boundary line between the new Vancouver South and Vaneouver-Quadra is not a straight line.
A line should have been drawn across that portion of the city but the government supporters, led in so far as British Columbia is concerned by the hon. member for Vancouver North, saw fit to put a jog in that boundary with the result that the population of Vaneouver-Quadra will be considerably larger than that of the new Vancouver South. In my opinion there was no excuse for having a jog at all. The line should have been run straight across that portion of the city; in fact it could very well have been run along Thirty-third avenue which is the natural boundary between the ridings.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Section 1 is the short title. I was wondering if in this particular case the committee would not agree to a general discussion at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed,


Howard Charles Green: I think the answer to that point of order is that the Secretary of State has already moved an amendment with regard to the Halifax seat.


William Henry Golding: I think the committee will agree that any hon. member can carry on a general discussion.


Howard Charles Green: The jog between the new Vancouver South and Vaneouver-Quadra is in fact made for political purposes, in the vain hope of building up support for the government in the new Vancouver South. I do not think there is any dioubt as to the defeat the government candidate will get in that riding at the next election.
I should like to say a few words about the name of the new seat, Vaneouver-Quadra. I foresee that there may be much questioning after the next election when some one comes here as the hon. member for Vaneouver-Quadra. That is a name which means much on the whole Pacific coast. Quadra was a daring Spanish explorer on that coast. In 1775 two Spanish ships explored the coast as far north as Alaska and one of them was under the command of Quadra, who was then a naval lieutenant. Hon. members will be

interested to know the size of his ship. It was thirty-six feet in length, and had a twelve foot beam, which is not nearly as wide as the space from my desk to the desk opposite, with an eight foot depth of hold. As I have said, he went in that ship as far as Alaska. All but two members of his crew were stricken with scurvy, and finally Quadra himself had to climb the masts to look after the rigging. He was a bold explorer.
About twenty years later, in 1792, Quadra again visited the coast of British Columbia, this time as commander of what the Spanish called the settlement of Nootka on the west coast of the present Vancouver island. He was also in command of California and practically the whole western coast of North America. At Nootka, in 1792 he met Captain George Vancouver, who had been sent out from Great Britain to negotiate with the Spanish concerning a dispute as to who should own Nootka, the British or the Spanish. Another British explorer, Captain Cook, had been there in the intervening years between 1775 and 1792, and had obtained from the Indians sea-otter skins which were of great value on the Chinese market. As a result, different explorers had sailed for the west coast and trouble had arisen as to whether Nootka belonged to Spain or to Great Britain. By the way, Burrard is named after one of Captain Vancouver's officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Lieutenant Burrard.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Quadra and Vancouver met at Nootka and negotiated for a settlement of this dispute. They were unable to agree upon anything having to do with the dispute, but they became the warmest of friends. A few months later Quadra entertained Captain Vancouver off the coast of California, and the description given of him by Captain Vancouver is as follows:
He was the mainspring of a society that had produced so much happiness, who had rendered us so many essential benefits, and whose benevolence and disinterested conduct had impressed our minds with the highest esteem and veneration.
Actually Quadra named the present Vancouver island the island of Quadra and Vancouver, but eventually his name was dropped. So this name "Quadra" has a historical significance for those of us who are fortunate enough to live on the west coast of Canada, and we are very proud to have a riding named after this great explorer.
The other new riding is to be known as Bumaby-Richmond. It is in a suburban district around Vancouver. I have some-doubts whether the two main municipalities in that new riding have sufficient interests

Redistribution
in common to warrant putting them into one riding. However, we shall just have to see how it works out. It may be a very satisfactory riding.
My main point today concerning the British Columbia redistribution has to do with the Kamloops seat. That seat was created in 1933. It was a seat fitted into the main railway lines that run across the province. Along the Canadian Pacific railway it reaches from Ashcroft right through to Glacier, within fifty miles of the Alberta boundary. It also includes the main line of the Canadian National running up the Fraser valley and the valley of the Thompson to Kamloops and almost to the junction with the line that runs out. to Prince Rupert. It has been a big seat to cover. Kamloops city is pretty much the centre of the riding. One has to go back to Kamloops, if he is coming in from the east on the main line of the Canadian Pacific, to get up the main line of the C.N.R. It has been a difficult riding to cover. There is also quite a large area lying to the south of the main lines of these two railways.
The interests of the present riding are with the people who live to the south, in the present riding of Yale, not with the people who live to the north or to the west but primarily with the people who live to the south. The population of Kamloops riding in 1941 was 27.387. The population of Yale, lying south of that riding, was 51,874, almost twice as much. In fact, Yale is the biggest riding in the province outside of the ridings which include the larger cities. The fair way to add to the population of Kamloops would have been to take in the northern part of Yale.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the hon. member for Yale concur in that?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know anything about that. But instead of doing that the government has seen fit to take in part of Cariboo riding lying west and north, over a mountain range, by the way, and in another railway belt, a belt that is served by the provincial government railway, the Pacific-Great Eastern. It has taken a large bit of territory from Cariboo and added it to Kamloops. Cariboo's population according to the last census was 33,002. That part of Cariboo riding which has been taken in does not look to Kamloops at all; it looks to Vancouver. Traffic is from Vancouver up the Cariboo. I have here a map of British Columbia which shows that the portion of Cariboo added to Kamloops is geographically as big as the present riding of Kamloops, which is even now the
third largest riding in the province. The riding will now stretch from within fifty miles of the Alberta boundary to the heads of two of our great inlets on the sea coast, Jarvis inlet and Bute inlet. The additional territory is about 200 miles in width, and it makes the riding of Kamloops an area that is almost impossible to cover because largely the communications run the opposite way, and as I have said, the new area is served by a different railroad entirely.	.
This change means that now Kamloops riding will have a population seven or eight thousand greater than the new Cariboo riding. That is on the 1941 census basis. On the ration book basis the difference will be much greater. The ration book figures are Kamloops, 35.098, Cariboo 38,657. The redistribution switches 10,031 from Cariboo to Kamloops and the result will be that Kamloops will have a ration-book population of 46,129 and Cariboo 28,626.
The result of this change is very" noticeable politically. Kamloops riding as I said was formed in 1933. In 1935 it was carried by T. J. O'Neill, the Liberal candidate, with a majority of 1,216 and in 1940 with a majority of 1,331. In 1945 the present member for Kamloops, Mr. Fulton, carried the riding by a majority of 177. The figures were, Fulton, 4,401, O'Neill, 4.224. McKenzie, C.C.F. 4,003, Codd, Labour Progressive 666.
The portion of the Cariboo which is now being added to Kamloops gave the Liberals a majority of 500. so that on the basis of the results of the last election it would seem fairly obvious that the new riding is a Liberal riding. The portion added to Kamloops also gave the C.C.F. a majority over the Conservatives, so that the C.C.F. are the secondary beneficiaries; they are just one removed.
This change in my opinion is made purely for political purposes-we might as well face that fact-and it is made against one of the most promising young men in the public life of Canada today. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), thirty-one years of age, led a company of our famous Seaforth Highlanders in action in Italy. He was mentioned in dispatches. He had a splendid record. Before that he was a Rhodes scholar. He was one of the outstanding young students of British Columbia. He is a young man who has made his mark right in this House of Commons in a way" that has not been equalled by any" other young man since I came here in 1936. His father sat in this house from 1917 to 1921. Before that he was a member
Redistribution

of the McBride cabinet, which was the finest cabinet British Columbia has had since it entered confederation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why don't you fellows agree on the coalition you have now?


Howard Charles Green: His maternal grandfather
was premier of British Columbia; his maternal unole was Speaker in the British Columbia house a few years ago. This young man is in a position to render great service to Canada. He has already done so. He will render greater service in the years that lie ahead, and I want to assure hon. members opposite that no gerrymander now or at any other time is going to knock him out of this house. He is also dominion president of the Young Conservatives, and in that capacity too has made a great contribution to the public life of this nation.
I said a. few moments ago that I did not think he could be knocked out in spite of this gerrymander. I say that for this reason. I believe that the people of that portion of Cariboo that is being added to his riding, and the people of his present riding of Kamloops, will have nothing to do with a dirty deal of this type. They will rally to his support and handle the deal which has been made in the redistribution of this particular seat. Then I think he will win for another reason. He will win because he will serve the people in the new part of his riding as he has served the people of the present riding of Kamloops. No one has given more attention to the needs and the interests of the people of his riding than the hon. member for Kamloops. For that reason also I believe that the hon. member will win this new seat.
So much for the province of British Columbia. The onus for this change rests on the government; it rests primarily on the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), himself another young man, who represented the government on this redistribution committee.
I am quite sure that had the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) been the government supporter on the committee for British Columbia he would not have made such a change, because he is a fair man. I am equally sure that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) would not have done so, nor would the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) have made an unfair change of this type.
Then, to go beyond the boundaries of British Columbia, I should like to say just a few words with regard to some of the other changes that axe being proposed. First of all,
IMr. Green.]
Lake Centre: we have here representing Lake Centre the most able debater in this House of Commons, a member who has the measure of every member of the cabinet, a member known in this country from coast to coast as probably Canada's ablest parliamentarian today, a man who has contributed a great deal to the public life of this country and will contribute more as the years go by. What is being done in his seat? We have changes made in the first place helping out the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who got in by the skin of his teeth in the last election, and other changes trying to throw the seat of Lake Centre to the C.C.F. That is the sort of thing the Canadian people will resent and rightly so. It is another case of a gerrymander, the person concerned being another leading member of the official opposition.
Then we come to Manitoba. What do we find there? We find that the seat represented by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is being wiped out, if you please-the leader of the opposition, who alone with the Prime Minister of this country has had the administrative experience to lead Canada. Nobody else in the cabinet can compare in any way, shape or form with the twenty years' administrative experience of the leader of the opposition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just pipe dreams.


Howard Charles Green: I expected my noisy friend to interrupt; he has been doing so and may continue to his heart's content, but it is time for him to keep quiet for a while. There is the picture in Manitoba. This government is trying to gerrymander the leader of the opposition out of his seat.


Mr. VIAU:: That is a lie.


Howard Charles Green: What happens to the Prime Minister's seat? He has a nice safe little pocket borough down here in Glengarry, the smallest seat in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One of the best.


Howard Charles Green: It is not touched. The Canadian people are fair. They will have to be judges of this sort of thing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear; you are talking a lot of nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: And I think they will be.
The old seat of Noe.pawa is now to be combined with Portage la Prairie, in which Mr. Miller won an outstanding by-election last fall. The riding is now to be known as Portage-Neepawa.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Was it a
small riding?

Redistribution


Howard Charles Green: Then in Ontario the one
seat being wiped out is Muskoka-Ontario which is represented by the dominion president of the Progressive Conservative Association, Mr. J. M. Macdonne.il, the financial critic of the opposition, and a man who in his two short years in this house has made a great name for himself as a public servant. No one is listened to more intently by everybody in this house than the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I do not think government members will deny that fact. His seat is wiped out in this redistribution. This is another very unfair change. By the way, he will get elected even if they do wipe out his seat because he is that kind of public servant.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why worry?


Howard Charles Green: Right here under our eyes
we have the same sort of gerrymander going on. Everybody knows the position in Ottawa West, but I shall not go into it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Look at the last Tory redistribution.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member may keep on mumbling away.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What did you do
about it?


Howard Charles Green: Everybody knows what is
going on here in Ottawa West, but I shall let the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) deal with it.
Then we go down to Nova Scotia and what do we find?


An hon. MEMBER:: A by-election.


Howard Charles Green: It [DOT] is easy to tell there is
a by-election there by the amendment the Secretary of State moved a few minutes ago. In Nova Scotia we find another Liberal seat carved out where the population did not warrant the change at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are all Liberals down there.


Howard Charles Green: The population in Cape
Breton is such that that is where the new seat should have been made, or in the northwestern portion of the province. Instead another attempt is made to put a safe Liberal seat in the area where the new seat is to be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all safe
down there.


Mr. GILLIS:: There are no safe seats in Nova Scotia today.


Howard Charles Green: These are just a few of the
highlights-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Lowlights, you mean.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. I am not surprised
that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his associates are so touchy on this subject. They have good reason to be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just amusement.


Howard Charles Green: These actions in deliberately trying to behead the leaders of the Progressive Conservative party across Canada-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have been for twenty years.


Howard Charles Green: You will not be here again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Won't wet I would like to bet you on that.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to move, Mr. Chairman:
That the bill be amended by deleting from the schedule thereto under the heading of British Columbia all reference to the ridings of Cariboo, Fraser Valley, and Kamloops, and substituting therefor the description of the said ridings as contained in the schedule to the Representation Act of 1933.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I am very sorry to see that the Prime Minister is not in his place. What I have to say might be of some interest to him. However, I wish to give the house a certain text from the book of Job, chapter 31, verse 35:
Oh . . . that mine adversary had written a
book.
I should like to paraphrase that text 60 as to bring it up to date: Oh that mine adversary would make a speech. The adversary I have in mind at this moment is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who throughout his years has made many speeches, some of which he must regret having made, because the skies today are dark with the wings of the chickens that are now coming home to roost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Flying saucers.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: we shall close tomorrow night. Yet here we have a government which, when in opposition, deplored the bringing down of a bill five days before the end of the session now brings down the same sort of bill a matter of hours before the house concludes its business.
I should like to read what the leader of the opposition had to say at that time. My quotations will all be taken from volume V of Hansard of 1933, and first I would quote from page 5235:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King ('Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Chairman, I think it
desirable to point out immediately the unfairness of the government having left consideration of this most important measure until the very end of the session. That fact of itself, it seems to me, is prima facie evidence of a desire on the part of the administration to exercise its power as a majority' to press through this bill under circumstances which are mo^t unfair to the minority in the house. I would point out that the government has known from the time it came into office that at this session a redistribution bill would have to be introduced.
The government has known for a long time now that this bill would be introduced at this session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was introduced in February.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In spite of their knowledge that this bill would be brought down they have waited until the dying days of the session to bring on this discussion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was introduced in February.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I must ask the minister not to do with me as he has done with others. Please do not shake your jowls at me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Facts are facts.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The last time the debate took 380 pages and most of those pages were devoted to the situation which then existed in the constituency of Prince Albert. The leader of the opposition, who was the member for that constituency, objected strenuously to the idea that Prince Albert should be made smaller. He wanted it made larger. There was a certain inconsistency there, because he is the member today for the smallest constituency in Canada, and yet he has not a word to say about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And one of the finest constituencies too.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: This measure is of course a very obvious attempt at gerrymandering, and to keep the record

clear I wish to read what the Prime Minister said at page 5276 of Hansard, the same volume. Prince Albert runs through my remarks as a sort of refrain, but I cannot help that. I quote:
When one comes to examine the other constituencies having representations of less than
40,000	one sees how- this particular constituency of Prince Albert has been cut up in order to legislate out of his seat in this parliament the one who represents it at the present time and to help make absolutely secure at least one hon. gentleman who sits on the other side of the house.
The moans of the leader of the opposition were loud because he was going to be deprived of his opportunity to come back here, but I have heard no objection to t.he present leader of the opposition suffering from the same sort of treatment. To continue:
May I point out how the change has been made, and in so doing I would say that this constituency, as redefined, is a fine exemplification of what is meant by the w-ord "gerrymander." The word gerrymander in political parlance simply means that in redistributing a constituency the boundary lines are so altered as to do an obvious injury to one political party and give an obvious unfair political advantage to another party.
From that definition one would say that the Liberal party were obvious experts at gerrymandering. The member for Vancouver South told us what happened to certain members of the Progressive Conservative party. I do not like either the ideas or the principles of the Progressive Conservative party, even though I may have some regard for some of them as individuals in their private capacity, but I have a regard for justice, and I do not think that justice is ensured in this case. As the member for Vancouver South told us, four of the most prominent Tories are in grave danger of. losing their seats. In other words, the government intends to keep out of the house seventy-dive per cent of the fighting strength of the Tory' party, and one can only conclude that this is not chivalrous. The Prime Minister in the last debate had something to say about chivalry, in which I assume he is an expert. At page 5277 of Hansard of 1933 he made this statement:
If the last election had been fought within the boundaries proposed at present, instead of having a Liberal majority of 1.192 I would have been defeated by a Conservative majority of 618.
One member of the house was sufficiently ill advised to shout, "Hurrah"! The report goes on:
Air. Mackenzie King:	Some hon. gentleman
says "hurrah." That may be very chivalrous,

Redistribution
but let me tell my hon. friends opposite it is not in accord with the sense of chivalry of the people of Canada as a whole. It may be Tory chivalry but it is neither British chivalry nor British fair play.
Let us make a comparison. The Tories were going to legislate out of existence one seat. The Liberals propose to get rid of four of the most prominent members of the Progressive Conservative party. One would assume then that there was a higher sense of chivalry in the Tories than in the Liberals, though I think that neither of them have the faintest idea of what is meant by British chivalry or British fair play. However, as the Prime Minister said in that debate fourteen years ago, the most important consideration is the political consideration, and this is being lived up to fully in this case. Justice and equity apparently have little to do with it.
Now I wish to refer to something nearer home so far as I am concerned, and that is the attempted gerrymander in the constituency of the member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplit-ny). I am not surprised, because the hon. member has been consistently a thorn in the side of the government. He has exposed the pretentions of their legislation on more than one occasion, and he has harried and harassed the members opposite. The situation is this. Here is a constituency which is already larger than most of the other rural ridings in Manitoba. The new piece which is added by this bill has a large Liberal majority, but the citizens who live there have really no relationship to the constituency of Dauphin. Their relationship is more to the towns of Neepawa and to Portage la Prairie. This is an obvious attempt on the part of the government to secure for themselves another seat, but let me assure them that they cannot do. They may as well give up Dauphm as a lost cause because the present member will be here in the next parliament.
There is another matter that perhaps affects me more personally. There has been a slight attempt at gerrymander in Winnipeg North. There is one section known as Elmwood, which is a geographic, social and cultural entity. In their wisdom and, I suspect, on instructions from Manitoba, the government decided to split this area in half and give one portion to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He needs it as a duck needs a third leg. In the last election all his opponents lost their deposits and, of course, that will happen again in the next election because he is inheriting a sound and wise C.C.F. majority. My objection is not to this area going to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but if anywhere I think it should have gone to the hon. member
for St. Boniface, for this area is contiguous to the constituency of St. Boniface. But if it had gone there we should have had another C.C.F. member for St. Boniface in the next house. It is quite obvious that the government has no desire whatsoever to see that happen, and they have stripped from me a certain majority and given it to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As I say, it is a flagrant attempt at gerrymander; there can be no other word for it.
I wish to bring to the attention of the house some of the other things which the Prime Minister had to say fourteen years ago when he was in opposition. This I assume may have been Philip when sober.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He was on the committee.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: A few months ago we introduced in this house an amendment suggesting that there should be an independent commission to define the constituency boundaries, and the house Liberal majority, with some Conservatives decided to vote it down. But first, I should like to read what the present Prime Minister had to say fourteen years ago about proportional representation, at page 5422 of Hansard:
I believe that the only true method of securing a representative parliament is by a system of proportional representation properly worked out with regard to the dominion as a whole. The reform should commence with the cities and the larger municipalities in our country. When the Liberal government was in office we introduced into this house a measure of proportional representation in connection with city constituencies. It was fought for some little time, there was considerable opposition from the then opposition and the measure was not proceeded with. It was not reintroduced because the government of the day had not a majority in the other chamber which would ensure its enactment, and there were more pressing matters requiring attention. I might add the late Liberal government did not have a majority in the senate all the time it was in office. If we had had a majority in the other house upon which we could have relied, we would have proceeded with our proportional representation measure.
For the last few years the Prime Minister has been appointing his own emissaries to the senate and having them sign on the dotted line. He had a majority which he could have used to that end, to secure P.R.. if he had reintroduced such legislation. It was not done. The then leader of the opposition goes on:
If we are ever returned to power a proportional representation measure will he a feature of the Liberal platform and programme of legislation.
That is another Liberal promise. The Liberals have been returned to power three times since and nothing at all has been said
Redistribution

or done on this issue. Then on page 5476, when the member for Bow River, Mr. Garland, was discussing this matter, he pointed out how certain Liberals had voted against proportional representation, and he said this:
I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman-
That is the present Prime Minister.
-if he has consulted those ministers and received their consent as well as the consent of these various genial French Canadian members to the legislation which he now proposes?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I might say that the matter has been discussed and agreed to in a Liberal caucus.
Later on Mr. Stevens, with prophetic wisdom, said, "They are just kidding the troops."
That, of course, has been amply proven.
Then I should like to read for the sake of the record what the Prime Minister said at page 5425-and it is interesting to see how his protestations stick up against his actions:
My own view, and I have come to it after observing pretty carefully what has been taking place and what has been said in debate in this house as well as in the corridors, is that redistribution should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons, where the parties are immediately interested, and should be put into the hands of a commission of judges.
We advocated its being put into the hands of an independent commission, but the government turned it down. Then this is significant:
I would have that commission composed of judges selected in equal numbers by both sides of the house. The redistribution, if it is carried out in a fair way has not to do with party advantage at all.
That again was when the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition. He continues:
It ought to have solely to do with seeking to effect a fair and impartial division of the constituencies, and if three judges were named from one side of the house and three from the other, and if the choice were made, if you will, from among those who have been in polities and who therefore may be presumed to know something about conditions generally as they exist throughout the country, I think a redistribution which would be regarded as fair might be arrived at.
On various occasions the hon. member for Stanstead has objected to judges being in politics or being at times attacked in this house. I have sympathy with him. But I consider it a regrettable thing that the then leader of the opposition, now leader of the parliament of Canada, believes that judges who are in office should step off the bench, don again the political mantle, decide redistribution and go up to the bench once again, I suppose to be impartial. In the past the trouble with our judiciary has been that too

many politicians who have not made the grade in this house have become judges. So long as that happens, the judiciary will not be regarded with the respect which is due to it. Then at page 5468, I feel I must quote this:
Of one thing we can be perfectly sure: a very limited number of those who are here today will be here to speak ten years hence of what has taken place at this time. It was because of that and because of what must have impressed itself upon everyone who has been present during the past two weeks, that I thought it advisable to say that when the House of Commons was again confronted with the question of redistribution of the constituencies of Canada, it would in my opinion be wise for it to adopt the plan of referring the whole matter to a commission composed of judges-
Et cetera, et cetera. And he concludes:
That is the position which I took this afternoon and which I take again tonight.
And the next morning apparently the right hon. gentleman had forgotten all about that position which he had taken.
In those quotations which I have placed on the .record, Mr. Chairman, I think I have said enough to show the difference between Philip drunk and Philip sober; I think I have said enough to show the difference between the present Prime Minister's protestations of virtue and his actions; I think I have said enough to show the difference between his position when he is in opposition and when he is in power; indeed:, I think I have said enough to show the absolute worthlessness of Liberal promises.


Mr. LACOMBE:: During the budget debate I said a few words concerning redistribution of electoral divisions. Nobody is more anxious than I am to have Quebec assume a greater influence in the House of Commons, but this influence should be based on equity, justice and right. I will not tolerate that Laval-Two Mountains be suppressed from the electoral map through the use of false excuses. Consequently I wish to denounce right now the shameful attitude of those who are endeavouring to proceed with redistribution in defiance of the importance of the population, history, geographical position and individual character of the county of Laval-Two Mountains.
This problem is nothing but an electoral scheme. They would not be worthy of sitting in this house who would take advantage of a redistribution of such national importance to satisfj: their mean ambitions or protect the interests of a political party, even if it is the party in power. I now quote figures which are more eloquent than the best speeches. According to the 1941 census Laval-Two Mountains had a population of 38,498. Glengarry, which is represented by the right hon. Prime Minister,

Redistribution
had a population of only 18,000; Vaudreuil-Soulanges had a population of 22.498, which is exactly 11,000 less than that of Laval-Two Mountains. Chateauguay-Huhtingdion, Stan-stead, Wright, Dorchester, Levis and Shefford, not to mention any others, all have populations less than that of Laval-Two Mountains; 25.339 ; 27.972; 28,771; 29,773; 30.411 and 33,387 respectively. When it is alleged, that the population of Laval-Two Mountains is insufficient, such an argument can be termed ridiculous and a pure fabrication. On several instances I have protested against this division of Laval-Two Mountains. In proof thereof I read the following letter which I received) on May 1, 1947, from the hon. member for Quebec South, who is chairman of the committee on redistribution:
Ottawa, May 1, 1947. Mr. Liguori Lacombe, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Colleague:
I beg to acknowledge your letter of April 30, to which you annexed a resolution passed by the municipality of the parish of St. Augustin, county of Two Mountains, together with copy of a protest against the dismemberment of Laval-Two Mountains, which protest was signed at Ste. Scholastique by Mr. Albert Laframboise, mayor of Ste. Scholasitique and president of the Catholic farmers' union for the district of Montreal, and by Mr. J. O. Latour, notary public at St. Benoit.
I see that, on several instances, you gave the subcommittee on redistribution for the province of Quebec, the reasons in favour of maintaining the status quo.
I remain,
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Charles G. Power.
Every day I receive from municipal councils in my own riding, resolutions requesting that Laval-Two Mountains be not dismembered. I have sent copies of each of these resolutions to the hon. members for Quebec South and for Outremont; the latter, as you know, is the chairman of the subcommittee on redistribution for the province of Quebec. Under the circumstances, the committee cannot claim that they are unaware of the facts and of the case.
There is another point I would, like to explain. The great majority of the population of l'He Jesus, which is a. portion of Laval-Two Mountains, is made up of farmers and gardeners. If you annex Pile Jesus to Montreal, you are annexing a farming district to industrial areas. I do not need to add that the interests of the producers and: of the consumers are not the same. During my political career, which covers quite a few years, I have come to realize quite often that the interests of producers and consumers are
radically opposed. It would have been quite easy for the committee to accept my representations and maintain the riding of Laval-Two Mountains in its true character. I know that my constituents will disapprove the changes which have thus been effected.
As to Argenteuil, there was a good reason why it should not have been changed. In that riding there is an important Englishspeaking minority ranging from 37 to 39 per cent of the total population. Why should the representation of minorities in the House of Commons be established in such a way that it loses its representative character? Minorities are entitled to be represented in the House of Commons. They pay taxes of all kinds, to the same extent as the majority. The action of the committee concerning the riding of Argenteuil and its English-speaking minority is exceedingly regrettable. This is a very serious wrong against this minority which deserves a better treatment. Furthermore, it creates a dangerous precedent. If the same treatment should be applied to present minorities in every province of this country, French-Canadians would revert to the position they occupied one hundred years ago in the history of Canada. We would have tc do once more everything we did to conquer and defend our rights. Anybody with a sense of justice and equity would approve what I am saying. Those who framed this infringement upon the rights of the English-speaking minority of Argenteuil will have to bear the responsibility of this action. Since I was elected to this house I have always defended the minority rights in Canada. I am still doing it for the sake of liberty, justice and equity. In the name of these great principles, Canada mobilized all of its resources. We are now witnessing the denial of the very rights of minorities in Argenteuil. I know the constituents of Argenteuil as well as those of Laval-Two Mountains. I have met them quite often in public meetings. I have the greatest respect and most sincere admiration for this population, whatever be their racial origin or their religious creed. For this reason, I know that these people will be deeply upset by the changes which are being effected in the federal representation without respecting the rights of an important part of its population. The population of Laval will resent deeply being separated from the population of Two Mountains to which it has been attached by economic and political ties for thirty years. I know that I am expressing the feelings of the people of Laval-Two Mountains as well as those of Argenteuil, which riding is adjacent to my riding and with which I am equally familiar.
Redistribution

In, participating in this debate I have the satisfaction of defending to the last the rights of my constituents to be justly and equitably represented in the Canadian parliament. So far as Laval-Two Mountains is concerned this redistribution is a masterpiece of disloyalty and unfairness. Some will claim that this redistribution is based upon papulation and geographical location, but it will take a great-deal of impertinence to put forth such an argument.
The population of Laval-Two Mountains exceeds 33,000. The population of Vaudreuil-
Soulanges is at least 10.000 less than the population of my riding, which exceeds by exactly 15,000 the population of Glengarry. Argenteuil has as large a population as Vaudreuil-Soulanges and Glengarry, and Laval-Two Mountains is much more populous than the two counties I have mentioned.
This is simply a prextext to get rid of a member who many times has been the object of similar and unsuccessful attacks on the part of the Liberal party. This is the same Liberal party which I defended most sincerely for more than twenty-five years. Forty years have gone by since the general election of 1917 when I endorsed the candidacy of my predecessor in this House of Commons who was a member without interruption from 1896 until 1925. I became his successor in the House of Commons on October 29, 1925, and I am still here. It will take more than this unfair deed to get rid of me. My good friends-of the committee will have me visiting in their constituencies at the next general election.


Pierre Gauthier: You are
welcome.


Liguori Lacombe: And I will be welcomed by your electors. My colleague over there is very nervous.


Mr. MICHAUD:: You are nervous.


Liguori Lacombe: I do not want to change his record in the House of Commons. When I go to these constituencies-


Pierre Gauthier: Any time you want to.
(Translation):


Benoît Michaud: Speak French. You have more eloquence.
(Text):


Liguori Lacombe: I should not be interrupted without permission. I want more than forty minutes to finish my speech. I know that the two members over there are organized to interrupt me.
[Mr. Lacombe.l


William Ross Macdonald: 1 would remind hon. members that the member who is speaking must not be interrupted without his consent.


Benoît Michaud: Hang yourself.


Liguori Lacombe: From 1896 to date, for more than forty years, the Liberal party has received the support of Laval-Two Mountains and Two Mountains. It will pay dearly for
this act of treason. I never witnessed so much cowardice coupled with such ungratefulness. I lay before my constituents and the whole country the revolting cynicism of those who framed this shameful plot. Do you believe that with one stroke of the pen you can stamp out the aspirations, the convictions and the glory of Laval-Two Mountains?
The county of Two Mountains has been in existence for over a hundred years. Over a century ago it took up arms to conquer a responsible government. In contempt of the history, traditions and rights of minorities residing in Argenteuil you are doing a serious wrong which history will brand as it deserves. The population I represent is honest, loyal and proud. It will not run away before the storm. Since these .people are free and proud they will defend their honour and their past. You will find them more determined than ever against the swindlers and petty politicians who are threatening their rights.
These people have no use for this unkindest cut, this Judas kiss framed by certain newspapers and financed by the powers-that-foe. They will hold out proudly because they have been hardened by this multitude of insults and because they are convinced that their member has been the victim of worse misdeeds. They know that the one who is now addressing this house will never fall a prey to blackmail or to the bargaining of the executioners of dictatorship. The best proof of this is to be found in the general protests I am now receiving against what I term the dirtiest political deed of all times.
Hitler would never have done otherwise. Mussolini did not suppress only one county, but all of the Italian parliament in order to substitute for it the high fascist council. And what about Stalin, the dictator upon whom the government bestowed favours, money, munitions and food? Stalin does the same to redistribute representation. He suppresses, he annihilates. Believe or die. Stalin, the man who has killed the bishops, the archbishops and the priests. Such is the fate of every' opponent of the dictator in Russia whose gratitude towards Canada asserts itself in a network of espionage
The committee on redistribution did not have any spies. It is far above spy'-work.

Redistribution
It does not prize the commonplace or old cliches. It wishes to be original. For this reason, one of its members is a colleague of mine whose diplomacy, ability and intelligence are undoubtedly unknown to the committee. Because he is intelligent, like the intelligence service, he knows how to render a service. To prove this statement, I will refer to this innocent letter wThich my charming and candid colleague sent me on April 2, 1947. This house and the whole country will be enlightened to take cognizance of this masterpiece of diplomacy. Before I read it let me explain that my colleague came to see me and asked me to see him in his office, and he offered not to touch my county if I crossed the floor. My answer w-as no.
(Translation):
Who says that this is untrue? Has he left the house? Others have asked me the same question. They had better not interrupt me, or else shall name them.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, would you prefer that I read this letter in French and give the English
translation afterwards?


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member can read it in either language. Both languages are official.


Liguori Lacombe: The letter reads as
follows:
House of Commons, Canada,
Ottawa, April 2, 1947. Mr. Liguori Laeombe, M.P.,
Ste, Scholastique, P.Q.
My dear Colleague:
After you left yesterday, I thought of suggesting to you that, after this recess-
Referring to the Easter recess.
-when Hartt is introduced in the chamber, this would be a proper occasion for you to cross the floor.
May I suggest that you prepare for the newspapers a statement about communism and the dangers of numerous parties-
That is the C.C.F. and other parties.

which can only benefit the Conservative party, which party the great majority of French Canadians do not want to see leading the government.
The more I think about this, the more I am convinced it will be to your future advantage.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who signed it?


Liguori Lacombe: H. E. Brunelle, member for Champlain, on the redistribution committee. This is the scandal of the Liberal party.


An hon. MEMBER:: A big one.


Liguori Lacombe: Yes, it is a great scandal. I will produce in a few moments, Mr. Chairman, a photostat copy of the letter in French sent to me by the member for Champlain. I wish to denounce this shameful bargaining.


Benoît Michaud: Who is bargaining?


Liguori Lacombe: This is bargaining. He offered not to touch my county if I crossed the floor, and I refused. I do not want to be interrupted. I want forty minutes or more than forty minutes to make my speech.
I wish to denounce this shameful bargaining, together with the business of this blackmail.
I shall never give in to this disgrace. I have been on this side of the house for five years because I am certain of my principles. I am a member of the House of Commons, and if I run again I will still be a member as long as Providence gives me health and strength to protect myself against traps which are set for me. Some people like the hon. member for Portneuf tried to do away with me at the general elections of 1940 and 1945. But I am here in the House of Commons and I will remain here whenever I choose to run, because my compatriots are grateful, loyal and proud.
I would draw to the attention of the committee and of the hon. member for Champlain standing order 7S of this house, which reads as follows:
'The offer of any money or other advantage to any member of this house, for the promoting ot any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion ot the constitution.
Many persons make it the aim of their lives to upset the constitution of this country. Where will this lead them to ? M hat do scoundrels and fanatics of every kind intend to do with our tottering democracy? It is easy to solve this problem. I am not interested in the plots of those who amend the constitution of this country for the very purpose of further transgressing it. Nobody will believe that the best way of increasing the influence of the province of Quebec in the House of Commons is by acting in a way contrary to justice and equity. You cannot create eight new constituencies by suppressing, in contempt of freedom, justice and right, a county whose population, seniority, geographical position, and individual character and aspect entitle and authorize it to remain what it is and what it always was.
With this explanation of the reasons why Laval-Two Mountains should retain its status quo, I believe I have performed my duty towards my constituents. I sincerely hope that enlightenment will prevail in order that the authors of this error be not subjected to the condemnation of every honest person in this country.
Ri'ilistribution

I have only one thing in this world, the most precious of all, my honour. I will defend it against every attack from all sides. I spurn with contempt this groundless insult which is thrown at my constituents, because its origin is too low to reach their dignity and their honour. These conspirators will be crushed under the weight of their ignominy. If they perform this vile deed, they will go down into history as prominent robbers. They stole from Laval-Two Mountains its true character, its history, even its glorious name. The populace will point them out and say: Here are the conspirators of the year 1947 who are going into oblivion. Since everything dies, disappears and fades away in this world, they have nothing to fear since they are already dead in the mind and memory of their compatriots.
Here is part of an editorial in Le Canada, dated April 28, 1947:
At the end of his career, Mackenzie King, this foremost Canadian, while taking a solitary walk in this ancient city of Virginia, must have remembered his grandfather, William Lyon Mackenzie, who with Louis Joseph Papineau, was the father of democracy.
This is why I am requesting the Prime Minister, in memory of his ancestor's struggles towards the establishing of a government responsible to the Canadian people and towards democracy, to prevent this foul deed concerning the riding I am representing. This is the constituency where the ancestors of responsible government and Canadian democracy fulfilled a magnificent duty towards the country. The glorious history of Laval-Two Mountains must not be struck off with a stroke of the pen. In the name of truth, equity and justice, the Prime Minister must see to it that this shameful deed be not performed.
Before ending this speech, I would like to answer the remarks of the hon. member for Outremont addressed to me in a letter on May 29, 1947. I am sure the hon. member has a copy of the letter; I have not. The hon. member claims that it is impossible to increase the division of Vaudreuil-Soulanges whose population is less than that of Laval-Two Mountains by exactly 11,000 persons. To support his contention, he states that the boundaries of VaudTeuil-Soulanges are, on one side, the limits of the province of Ontario and, on the other two sides, the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers. And what are the boundaries of Vaudreuil-Soulanges on the fourth side?
The hon. member is a very clever lawyer.
1 cannot believe he forgot that Vaudreuil-Soulanges has four boundaries. But, for his purpose, he forgot that the riding of Jacques-
Cartier is also adjacent to Vaudreuil-Soulanges. He made no bones about throwing in 1 'lie Jesus beyond the river des Prairies or Back river. As chairman of the subcommittee of the province of Quebec, the hon. member, if he had repressed his scruples, could have suggested that Vaudreuil-Soulanges be enlarged at the expense of Jacques-Cartier. And thus his first excuse is null.
Let us examine the second one. In the same letter, the hon. member claims that there was a substantial increase in the population of the ridings I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. I quite agree with that. But the same applies to Laval-Two Mountains. And the hon. member is well aware of these facts. During the last ten years, the agricultural and labour population of Laval-Two Mountains has increased to a considerable extent.
In short, I lay the fate of Laval-Two Mountains in the hands of the hon. members of this house, for whom, as goes an old French saying, "success means nothing; but duty ' before all."
I cannot end these remarks without paying tribute to the memory of a man for whom I had great admiration. His stirring eloquence, his deep culture, were often responsible for the victories won by the party in power. Several times he was a minister in the federal cabinet. In the full bloom of his admirable career he was torn away from the admiration in which he was held by his city of Montreal, over whose destiny he presided as first magistrate. I do not know why it was in this very chamber that the most meagre tributes were paid to his memory, this chamber which he honoured with all the magnificence of his brilliant 'eloquence.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Let him go on.


William Ross Macdonald: I doubt whether the hon. member is speaking to the amendment,


Liguori Lacombe: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Mr. RINFRET:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tres bien.


Liguori Lacombe: History will vindicate his memory from the conspiracy of silence which was planted over his grave. Fernand Rinfret was a statesman in the fullest meaning of the word. Because he was a man of sincerity and honour, he never would have permitted this unfair deed towards Laval-Two Mountains. He was my friend, and during every election campaign I was fighting for him in St. James, Montreal. Who will give us men like Fernand

Redistribution
Rinfret? The hon. member for Outremont bears a great name. I ask him not to tie this name to this infamous bill whose only purpose is to delete from the electoral map the division of Laval-Deux Montagnes, where the builders of responsible government died sword in hand so their country could be great and immortal.
Finally, to excuse their attitude, some will say: A Liberal member, in this redistribution, is also losing his constituency. Nobody will be led to believe that a prejudice can be rectified by adopting an act of injustice.
After all, the attitude of the member for Champlain, as a member of the committee on redistribution and appointed to such committee by the government, can be termed the greatest scandal of the present administration. Before the people of Canada, the government must bear the serious responsibility of such an act.


Mr. TIMMINS:: The introduction of this bill proves the truth of an old saying, that there is nothing new under the sun. Bills of this sort have been introduced before, some in this house and some elsewhere. I have been looking for precedents and I find one almost on all fours with the present bill. It is found in the well-known book by Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, at page 85. I hope the house will bear with me a moment while I quote from this well-known law book :
And the queen said, "Call hither the Lord High Chamberlain, for I would speak with him.''
And the Lord High Chamberlain, having been summonsed said, "At your service, Your Majesty!"
Said the queen:	"I have been greatly distressed by the reports from some electoral constituencies in this fair domain, namely Mus-kokas, Central Waters, Pawneepa, Kaloopus and Mount Laval. It would seem that there have appeared in these constituencies, certain men of intelligence and fortitude, leaders in their communities. who, unfortunately for me, are gifted with wisdom and speech, and who claim to be versed in the principles of a cult known as "democracy," under -which they claim the right to speak against my authority to rule this domain. My Lord High Chamberlain, will you please accept my order to take these disturbing subjects out and chop off their heads."
Lord High Chamberlain:	"Do I understand
Your Majesty to instruct me to chop off all their heads?"
Her Majesty:	"All their heads."
And the Lord High Chamberlain, having retired from the queen's court, returned in an hour's time.
Lord High Chamberlain:	"Your Majesty, I
have rounded up the members of Muskokas. Central Waters. Pawneepa. Kaloopus and Mount Laval, and I have taken them out and chopped off their heads."
Her Majesty:	"Are their heads all chopped
off?"
Lord High Chamberlain:	Yes, Your Majesty,
their heads are all chopped off."
I know that the house will agree with me that this was a very sad incident, but the precedent is apt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only difficulty is that Alice woke up.
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL OMuskoka-Ontario): It is only suitable that the intended victims should be heard from. Like tlhe member for Winnipeg North, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his seat-not because we would salute him, like the victims in the crena of old, saying "We who are about to die salute thee", for we do not propose to die. But it would have been nice to have him here particularly because, like the member for Winnipeg North, I propose to quote from him also and to quote somewhat freely. I should think the Prime Minister would be highly flattered with the extent to which we on this side find it convenient to quote him, and it is surprising the number of wise things he seems to have said in the past.


John Thomas Hackett: That was long ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would be hypocrisy for anyone to pretend that he does not feel deeply aggrieved when he finds that he is to be turned into a kind of stranger and sojourner in the land, and certainly after the labour of winning a constituency one feels very badly that it is being suddenly dismembered. You cannot do the work which is necessary in order to win a constituency without making a great many friends, and however high your hopes may be that you can find some other dwelling place and come back here in spite of all, nevertheless [DOT] you feel very badly at the thought of losing friends or the thought of being separated from them, whatever the final result may be.
However I am not proposing today to spend much time talking about my own woes. One of the reasons is that I doubt very much whether I shall wring very many tears from hon. gentlemen opposite by talking about my woes. I imagine they have discounted these feelings in advance and therefore I will not discuss them.
I do, however, wish to talk about my own constituency. In my first speech I pointed out that we are here only because our constituents cannot be here. We are here representing them and I believe that in what I say I shall be representing them. At any rate I shall try to.
Redistribution

What do they think of all this? I have been up there and I have heard from a number of them and so far as I can find out there is a surprising unanimity that they do not like being pushed around in this way. They will like it still less, I hope, when they have read what I have had to say, and which I propose to send them, because if I have the least bit of success in what I say, they will feel that this is an arbitrary, unreasonable, unreasoning and, I might say, preposterous thing that is being done. I cannot find a reason for it, and if I am successful they also will feel that there is no reason for it.
I do not in this matter represent wholly and exclusively my own riding of Muskoka. The people of Parry Sound, I may say, do not like this and I have had the honour of receiving communications from one or two of them. Of course, I have received communications by the hundred from my own constituents and many communications from town councils, municipal councils and various organizations of that kind. I wish to read one communication from Parry Sound, partly because it is very short, partly because it is direct, and partly because it is from the Parry Sound Liberal Association. It is addressed to me, and by the way, they say:
You are at perfect liberty to use this as you wish in your endeavour to maintain the present standing of the ridings.
This is what they say:
In connection with the proposal of the committee on redistribution, in the matter of the electoral ridings of Muskoka and Parry Sound districts, I wish to state that we wish to protest against their action, and regard it as unfair, unjust and an infringement on the rights and liberties of the good people who go to make up these two grand old ridings of Muskoka and Parry Sound districts.
This is signed' by D. F. Quinlan, president of the Parry Sound' District Liberal Association. I was glad to receive that, because it will supply some evidence of what I believe to be the fact, that a large number of people, utterly regardless of party, will dislike thus being pushed around'. I can see no reason why this should be done. They are being dealt round like a pack of cards, and I shall have something to say about that in a few minutes.
I have one more word to say about myself.
I seem to be in good' company, because apparently there are some other people who have worked for this party and done their best and who will be kept out of this house, if it, is possible to have that done. I do not know whether we should flatter ourselves that it is thought desirable to pin us down as much as possible. We are constantly assured that 
the government is confident that nothing can shake it. I do not think this will be regarded as exhibit A for that confidence.
I am glad to have received these communications from Parry Sound, because after this redistribution goes through I hope I may be fortunate enough to get the nomination in. the new riding. I shall try to get it and if I do get it I believe that I and my good; friend, who is not in his seat today, will be able to carry on the election in a decent and sporting manner, though I am glad the contest is not to carried out on the ice.
I thought it was best in this matter to try to find some principles which might guide and which might be of interest. Certainly they are of interest to me. I thought it well, as far as possible, not to quote anyone who might be regarded as in any way prejudiced in favour of the party to which I happen to belong. I have been fortunate in finding some interesting quotations laying down, as I think, sound principles, from Sir Wilfrid Laurier and also the present Prime Minister. First I should like to quote from Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Speaking in this house on February 17, 1914, in a redistribution debate, he quotes with approval words which he himself had used in an earlier debate in 1892. Here are the words:
But I fully recognize that in such a measure the guiding principle should be as far as possible to equalize the population in all the constituencies.
He quotes that from 1892 and adds, "I have nothing to retract of those words." He is careful later on in his speech to point out that you cannot have absolute arithmetical equality. I want to read this part because I think it is important; it also points out at any rate one of the great qualifications of arithmetic equality. Sir Wilfrid said, as reported at page 847 of Hansard of February 17, 1914:
Without going into all the reasons, there is one supreme reason, namely, that in a country like Canada, where there is a very large territory with a sparse population, if you were to give the same unit of population to cities and counties, in rural constituencies you would have such a large area of territory as to he almost impossible to control or to cover. This is quite sufficient to justify the principle which has been adopted on^every occasion on which we have had redistribution.
The second principle which Sir Wilfrid lays down happens to be important on this occasion, because, as I see it, this riding of mine has been dealt around like a pack of cards. Sir Wilfrid says this, as reported at page 845 of Hansard:
There is another principle of almost equal importance, and that is regard for the compactness of the constituency, and, as far as possible,

Redistribution
for the county unit. Under our system, the county is the unit of population, so far as public life is concerned.
Later, on the same page, he said this:
It seems to me obvious that if you interfere with the lines of the county units, separate those who meet periodically for the discharge of their municipal and other duties, and provide that they shall only meet once in four or five years to decide on political questions, you detract from,- rather than add to, their appreciation of public questions.
In my opinion that statement by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was an extremely wise one, and I believe that anyone, even one who has had as little experience in country ridings as I have had, will have been greatly struck by the fact that the people you run into who are interested in politics are almost to a man those who have taken part, in municipal associations. I was interested in making a rough calculation and I came to the conclusion that in a country riding like mine there are somewhere between one hundred and two hundred times as many people taking an active part in self-government as there are in a large city. I believe if anyone works that out he will find it is nearer two hundred than one hundred. That is why I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier was on sound ground when he said that you take these people who are engaged in political life in their own county and you try as far as possible to maintain that principle when you are making constituencies.
The third principle that I want to quote was laid down by the present Prime Minister on May 23, 1933, when he was leader of the opposition. He says this as reported at page 5238 of Hansard'.
And may I say with respect to a question like the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, on which the whole basis of government itself rests, that this parliament is not merely exercising its function of legislating, it is exercising the function of the high court of parliament wherein it is expected to see that justice is done to all electors in the country, those who may not be in a position to represent their own views except by the members who happen to be representing them in particular constituencies at this time, as well as those who speak through their members. I submit that there is no higher trust imposed upon a House of Commons under our constitution than that of justly redistributing the constituencies. That trust is one which must be exercised not alone in the light of what is in the interest of the sitting member or the constituency he represents, but in a wholly or impartial and broadminded way in the light of what is most just and fair to the great body of the electorate.
I should like to quote just one further passage from the Prime Minister later in the debate where he raised the question of the previous redistribution. That was in the
twenties, when he was Prime Minister, and when there was some question with regard to his then constituency of North York. The Prime Minister has been around quite a bit since then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Involuntarily.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Speaking here, he says as reported at page 5279:
I took the position that as Prime Minister I was not going to ask any favours for myself, or expect for the constituency I represented, anything which I would not ask equally for any other constituency.
I am particularly sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to hear that, and I hope that some good angel will see to it that he reads that part of my speech, if no other.
AVe have three principles laid down there by Sir AVilfrid Laurier and by the present Prime Minister. The first is the substantial equality of members, subject to what Sir Wilfrid pointed out as to the difference between city and country; the second is adherence to municipal and county boundaries, and the third is justice to all the electors. I have been careful to take those principles from authorities which I am sure the government will not question.
If we accept those principles, let me apply them to my constituency of Muskoka-Ontario. I can be brief on this, because the argument, I think, is not hard to make. Muskoka-Ontario has a population of just a little over
35,000.	It is large for a country riding. When this redistribution came up I felt absolutely invulnerable, because I thought it was too large to be regarded as a small riding and on the other hand was too small to be regarded as a huge riding. I thought I was on safe middle ground. Therefore I was incredulous when I first heard of the suggestion which was made. I thought that some enemy of mine must have suggested it. I now know that he was not an enemy but was merely a well-informed man. I should like to make two points here, and I think they are both important. A good deal will be said later on about averages, and I just want to make one point. My constituency of Muskoka-Ontario has a population of 35,000. There are nineteen Ontario ridings with a population of under 30,000, and the smallest, of course- and I mention this rather hesitantly; I wish the Prime Minister were here to hear it-is Glengarry7, which heads or tails the list, whichever you like, with a population of 18,732.
Redistribution

I make one further comment on that. A little mental arithmetic will have shown hon. gentlemen already that my constituency as it stands is approximately twice the size, in the matter of population, of the Prime Minister's; but the new constituency which is to be set up-and for which I hope, with good luck, to get the nomination-will have some 51,000 of population, or approximately three times that of Glengarry. I submit that the figures I have given show that this proposal to wipe out or butcher the constituency of Muskoka-Ontario disregards in the most flagrant manner every one of those three principles which I have quoted from authorities which will be accepted. Let me recall to your mind, Mr. Chairman, what they were: First, substantial equality, as. explained by Sir Wilfrid; second, adherence to municipal and county boundaries. There I should digress for a moment. As I said a few minutes ago, the riding is being dealt around like a pack of cards. There are six townships in the Ontario part of that riding. Two of those are being attached to southern Ontario, and they do not much like that because they feel they are just an appanage to the city of Oshawa, which now dominates that riding. Four are being tossed over into the next county, Victoria. Then you come to Muskoka. Part of it, as the Secretary of State explained earlier, is being cut off and thrown across to North Simcoe, I think it is. The balance, truncated in that way, is to be attached to the district of Parry Sound. That is what it being done. As I say, they are reduced to bits and pieces, thrown all over the map; and I don't believe they like it.
I submit that I have made out something in the nature of what the lawyers would call a prima facie case; but against this you will naturally say there must be some arguments for it or it would not have been done. Quite true; and I am coming now to the arguments for it. The chairman of the subcommittee was kind enough to give me a memorandum. I doubt very much if the hon. member for Grey-Bruce was very happy about this thing;
I doubt very much if he felt entirely convinced about his memorandum, but however that may be he gave me a memorandum from which I now propose to quote. The first reason, quoting from his memorandum which I have here, is this:
Some of us decided on Muskoka-Ontario simply because it was nearest geographically to what is generally referred to as the north-
That is the northern area. There are two reasons in one here, really:
-and on the ground that the unit of representation of Parry Sound would be almost the same as the average of the north constituencies. 
I submit that those two reasons, as they say somewhere in Gilbert and Sullivan, like the flowers that bloom in the spring have nothing to do with the case. What possible bearing on the question of redistribution or on the wiping out of my constituency has the fact that it happens to be near the northern constituencies? I cannot see it. If you look at a map you see that Muskoka-Ontario is near the northern counties, but what earthly reason is that for suggesting that regardless of population and regardless of all the considerations which must be taken into account you can pick on this constituency, merely because it happens geographically to be near some others? I say that has nothing whatever to do with it.
The second part of the reason is that Parry Sound will have almost the same average population as the northern constituencies. What has that to do with it? Why pick out the northern constituencies? Why not pick out the southern ones, or the western ones, or the eastern ones? Why not remember Glengarry? Why not remember, too, that there are nineteen ridings in Ontario with populations of less than 30,000, while the population of my present riding is 35,000. I doubt very much that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce was very happy with the first reason, and I doubt if he was even that happy with the second one. Here is the second reason:
Others considered Muskoka-Ontario to be a combination of diverse economic interests and subject to improvement.
Somebody said, "subject to political improvement." However, I am not going to try to be funny about it, because there is a point in that reason which I want to discuss. The point is the reference to a combination of diverse economic interests, and I think it very interesting that this reason should be given. The suggestion there, as far as I can make out, is that when a member comes down here he is a lobbyist, that he is just to represent the interests of his riding, that he has no broader duty and that therefore if possible you should give him just one interest to represent. I think this would be a most extraordinary place if we had here 245 people each feeling himself pledged to represent one interest. I say that would be the destruction of democratic government. I believe that reason is one of the most vicious and unsound reasons that could be given. Incidentally, and happily, I think the fact is that if you took stock of the ridings here you would find at least one hundred, I suspect one hundred and fifty and I hope even more members who on analysis would be found to represent a combination of diverse economic interests. I

Redistribution
hope that is true, because if it is true it is healthy, and if it is not true it is unhealthy. Therefore I say to me that reason is not only no reason, but it is in reverse, a reason for leaving the riding as it is.
The final reason is a rather complicated statement of the average population figures for ridings in central southern Ontario and eastern southern Ontario. I find this very complicated, and therefore am reading it. I can hardly understand it myself, and I am not sure I could state it without reading it. Beginning with the proposition that a seat must come from southern Ontario, the memorandum proceeds to argue on the basis of the figures given that it must be from central southern Ontario, in other words from a bloc of constituencies which includes Muskoka-Ontario. But that again entirely ignores the fact I have already pointed out, that this constituency of mine is much larger than nineteen other ridings in Ontario, all of which have less than 30,000 population, and many of them very much less. I have looked at some of the figures. Beginning, with Glengarry with 18,732, they show population of 21,000, 21,000,
22,000,	23,000, 25,000, and so on-much smaller than my riding.
Now I should like briefly to take stock of the situation. I have tried to glean some principles which seemed to me sound in dealing with this matter. I have taken them from recognized authorities; they seem to me wise. If I have not completely failed I have done something to persuade you that on these reasons there is no case whatever for the dismemberment of Muskoka-Ontario. As I said a little while ago, I am in good company; but that does not do anything to comfort me, and still less to comfort the people of my riding. As things are now we have the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is a special target and whose constituency has had such an amount of axe and shovel work done on it that I think it would take a combination of a civil engineer and a Philadelphia lawyer to find the boundaries. The hon. member for Vancouver South has already dealt with Kamloops and with the constituency at present represented by my leader. But I want to say one thing further, because naturally the question has arisen in one's mind as to what the Prime Minister has to say about all this. Again let me say I am sorry he is not here, because I am going to quote from him, and indeed discuss him a little in the few minutes I have remaining to me.
Before I forget I should like to say one thing. That is, there was one member of that committee, the hon. member for Quebec South, who seemed to me to show some spirit 83166-356
of fairness and sportsmanship in this business. I think he did not like this, and my understanding is that he tried to have it sent back but was overruled. I imagine there are other people who are more biddable than he, and who carry out the orders of the boss with greater complaisance. But now I am coming back to the Prime Minister. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of April 28. This was just after the right hon. gentleman had come back from the south, and I suppose he was full of the milk of human kindness. This clipping is headed, "Mr. King not pleased with changes in ridings". I propose to quote somewhat freely from this article. It begins by saying:
With the return of Prime Minister King to his office in Ottawa today, it is expected that a considerable number of recommendations recently made by the House of Commons redistribution committee will be turned back to Chairman C. G. Power and his associates for reconsideration. A source close to the Prime Minister told the Journal today that Mr. King is not altogether satisfied with the committee's reports and recommendations.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Is the source identified)?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading from the Ottawa Journal of April 28. As far as I know this has never been denied, and this is a well recognized way of putting out information. I do not suppose anyone is called upon to establish the credibility of a newspaper report unless the person quoted takes the trouble to deny it: and as far as I am aware this has been allowed to stand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But nobody is quoted except "a source".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nobody is quoted, but we are very familiar with that, too. I think we may say it is a well recognized technique of government now-


Douglas Charles Abbott: A technique of the newspapers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A technique of government, too. In his more objective moments I imagine the Minister of Finance would agree with that. Just let me read this, because as I say it has never been denied. The time for denial has passed, no, it has not passed; it can be denied now if necessary. This reads:
A source close to the Prime Minister told the Journal today that Mr. King is not altogether satisfied with the committee's reports and, recommendations. It is said also that as member of parliament for Glengarry, with a population of only 18,000, he is sensitive about the "tinkering" with ridings with larger populations.

Redistribution

Then there is another thing. This sounds encouraging, but I want to. read again from the same article:
The Prime Minister, it is said, has no wish to appear in the light of a member of the commons entitled to special privilege. It is certain that this charge will be made if Glengarry is left intact and other ridings with equal claims are sliced up for partisan reasons.
I only wish to point out that I think that is a very fair statement, a very accurate state-men, I should like to point out it is not only other ridings with equal claims that are being sliced up; it is other ridings with twice the claim, with twice the population.
My last quotation from this article attributed to the Prime Minister and which has never been repudiated is as follows:
The Journal's informant said there was little likelihood of the committee's recommendations being "jammed" through the commons by the weight of a Liberal majority. They will all be carefully examined by Mr. King in consultation with his colleagues before the redistribution bill is submitted to the house.
Well, the redistribution bill is here, and there may even be some suspicion that there is an intention of jamming this thing through. We may have our own views as to what would happen if it were left to a free vote, but I doubt if there is any chance of that. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, because he might tell us whether he has examined this bill and what his own conclusions are. Again speaking for my constituents, I would say to the Prime Minister that he should not be surprised, if I suggest that my constituents will find it hard to believe that he is very sensitive in the matter if they are treated as it is now proposed to treat them.
Sensitivity is a -thing which is hard to measure. I think myself that there should be a differentiation in favour of a prime minister. The Prime Minister is a busy man. He cannot spend the time in his constituency that other people can. I think that is one of the reasons why he has been a bit of a wanderer.


An hon. MEMBER:: The wanderer has
returned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am glad he is here. I was just saying that the people in my constituency will find that hard to believe. Perhaps I should refer to the fact that I had previously quoted a statement which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 28 stating that the Prime Minister was sensitive about any tinkering with ridings of larger population, that is larger than Glengarry. I was just about to deal with the sensitivity of the Prime Minister. I was saying that I think that there should be some
fMr. Macdonnell.]
differentiation in favour of the Prime Minister because he is a busy man and has not the same time as other people to go through his riding. I was saying that that was one of the reasons he had become a bit of a wanderer.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will my hon.
friend excuse me for a minute? I understand that when I was out of the house engaged on some rather important work in my office in another part of the building he stated that
had made some statement about not being pleased with the work of the committee .laving charge of the redistribution and that I took exception to what was being done and intended to see that it was changed or altered. [ think he was quoting from an Ottawa Journal article by Mr. Jackson. May I say that if I am informed correctly as to what he said there is not an iota of truth in it I never at.any time had anything to do with the work of the committee regarding redistribution. One or two members came and spoke to me about their difficulties and I said that I preferred to' leave everything to the committee itself. I have never at any time stated that I was in favour of changing in any particular anything that the committee might agree upon.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I comment on that and say simply that I am sorry that the Prime Minister was not here when I read earlier some very admirable comments. All I can say is that to me it is a most astonishing thing if the Prime Minister of this country entirely dis-interests himself in an important matter of this kind and knows nothing about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is entirely misstating what I said. I did not say that I was not interested in a matter of this kind or that I was not concerned about it one way or another. What I did say was that I had not interfered with the work of the committee while it was at work. I have adopted that rule at all times.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I may have misunderstood the Prime Minister but I got the impression that he said he had nothing to do with it. I thought that he should have had something to do with it That is the opinion of a private member and I hope the Prime Minister will now allow me to finish my speech.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend will allow me also to say something.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was saying that I think there should be a differentiation in favour of any prime

Redistribution
minister. I do not know what that should be. I think any fairminded man would see that it should foe ten per cent, twenty per cent, twenty-five per cent or perhaps fifty per cent, but I think the people of my riding for whom I am now speaking will find it a little difficult if it is suggested to them that it should be two hundred per cent. If Glengarry is left at 18,732-I think that is the population, and I do not want to minimize it by one single inhabitant-if it is left at
18,000	odd and my riding, which is now
35,000,	is increased to some 50,000, which it will be if it is attached to Parry Sound- what I am saying is that I doubt very much if the people in my riding will think that there is anything fair or proper, or I might say that they will regard it as arbitrary, unreasonable, unreasoning and I do not think it would be going too far to say that they will regard it as preposterous.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if he is trying, either directly or indirectly, to insinuate that I have had anything to do with the work of the committee in a single-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not insinuating anything. I read an article in good faith-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend allow me to finish my statement?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, I do not think I will. The Prime Minister has said that I am insinuating, but I am not. I rather resent being asked if I am insinuating, because that is not my practice. I read in good faith statements which appeared in a journal issued in Ottawa two months ago. Those were important statements made with regard to the Prime Minister's attitude and I accepted them in good faith. So far as I know those statements have not been denied.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I expected to answer allegations made against me in the Journal or any other paper? That is not my practice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is not an allegation. I think that is rather unworthy of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not have to regard the Prime Minister as if he were Lord God Almighty. I have a proper respect for the Prime Minister. I made no insinuation. I read statements which appeared in a reputable journal here in 83166-356J
Ottawa and which were never questioned and which so far as I am concerned had the earmarks of reasonableness about them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the source?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Incidentally I shall be very interested to hear what the Ottawa Journal has to say about it.
I would never believe that the Ottawa Journal would stoop to improper tactics to manufacture reports of this kind out of whole cloth.
I say quite frankly that I took this report at its face value and I was puzzled and surprised that the Prime Minister should repudiate it. If he repudiates it, as far as I am concerned that ends it, of course. I did not make any insinuation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I mentioned that I understand the article was written by Mr. Jackson, but I do not know by whom it was written.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Answering the Prime Minister, there is no statement here as to who wrote it.
If I may finish after these various interruptions, I have tried to say what I believe the people of my riding will think about this matter. So far as our party is concerned I suppose it might be a good thing if this thing went through, because I am quite satisfied that the Liberal party will make a lot of bad friends up there. I wish to end by saying that if this goes through I believe that the people of my riding will think that I have been badly treated, and I know very well that they will think they have been badly treated.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Mr. Chairman, this lV the first time I am trying my luck speaking . in the house in English and I hope that hon. members will pass over any mistakes I might make.
The bill before us deals with the constituency I have the honour to represent in this-house, the constituency of Pontiac, which is to be divided into two, Pontiac-Temiscam-ingue and Villemeuve. Politically speaking the constituency of Villeneuve is a really good one because it is a stronghold of the Union of Electors and Social Credit. But the idea which I have and which I hope we all have is not to regard this as a political question but as a matter of doing justice and right to>
the citizens of the whole country. A part of this new constituency, Temiscamingue which, is to be annexed to the southern part of the; present constituency of Pontiac, has already made known its wishes. It appears that a few organizers in Ville-Marie and Lorrainville have made representations to the committee
Redistribution

asking that that area be annexed to the lower part of Pontiac. Prom the standpoint of geography, communications, and from the business point of view that is nonsense, because Temiseamingue naturally belongs to the northern part. They are dealing with Rouyn and Noranda all the time, and they have nothing to do with the lower part of Pontiac. If they want to go to lower Pontiac they cannot reach it by roads in their own constituency because they have no highway; they have nothing; they are obliged to go through North Bay or to go through Montreal to reach Shawville and Campbell's Bay. I met some people of Temiseamingue a couple of weeks ago and they asked me to tell the committee and the house that their desire and will is to be connected1 with Rouyn and Noranda and with the northern part of Pontiac. If there are any political ideas behind this division of the constituency of Pontiac I think the organizers certainly missed the point, because we can organize there just as well as anywhere else in Canada. The only thing I am asking for today is justice for the people of Temiseamingue who want to remain connected with the north. If we have too large a population in the north it is up to the committee or the house to divide the northern part in two, leaving lower Pontiac alone or annexing lower Pontiac to another riding in the south. Then all the people in the north will be satisfied. We want justice and nothing else.
I should like to say a few words about Laval-Two Mountains. I am one hundred per cent in favour of what the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains said this afternoon, it is certainly an injustice to him to have his constituency struck off completely. He is an old member of the house, but now that constituency is to lose its name and be annexed to another riding. I think that something should be done and could be done in this matter which would be to the advantage of the population. I am not looking at this matter simply from the point of view of the member who represents that constituency, but from the point of view of the will of the people of Laval-Two Mountains. Our obligation is to forget political considerations, and if some of the organizers are not pleased with the present set-up they have only to cross their fingers and wait until the election comes, when we will show them what the people of this country want. They want justice; they want their rights protected, and when the majority of the people have expressed their wishes the government should concern itself with the will of the people and should legislate accordingly.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Bearing in mind that if this bill passes as it stands, it will add a population of approximately 25,000 to the constituency of Carleton, which has already a population of approximately 44,000-


George James McIlraith: Where do you get your figures?


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member for Ottawa West has interrupted several times. He has already said too much or too little on this bill because he is the man who is understood to have said that this change was no part of his requirements, that he did not ask for it and: did not want it. May I in turn ask him to explain to the committee who did ask that Ottawa South be added to Carleton riding. Probably he could tell us that.
The riding of Carleton is one which I am sure any hon. member would' feel it a great privilege to represent. I personally do, and I think any member would feel it also an honour and a great distinction to represent that portion of Ottawa South which the member for Ottawa West is now losing and is sorry to lose, if the report he gave is correct. The fact remains that Carleton county now has a population of 44,000 and that there is to be added to it one of the most rapidly growing sections in the Ottawa area. The constituency of Carleton has a staunch, loyal, rural population with a long tradition in this county. A' great number of the people of Carleton county come from ancestry who have lived in Carleton for over 125 years. I am pleased to be associated with those people as having come from ancestors, as I do, who have lived in Carleton for a century and a quarter. They are in the main a rural people. The constituency of Carleton has now a population of approximately 44,000. According to the 1941 census, it is the fourth largest constituency in eastern Ontario. As a matter of fact according to the 1941 census taken immediately preceding the change in population due to wartime conditions, the constituency of Carleton had a population of 34,607. Since that time the municipality of Nepean, located immediately west of the city of Ottawa, has increased in population, according to the statistics of the municipality, from 12,062 to 19,522 in the years 1941 to 1946. That population has increased greatly since 1946. Consequently, whoever may be the next member for Carleton will represent a constituency that has a population greatly exceeding 70,000. Compare that with the population of the constituency of Glengarry which is 18,000, and you will find1 that the comparison is four to one as of this time.

Redistribution
The city of Ottawa had in 1941 a total population of something like 158,000 votes.


Colin William George Gibson: Not votes.


George James McIlraith: Forty-one thousand
votes.


George Russell Boucher: Add to that Ottawa East and) you have the population I mentioned. The two Ottawas, if you like to explain it that way, had a population of 157,519 in 1941, but it greatly exceeded that in 1946. If you were to divide either the 1941 population or the 1947 population by 18,000, the population of Glengarry, you would find that, on a like ratio, there should be seven ridings in Ottawa alone. But the point I wish to make today is that in my humble opinion the city of Ottawa merits at least three ridings. I do not think there can be any argument in that regard.
In the province of Ontario there are, I believe, over thirty ridings with less than
40,000	population each. In the province of Quebec there are approximately the same number of ridings with less than 40,000 population each. In Manitoba there are at least ten ridings with less than 40,000 population, each, and in Saskatchewan there are at least twelve ridings with less than 40,000 each. In Ottawa the total population is something in excess of 157,000, but it has only two representatives, and 25,000 of that urban population are being added to the rural riding of Carleton to make a third riding with a population of over 70,000. It must be borne in mind that redistribution is being done in the year 1947 allegedly on the 1941 census, and that another redistribution will have to take place in four years, after the next census is taken. Therefore I say it is not merely a matter of transferring 25,000 people from one riding to another that I oppose.


George James McIlraith: It is 18,000, not 25,000.


George Russell Boucher: My hon. friend continues to interject. Perhaps he will deny the statement of the authorities of his own city; I am not prepared to do that.


George James McIlraith: I take the figures of the bureau of statistics.


George Russell Boucher: Would my hon. friend kindly refrain from making his objections? He can make his own speech and we shall allow him to do so, if he wishes to deny the statement of the assessment commissioner. Accord^ ing to the statement of the assessment commissioner in a letter dated April 26, 1947, which I am prepared' to file, the population of the portion of Riverdale added to Carleton is 13,879; the population of that portion of
Capital ward being added is 10,948; the population of that portion of Elmdale nowin Carleton is 6,752. Addling the first two amounts together we get a population of 24.000 and some odd. Then we have a part of Dalhousie ward being added to Carleton which has a population of 815 people, according to the assessment commissioner of the city of Ottawa. That does not take into account the 185 people at H.M.C.S. Carleton.


George James McIlraith: You have taken the whole of Riverdale ward.; there is a mistake.


George Russell Boucher: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech he had better get his own figures. I have taken the portion which the city commissioner has taken, and that is the portion added to Carleton. There is no mistake.


George James McIlraith: That is not right.


George Russell Boucher: I do not wonder at my hon. friend, being confused because he represents the riding of Ottawa West, and apparently is pleased) to get rid of five sections of five different wards and have them added to Carleton county. Carleton county will now include not only a portion of the county, but also a portion of Victoria ward, a portion of Elmdale ward, a portion of Capital ward, a portion of Dalhousie ward and a portion of Riverdale ward. If my hon. friend adds these together he will get five.


George James McIlraith: Who put Elmdale and Victoria wards in Carleton county?


George Russell Boucher: My hon. friend can tell that himself. Who asked to put a portion of Capital ward, Riverdale ward and a portion of Dalhousie ward into Carleton county? It was not Riverdale; it was not Dalhousie; it was not Capital ward, and it was not Carleton county that asked that these wards be added.


George James McIlraith: Tell us where you live.


George Russell Boucher: My hon. friend is more anxious to know where I live than to know anything about the riding he represents and now apparently rejoices in losing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do you live in Riverdale?


George James McIlraith: Answer the question.


George Russell Boucher: My hon. friend wants a few more particulars.


Mr. BROWN:: Answer the question.


George Russell Boucher: He may have them. If this bill goes through there will be added to Carleton county from Dalhousie ward a total of 815 plus 185 who are living in H.M.C.S. Carleton[DOT] from Riverdale ward, 13,879.
Redistribution


George James McIlraith: No, only 5,000.


George Russell Boucher: From Capital ward,
10,948; from Elmdale ward, 6,752; from Victoria ward, 2,331, making a total city population in the new riding of 34,910 as of 1946. In the rural area, including all of the township of Nepean which is partly suburban, the population is 33,915. The old historic and traditional riding of Carleton, having been predominantly rural, having been a composite group, is now becoming a deeply concentrated city riding to the extent of approximately fifty per cent. Not only that, but the part added to Carleton county is not a part that is the natural boundary of Carleton, because it is joined by a very narrow neck in the southeast corner and extends away to the southeast.
As an individual member I do not think that I or anybody else would have anything but the highest praise and approval for the people who are being added, but I say that if a redistribution bill is to be just to the population, to the area or to the territory it should not add a population of 25,000 to an existing
44,000	and expect that the people of Canada will approve that kind of distribution.


Mr. LENNARD:: I rise at this time to make a protest against the mutilation of the good old riding of Wentworth. I may say that I protested several months ago. I did not leave it until the dying hours of this session. I wrote to the editor of the Dundas Star on April 25. He published this letter in his issue of May 1, and it reads as follows:
Gordon Anslow, Esq.,
Editor, Dundas Star,
Dundas, Ontario Dear Mr. Editor:
The redistribution committee, predominantly representing this present government, are proposing to remove from Wentworth the townships of Beverly, Aneaster, Glanford and Bin-brook and are going to put them into a new constituency to be called Brant-Wentworth.
I have protested against it! I am protesting against it. and will have more to say about it when the bill appears in the house. Wentworth has not had its county boundaries broken in over forty-five years, and there is no good or sensible reason for doing it now. I object to being kicked around, and we are. It is just plain political skulduggery, and I have had and I am having no part of it. I am making that statement now at this first opportunity and am not waiting until the damage is done. Mind you, I am leaning backwards politically, as every one of those four townships returns a Liberal majority, but if I did not protest this move I would not be doing my duty to the good people of Wentworth. I am placing the matter right on the doorstep of the Liberal organization of Wenitworth riding and it is up ,to them. I am washing my hands of it. I will have none of it.

I have grave doubts whether the Liberal association of Wentworth were ever consulted aJbout the matter or knew much about it until the damage was done. On May 17 I received the following letter from the county clerk and treasurer of the county of Wentworth.
Dear Sir:	We are enclosing for your consideration a copy of a resolution passed unanimously at the recent session of Wentworth county council.
As the redistribution proposed at the present time involves the transfer to Brant riding of more than half the area of Wentworth county, it was strenuously opposed by all members of council.
By the way, I may say that about fifty per cent of the members of the county council of Wentworth are Liberals, the other fifty per cent being Progressive Conservatives. It was moved by councillor W. S. Milmine. seconded by councillor B. E. Corman:
That this council of the corporation of the county of Wentworth hereby records its disapproval of and protests against any redistribution of the federal ridings which may involve the transfer of portions of the federal riding of Wentworth to the Brant or any other federal riding, and
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the chairman of the redistribution committee of the House of Commons.
This resolution was passed on May 15, 1947, and forwarded on May 17. I am sure it will be of interest to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) the very fine chairman of the committee for Ontario, of which I have no criticism. I say it will be interesting for him to know that the motion was seconded by Mr. B. E. Corman, a brother of the former member for Wentworth, who is also a friend of mine. It seems strange that this should be seconded by Mr. Corman's brother.
In my opinion this thing started by putting the township of Burford in the constituency of Brantford City. The present hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald.) would have no objection to that, because Burford township has always returned a slight Liberal majority. But they take the remainder of Brant county and put it in that, constituency with four townships of Wentworth, to make it one of the most rambling constituencies of Ontario. To quote from the Dundas Star of May 1, 1947, this is what the editor, Mr. Anslow, says in part:
Residents of Wentworth are wondering where the equity of such a "redistribution" lies. They look at a map and wonder just where such matters may end. They consider that for generations they have voted in Wentworth and feel that at this stage in the constituency's history no change should be made-especially when it will not result in at least a better geographical division.

Redistribution
If these two new townships of Glanford and Binbrook were to be taken from the riding of Wentworth, the right and proper place to put them would be the constituency of Haldimand.
In conclusion, may I say that I do not consider that in a riding such as Wentworth the removal of one or two or three thousand of its population from the constituency means anything at all when the constituency is so large. But I say that in a riding which has been either Liberal or Conservative since confederation, the committee should consider seriously making this alteration, because I am giving fair warning now that, whether the candidate be Liberal or Progressive Conservative, he will have far fewer supporting votes to carry into the more congested area of the present riding of Wentworth to fight communism.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: To me, and I am sure to many members of this house who have been here for a long time, this is a most extraordinary way of considering a bill in committee of the whole, to have a general discussion of amendments and particular sections instead of discussing the bill section by section as is usual. However, since this has developed into a free-for-all, I intend to say now what I intended to say on section 2.


William Henry Golding: I called the attention of the committee to that fact and the committee did agree to have a general discussion.


George Black: I will direct my remarks particularly to section 2 of the bill. The section adds to the federal district of Yukon that part of Mackenzie district west of the 109th meridian of west longitude, and the original bill added the whole of the Mackenzie district. The change to the 109th meridian of west longitude does not make much difference. It makes the boundary of the new constituency, if it becomes a constituency, as I hope it will not, that much more difficult to find. The east boundary before was the boundary of the district of Mackenzie. Now it is the 109th meridian of west longitude. How will anyone find that? It has not been surveyed or marked out, whereas the boundaries of Mackenzie district have been surveyed and marked out.
Why that change was made I do not know. Yukon has an area of 207,076 square miles and the Mackenzie district has an area of 527,490 square miles, a total of Mackenzie and Yukon, of 734,566 square miles.
The present section makes a constituency of over 700,000 square miles in area, if anyone can visualize that. It is unwieldy and so vast
that it is impossible. I hold up a map of Canada on which hon. members can see Yukon and the Mackenzie. The combined area will be larger than British Columbia and Alberta combined; larger than Alberta and Saskatchewan combined; larger than Saskatchewan and Manitoba; as large as Ontario and almost as large as Quebec and the maritimes. That, to me, is a monstrosity. Why anyone took the notion to make such a constituency I do not understand, but I will make a guess before I get through.
To begin with, Yukon and this district of Mackenzie are separated' by two high ranges of mountains. They have nothing whatever in common. Mackenzie district does all its business and all its trading with central Canada, with Edmonton for the most part. It would be much more appropriate to add the Mackenzie district to a northern constituency in Alberta or Saskatchewan than to Yukon to the west. Yukon does its trading with the west coast of Canada, with Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert. The Mackenzie district does practically all its trading with Edmonton. We have nothing in common.
Does any member of the house feel thait he could reasonably represent such a constituency and get around it? Is he wealthy enough to own or charter a plane to go and visit the people in his constituency from time to time, as he should? And not only in an election. In an election it will cost a fortune, and it will cost the government of Canada a great deal of money to carry on an election there. As evidence of that, they have already increased the chief electoral officer's pay by $2,000, because of the additional expense he would be put to in such a condition.
What is the population? At the last census the Yukon population of white people was only 3,174, and of Mackenzie district was 2,113, a total of 5,287. I estimate that today- and I am in a position to make a fair estimate-there are not 10,000 included in the two districts. Some people say that this is mandatory on the part of this parliament. We need only to look at the section of the British North America Act as amended to convince ourselves that it is not mandatory. Section 51 (2) reads as follows:
The Yukon territory as constituted by chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada (1991), together with any part of Canada not comprised within a province which may from time to time-
Redistribution

And note those words "may from time to time".
-be included therein by the parliament of Canada for the purpose of representation in parliament, shall be entitled to one member.
The parliament of Canada may or may not, just as it chooses. It does not have to do anything of the kind, and I say that it should not. Other people will say that they do not wish to disfranchise the people of the Mackenzie district. The bulk of the people of the Mackenzie district live at the new and coming mining camp of Yellowknife. That is a splendid gold mining camp which is bound to grow and will produce wonderful wealth. They have not a population of 5,000. The rest of the people in the Mackenzie district are but a few hundreds who live away up miles north of Great Bear lake where uranium is being produced. If this bill is not passed1 adding that part of Mackenzie district to Yukon, these people are not disfranchised. They are left as they are, and that is what they asked parliament to do. They have done that by telegram from their board of trustees. They have done it by petition and in every other way. They d'o not want the franchise on the terms of this bill and I do not see why parliament should insist on giving it to them. Back in 1930 there was before this house a bill, which happened to be Bill No. 13, an unlucky number. By that bill it was intended to add the whole of the northwest territories to Yukon and make one electoral constituency; in other words, that constituency would have been extended from Alaska on the west to the Atlantic ocean on the east and to the north pole on the north. It was so ridiculous that parliament would not listen to it and they dropped the bill. When I discussed this matter in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I said1, as reported at page 695 of Hansard:
I cannot better describe the section of the bill to which I have referred than to say that it is outrageous legislation, the iniquity of which could not be overstated. That portion of the bill seeking to form one constituency out of Yukon and the Mackenzie district is a legislative abortion.
I was followed in that debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who said:
May I just say a word in support of the grievance the previous speaker has presented to the house. When this matter was up for discussion at the time we had before us the resolution to Westminster asking for amendment to the British North America Act, hon. members of this group pointed out at that time how unfair it was to make one constituency across the whole of the North American continent, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has just described it.

That is how that group felt about it. As long ago as March 10, I said, 'as reported at page 1209 of Hansard:
I predict that before the legislation becomes law, in its present atrocious form-and it is in an atrocious form-the people in the Mackenzie district themselves will protest, and will not submit to being so ruthlessly pushed around. I believe they would prefer to remain unrepresented in parliament rather than have to accept representation on the fantastically ridiculous terms proposed. There has scarcely been time to hear from them, but I predict we shall.
And we have. This is what came in from Yellowknife on March 15, 1945. It is a telegram addressed to the Secretary of State who, in the absence of the Prime Minister, was handling the bill, and reads as follows:
Yellowknife district miners union opposed to amalgamation of Yukon Mackenzie districts for electoral purposes. We demand that Mackenzie district be given separate electoral status.
Then the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), observing that they had not gone so far as to say that they did not want representation at all on those terms, had a telegram sen't to them; and a telegram came back to the effect that they preferred' to remain without representation rather than be joined to Yukon. They put the miners' union on record to that extent. The chairman of the committee will bear me out in that. Then there is another telegram to the Secretary of State, which reads as follows:
We the undersigned members of the local board of trustees of Yellowknife administrative district protest against proposed joint representation in parliament of Yukon and Mackenzie districts for the following reasons. No intercommunication between the two districts, no common interests among the people in the two districts, no desire by the people of either territory for joint representation. Financially impossible for one representative to serve both districts. Consensus of opinion would prefer no representative at present to proposed joint representation.
When that telegram was presented to the committee, what did the hon. member for Ottawa West say. The report in the Globe and Mail on March 26, in connection with the proceedings of the committee, reads, in part, as follows:
G. J. Mcllraith (Lib., Ottawa West) just couldn't believe that any five men would send such a message. He pointed to a statement in the Yellowknife telegram that it was "financially impossible" for any man to represent the widely separated Yukon and Northwest Territories. How, he asked, did the Yellowknife trustees know for certain that Canada had not a solitary citizen financially able to afford to sit as M.P. for both districts?

Redistribution
He may be financially able, but I am not; and I doubt if ninety-five per cent of the members of this house are financially able to represent that district as it should be represented.
So much for finances. Then I have a telegram addressed to the Prime Minister, from Yellowknife:
At open public mass meeting called by Northwest Territories association and representing all parties and shades of opinion the following resolution was passed unanimously:
"This meeting is bitterly opposed to amalgamation of the district of Mackenzie with Yukon Territory as an electoral constituency and demands the immediate creation of a constituency for the Mackenzie district under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1886."
Exhaustive canvass of public opinion fails to disclose even one supporter of proposed electoral amalgamation. Objections cite preposterously unwieldy size of proposed constituency, absolute lack of community or economic interest or of direct intercommunication between the two areas.
That is signed by John Murray McMeekan, president of the Northwest Territories association. The previous telegram was signed, among others, by Mr. J. G. McNiven, who is the first citizen of Canada other than a civil servant to have been appointed to the council of the Northwest Territories. I asked him if his appointment to that council would in any way handicap his opposition to the union of these two districts, and he replied, "No. If anything my objection ought to have more weight as coming from a member of that council." Then on April 22 he sent me the following telegram:
Received following wire from Murphy. "Wrote you today. One hundred per cent citizens against amalgamation. Petitions being signed and will be rushed to Black this week. Citizens here prepared wait two years, I would estimate." Will advise you further.
Then Mr. McNiven wrote me from Toronto on April 23:
For your information I am enclosing copy of letter addressed to the Honourable J. A. Glen. You will note that Mr. Murphy is keeping his promise to do everything to get representative petitions in Ottawa at the earliest possible date.
This is what Mr. McNiven wrote the Minister of Mines and Resources on April 23, 1947:
Following our conversation on Tuesday, April 15, re proposed merger of Yellowknife and Yukon districts, I wrote to Yellowknife to ascertain the popular feeling there and have received a reply from Mr. G. D. Murphy which reads in part as follows:
"For your information and Mr. Glen's this will advise you that the Hon. George Black visited this town last week and interviewed many people, under the writer's guidance, and 83166-357
one evening held a public meeting. No one here that met him or that was at the meeting was in favour of the present arrangement, viz: union for electoral purposes of the Yukon district and the Mackenzie. They, these people, all preferred to wait until such time as we were able to have our own representative in the federal house. He said he thought petitions circulated and signed by the people would be much more important to the committee in making its decision than wires from organizations, and acocrdingly we are now in the process of getting these signed. They will be sent to George Black via air mail this coming week and will be presented to the committee and quite possibly be produced on the floor of the house."
You will note that this definitely substantiates my own opinion in the matter, and I hope you will take the necessary delaying action to await the receipt of the petitions mentioned in this letter. You will recall meeting Mr. Murphy on your Yellowknife visit last year as president of the local board of trade. I personally have a great deal of faith in his judgment on matters of this nature and recommend him highly to you in the same capacity.
As I understand it, this matter started in this way. Last summer the Minister of Mines and Resources made a trip to Yellowknife by plane, and they suggested to him that they should have representation in parliament, to which he quite agreed. But they never expected that their representation in parliament would be brought about by adding most of the Mackenzie district to Yukon, and they were disappointed and surprised when they found this was the outcome of their interview with the minister. As I see it-and I am sure hon. members will say I am right-it would be just as appropriate to add the Mackenzie district to Nova Scotia as to add it to Yukon. It is just as easy to get from Nova Scotia to Mackenzie as to get from Yukon to Mackenzie. It would be just as appropriate to add Mackenzie to Glengarry as to add it to Yukon. This is the petition that came in from the people of Yukon:
That parliament is now considering Bill No. 18 which if enacted will be "The Representation Act 1947".
That it is proposed by said legislation to include with Yukon electoral district the said district of Mackenzie and the electoral district so created shall elect one member of the House of Commons.
That in the opinion of your petitioners it is not desirable to include the district of Mackenzie with the electoral district of Yukon for the reason that it will create a constituency of the enormous area of over seven hundred thousand square miles in extent, unwieldy and impracticable in every respect.
That Yukon territory and the district of Mackenzie have nothing in common, no community interest of any sort. They are separated by ranges of mountains, have no direct intercommunication, are entirely foreign to each other.

Redistribution

Your petitioners therefore pray that Mackenzie district be not included with the electoral district of Yukon. . . .
Now I have the petition from Mackenzie, with the same preamble:
That in the opinion of your petitioners it is not desirable to include the district of Mackenzie with the electoral district of Yukon for the reason that it will create a constituency of the enormous area of over seven hundred thousand square miles in extent, unwieldy and impracticable in every respect.
That Yukon territory and the district of Mackenzie have nothing in common, no community interest of any sort. They are separated by ranges of mountains, have no direct intercommunication, are entirely foreign to each other.
Remember, these are the people of Mackenzie.
That your petitioners prefer to have the representation of Mackenzie district to parliament postponed and to remain for the present without such representation rather than to have the district included with the electoral district of Yukon.
These are the wishes of the people of that district. Opposition to this legislation is unanimous in both Mackenzie and Yukon. Not one supporting voice has been found; no one has said, "Do it," and I challenge anyone who says there is support for this step to show where that support comes from. The people out there do not want it. They are the people who are affected. They have told you so in telegrams and petitions. Are you going to disregard their wishes? What good will this do? Why force it on them? Yellowknife is a coming mining camp; probably it will be one of the best Canada has ever seen. During the Easter holidays I made a trip there by plane just to find out how the people felt about the matter. We had a public meeting, and no one at that meeting was in favour of joining Mackenzie and Yukon. They asked me how they could influence parliament against it, and I advised them to send down petitions signed by as many of the people of that territory as they could get to sign. I told them that telegrams from organizations such as the board of trade and the board of trustees were all very well in their way, but that they did not represent the wide range of public opinion that petitions represented. They asked me if I would draw up the petitions, and those petitions were drafted by me at the request of those people.
I say this community of Yellowknife in the Mackenzie district should eventually have representation, but they do not want it now at this price. Eventually they will be entitled to representation, and I would be the last to put anything in the way of their getting it, but they do not want it this way and neither do I. They ask you not to do this atrocious

thing to them. I ask you on behalf of the people of Mackenzie and the people of Yukon not to do it. For my own sake it does not matter; it is neither here nor there, because this will probably be my last parliament. But I am thinking of the people who will come after me and who will be looking after the people in the great Yellowknife district and the people of Yukon.
As you know, or as you should know, Yukon has produced over $300 million worth of placer gold. They are now moving into hard rock gold mining, silver mining and lead mining. It is a coming camp just as the Yellowknife
is.	Eventually they should have representation in this parliament, but they do not want it at this price. Those who are best qualified say that they do not want it. I did not want to do it in this way; but, since the committee has decided that there will be a general discussion and the Secretary of State has moved an amendment to the clause in the schedule as to Nova Scotia, I would move:
That section 2 be amended by striking out the words, "including that part of the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories lying west of the 109th meridian of west longitude.


William Henry Golding: We shall have to deal with that amendment the same as we did with the other two. We will accept
it,	but it will have to be dealt with when that clause is called.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make with regard to what has happened in connection with the four York seats surrounding Toronto. When the census was taken I think the norm was 54,000 of population to one representative in this parliament. Since that time the number of seats in parliament has been increased1 so that the representation is somewhat less than 54,000. Because of difficulties of travel and for other reasons it is reasonable to expect that a rural seat should contain fewer population than an urban seat. A member representing a rural seat has to travel greater distances and has all the other difficulties inherent to representing a larger square mileage of territory.
However, the situation with regard to the Yorks goes far further than what I think could reasonably be expected. Let us assume that a reasonable proportion as between rural and urban representation in this house is sixty to forty; that is, an urban seat should have a population of some 60,000 and' a rural seat a population of some 40,000. There would, be some exceptions of course, but that would be the over-all picture. Let us see what happens with regard to the York seats. I am speaking of York West particularly, because that is my

Redistribution
5595'
own seat, but I should like to give the populations of the four Yorks according to the 1941 census. They are:
York North	 47,678
York South	 78.167
York East	 78,584
York West	 69,089
A very rapid change in population has taken place since 1941. I submit that it would have been in the interests of proper representation in this house if some consideration had been given by the committee to the shift in population which has occurred since the 1941 census. The year 1941 was a war year, and there had been great shifts of population due to war industry and other reasons. That census perhaps did not give a true picture of the population of Canada. Some areas had grown and were growing on a temporary basis because of special industries which it was obvious would be disbanded after the war. I am thinking of Nobel which has been almost completely abandoned since that war industry closed down.
In many suburban districts, such as the one which I have the honour to represent, the population shift has been of a permanent nature, and it is still going on. I should like to refer to what has happened in York West. May I say here that in many ways I would welcome the addition of the town of Weston to York West. I have many friends there and I think the war effort of Weston was equal to any town of its size in Canada. There is one other slight reason why it might be considered as part of the riding. Weston and Mimico are arch enemies in the ancient Canadian game of lacrosse and it will be nice to have them in a single constituency.
Be that as it may, this is the situation with regard to population. In 1941 York West had a population of 69,089, and by 1945 that had grown to 82,656, an increase of 13,567. I am taking these figures out of the Toronto municipal year book for 1946. I think the committee will be interested in these figures because they show what is happening in the area around Toronto. York township has a population of 82.753. We usually consider that there is a proportion of three to five as between York West and York South, which would give York West an addition of some 30,133. The other population figures are:
Etobicoke	 21,402
New Toronto	 10,173
Mimico	   8,785
Swansea	 7.217
Long Branch	 5.059
Weston	   6,377
When you add the population of Weston you reach a total population, during the election year 1945, of approximately 89.000 83166-357J
people. Let us assume that the growth is continuous, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the growth is continuing and approximately at the same rate. Therefore we can expect to find an average annual increase of approximately 5,000 people for some years in that riding. This means that in this year the constituency of York West with the town of Weston will have a population approaching 100,000; and, with the growth continuing, by the time the next election comes round it will have the amazing population of approximately
110,000.	We in the large urban centres of population should be expected and be prepared to represent a greater number of people than the rural parts of the country. But here you have a population in 1949 of more than twice that of York North. I think that is extremely unfair. I think it is a maladjustment of representation in this house.
I want to go a little farther, and give the population of urban Toronto versus Toronto city itself, and I am giving the figures for 1945. I do not include in them those parts of the riding of York North which are purely rural, Vaughan, Whitchurch, King and Gwil-limburg townships, and the towns of Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Woodbridge, Aurora, which are all rural areas. The population of suburban municipalities adjoining Toronto for the year 1945-I am taking these figures from the 1946 Year Book, which is the most recent- was 260,689 versus a population in Toronto of 681,802. The suburban population reside mostly in York South, York East, York West. That is, three members of this house represent nearly 260,000 people. Actually York North has 26,000 of the 260,000, so that about 240,000 would be represented by three members of this house, which would mean that in the year 1945 the representation for the three Yorks which are nearest Toronto averaged 80,000 people per member. That, I think, should have been given more consideration by the committee. Here we have a permanently growing urban area of Ontario which, it is forecast, is going to grow at an even faster rate in the years to come, represented by only three members. Certainly some consideration should have been given to creating: another York.
It has been said that York North was kept as a rural seat. I cannot agree with this argument, because York North is very similar to the other Yorks. It has industries and, while it takes in a larger territory, there are large parts in both York East and York West which are entirely rural and where the people are engaged in farming and market gardening. So I say that, had this change been necessary, some consideration should
Redistribution

have been given to equalizing the four Yorks in population; that is, bringing the population of York North more into line with the population of the other three Yorks.
Let us see-and I think this is interesting- how this compares with some other ridings. I think the largest riding in Ontario will still be Welland, although I am not sure.
I am not complaining of representing a very large riding. I think it is a great honour to represent a very large riding, but the case of Welland is probably equal to the case I am putting up.
In 1945 the electors on the list in York West numbered 49,042. The electors on the list in Glengarry, which is the smallest riding -I do not say that York West is the biggest -numbered 10,649. In other words, York West has five times the number of electors in Glengarry. There is pretty nearly a five-times differential between the smallest riding of Glengarry and York West, which is a large riding, and now to that five-times differential we are adding the town of Weston, which in 1945 had 4,767 electors on the list, or nearly fifty per cent of the number of electors on the list in Glengarry. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is not a true and proper representation of population in this House of Commons. I say that more consideration should have been given by the committee to a just equilibrium in the representation.
I have given the population of the town of Mimico as 8,785. Today, so I was informed recently by the mayor of the town, Mimico has a population of over 10,000. New Toronto has a population of over 10,000 and Etobicoke township, I am informed, has a population of 27,000 at the present time. I have not official figures, but these are figures given me by word of mouth by responsible officials in the various municipalities.
I consider that there is shocking discrepancy in the representation as brought down by this committee. I feel that the member for York West, in the twenty-first parliament, will be representing, at the beginning, 110,000 people, and if the growth goes on, at the end he will be representing probably 120,000 or 125,000 people. Compare that with Glengarry of
18,000,	a static population, and we get a discrepancy of over six to one. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is out of line with a proper differential between an urban and a rural seat. I believe that the committee have failed, for reasons best known to themselves, to take proper consideration of the population discrepancy which many of the large industrial ridings of Ontario will be forced to face.


Solon Earl Low: I have listened with keen interest to the debate which has taken place this afternoon. While, from the point of view of Alberta, there is little that I can add by way of protest, yet there is something I should like to say that has arisen from the speeches of some of the hon. members, and from the details and facts in the bill.
The Alberta subcommittee, under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Atha-baska, did a very fine job. Their relations from the beginning were harmonious. They worked quickly and with predetermined intent and were able to get their work done to the satisfaction of all concerned. They gave what I think should have been a good lead and demonstration to the subcommittees of the other provinces on how to deal with this whole matter of redistribution at this time.
The Alberta subcommittee recommended no changes in this present bill for several good reasons. In the first place, the number of constituencies in the province was to remain exactly as before, seventeen. In the second place, there can be a matter of only three years until the next decennial census is taken, which will provide the basis for a new distribution of seats.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Four years.


Solon Earl Low: It is past midsummer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1951.


Solon Earl Low: That is so, but here we are in the mid-summer of 1947; perhaps three or three and a half years. This new census will provide the basis for a new distribution of seats. It would be clearly a waste of effort to upset things now, and that is the way the Alberta subcommittee looked at the matter.
In the third place, the last census upon which the present redistribution plans have been made was taken when wartime dislocation of population had just about reached its height. Therefore the Alberta subcommittee preferred not to disturb the present constituency arrangements in the province until the population had had a chance to become stable again, as it possibly will be by the time of the next census. This leaves our group largely without any direct or personal grievance against the work of the redistribution committee. We are quite satisfied, as far as our group is concerned, with the one possible exception of the constituency of Pontiac where it seems quite certain that political considerations were allowed to weigh much more heavily in the efforts of the committee to redistribute than any other; in fact I should

Redistribution
say, above all other considerations put together. They cut off Timiskaming from that constituency and added it to lower Pontiac. My colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac, has already dealt with this matter and has registered his protest. I wish merely to emphasize one thing that he said in his short speech this afternoon, upon which I want to compliment him. By the way, it is the first time that he has attempted to speak in the house in English and I think he did a splendid job. He said that if the division that he mentioned, whereby Timiskaming was cut off from Pontiac as it now stands to be added to lower Pontiac, was made for political reasons he is certain that it will not help the Liberal party any; in fact it will rebound upon them to their great disadvantage. I believe that he is correct. I do not think there is any doubt about it.
This brings me to another consideration. I should think that the Liberal party would have bent over backwards in this redistribution to see to it that the bill brought before this house was absolutely above reproach, to see to it that it was the embodiment and essence of fairness and justice. I say that for various reasons. I believe that the thinking Liberal today has some interesting memories in the back of his head, some that are quite likely to becloud his pride.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is the thinking Liberal?	[DOT]


Solon Earl Low: We shall let them demonstrate. I am not going to make specific references, but in this country during the past year or so a number of things have happened which should make most Liberals hang their heads in shame. I have drawn attention to some of them in the house before, and when the time is right and I am free to do so I am going to bring them up again and perhaps have much more consideration given to them than my protests have had in the past in connection with them. I say that if for no other reason than to try to redeem themselves from some clouds under which they were living the Liberal party ought to have seen to it that there was brought into this house a bill which was completely above reproach, which was the embodiment and essence of fairness and justice.
After listening to what has gone on in this debate this afternoon, I am sure that this bill is not the embodiment of justice and fairness; that this bill is full of injustices; that this bill is full of attempts to tamper with the boundary lines of certain constituencies. I think it is quite clear and evident. I do not need to name constituencies. If I do so it is not
because I am protesting personally on behalf of the sitting member'; not by any means. I would do the same, regardless of who happened to be representing the constituency.
We must face this question. The people of the country are going to ask, how are we to justify what has happened to Muskoka-Ontario, to Lake Centre, to Dauphin, to Kamloops, to Neepawa, to Portage la Prairie and to Laval-Two Mountains? I could go on and name others.


Mr. WHITMAN:: Mount Royal.


Mr. McIVOR:: Lisgar.


Solon Earl Low: 1 should like hon. members to stand, up and tell us something about those so that I can take up their cases too. Hon. members just sit there and say nothing but snipe at other hon. members. You have to stand up and tell what your grievance is.


Frederick Primrose Whitman: We will.


Solon Earl Low: That is what I am looking for. I say, is it mere coincidence that in the instance of every constituency that I have named there happens to be sitting at the present time a member on the opposition side of the house? The people of this country will not think it is mere coincidence, and it will be a most difficult task for the Liberal party- and I speak advisedly when I say "the Liberal party"-to make the people of this country think it is mere coincidence. The people of this country know it is the Liberal party largely who must take the responsibility for the bill that is now before us, simply because of the preponderance of Liberal members on the committee and on the subcommittees. The people of Canada will have to-be shown that the constituency boundaries have not been tampered with. As I said, it does not affect me personally at all, and it does not affect my group, with the one exception of Pontiac, but I protest vigorously against the injustices which are so apparent in this attempt at redistribution. For that is what I call ik- an attempt at redistribution. I sat here and listened with amazement to the speech given by my hon. friend the member for Laval-Two Mountains. I am amazed that nobody on the Liberal side has had the courage to get up and say whether this man was right.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not.


Solon Earl Low: I am not saying he is right, but he made a serious charge. If that charge is proved it ought to receive a whole lot more consideration than I can see being given to it at the present moment; and I demand, on
behalf of all decent members of the house_
I hope that includes all-that this thing be
Redistribution

cleared away, so that we may not all rest under a cloud. This thing seems to me to warrant the most vehement denial if it is wrong, and it warrants complete castigation of those who are responsible if the hon. member is right. I should like to see the matter dealt with here on the floor of the house.
Let me say one thing further in conclusion. I should like to support the appeal made by the member for Yukon (Mr. Black). I know something about the people in that part of the country and about what they want and I can say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the people in Mackenzie do not want to be made a part of the Yukon. They should not be made a part of Yukon for representation in this house. Their will ought to be respected, and the hon. member has gone a long way in providing for this house evidence upon which to base his statements that the people there do not want that sort of treatment. We sit here in these committees and subcommittees and completely ignore the wishes of the people. We will give them what we darned well please. It is high time that the people organized unions of electors to stand up and tell those who are supposed to represent them exactly what they want us to do and to see to it that they get the results. If ever there were a time when unionism should1 spread among the people who mark ballots it is now. That ought to be patently clear.
I had not intended saying very much about this; but as I sat and listened to the all too patent political moves being made I could not resist the opportunity to register my vehement protest over the thing that has been done.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to spend a great deal of time on this matter on this occasion for when the schedules come up I intend to have more to say than in these my opening remarks. I will direct my appeal today not to the house but to the Prime Minister of the country. As he said in 1932 my appeal goes to Caesar. I was very much surprised when he said this afternoon that he had no idea regarding what this committee had done or the recommendations that it had made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is not quoting me correctly. I did not say I had not any knowledge of what the committee had done or of its recommendations. I said I had not interfered in any way with the committee while it was at its work or tried to influence its members.


John George Diefenbaker: I hasten to accept the correction. Then the Prime Minister does know what has been done.


Colin William George Gibson: Well, he reads the bills.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; he knows what has been done. In view of that fact, many of the things I would have said, it becomes unnecessary for me to place before this committee and the country. My hon. friend the member for Peace River suggested that someone might endeavour to explain what was done as being a matter of coincidence. Mr. Chairman, coincidence becomes conspiracy -when it is repeated over and over again. I suggest at this time that if it is coincidence, then never before has coincidence in the matter of redistribution resulted in the position that those who are gerrymandered out of their constituencies are leaders in an opposition party. I would point out that the leader of the opposition, the president of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada, and the president of the Young Progressive Conservative Association are of those whose constituencies are interfered with. I ask you, sir, how did it come about that these are the persons whose seats have been marked out for interference-interference, did I say? -annihilation in so far as the leader of the opposition is concerned.
I am going to speak now of my own constituency. The constituency of Lake Centre is surrounded by more constituencies than any other riding in the dominion-ten in number. Naturally it was felt that changes would be made in Saskatchewan. Naturally, when the reduction in the number of members by one took place, changes would have to be made. But, sir, how can the government explain the manner in which it went about the changes so far as Lake Centre is concerned? I make my appeal, not to the head of the committee, not to a committee for the province of Saskatchewan. I am making my appeal to Caesar himself.
This is what was done. It was necessary to increase the population of Lake Centre. It may be only a coincidence, but the first plan removed from the south end of the constituency of Lake Centre twenty-three townships. It may be only coincidence that these twenty-three townships returned a substantial Progressive Conservative majority in 1945. Then, in the northwest corner-I am speaking of the original plan-two townships were to be removed, one of which contained the largest town in the constituency, namely the town of Watrous. The makers of the plan removed a number of 'townships on the west side-seven townships on the west side of the constituency, in which there was a small majority for the C.C.F. candidate in the elec-

Redistribution
tion of 1945. It is said that they made these changes to increase the population of Lake Centre, and they commenced to increase the population by immediately removing twenty-three townships from the south side of the constituency, seven on the west side and two off the northwest corner.


John Bracken: Townships.


John George Diefenbaker: Townships, as my leader points out. Then, on the east side of the constituency sixteen townships were added out of the constituency represented by the Minister of Agriculture. It is again merely a coincidence that those sixteen townships returned a substantial majority for the C.C.F. candidate as against the Minister of Agriculture in the last federal election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That seems to be the hon. member's main trouble.


John George Diefenbaker: Then a portion was added from Yorkton constituency. I would not argue about those additions, and I would accept the plan as it is if there were missing from the plan an addition on the north side of the constituency. They removed from the bottom; they removed from the sides; they added on the east side and then finally added in the northeast corner of the constituency three townships out of the constituency of Humboldt. Never have those townships been in Lake Centre or in its predecessor, Last Mountain constituency. As a matter of fact, in winter time it will be impossible to get to the three unless one travels into Saskatoon, a distance of 140 miles. They have always been in Humboldt. They are connected directly through Humboldt, on a line of railway passing through the constituency; and yet they have been added to the constituency of Lake Centre. I am not here for the purpose of asking for consideration, but I am here to ask for justice. I am going to ask for justice from the Prime Minister, as he asked for justice in 1932.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not get it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not here to defend. The right hon. gentleman pointed out the situation in Prince Albert, namely, that
6.000	of his electors on the south side of that constituency had been removed and' were joined to the constituency of Rosthern. He pointed out to the then prime minister that what was planned was wrong and unfair. He said that it transformed a majority for him in Prince Albert constituency of some 1,100 into a minority of 600 odd. He said it was obvious that it had been done for a purpose; he appealed to the government of the day, in the interests of the preservation of the principle of fairness, a principle inherent in parliamentary government, to change the plan and it was changed. Sir, I point out what has been done in this constituency of Lake Centre in the area where a Progressive Conservative majority was given in the last election. It has been removed and to Lake Centre has been added a voting strength of 4,900, of whom only 286 were Progressive Conservatives in the last election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that a change was made in Prince Albert?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to know the extent of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the Prime Minister's own admission before me, or rather his thanks to the government for having made the change. He points out on May 27, 1933, after having debated the matter in the house for a period of five dayis, that changes had been made, and he says, as reported at page 5559 of Hansard for that year:
I have made my appeal to Caesar, and I propose to abide by the decision Which has been given and not argue the matter further.
Then he went on to point out that a change was made in the southern portion of the constituency which altered the original plan, and he spoke his appreciation on behalf of the constituency of Prince Albert to the government for having made the change. The Prime Minister is now conversant with this matter. He can see the picture in the constituency of Kamloops. He can see the situation-and he knew of it before-in so far as the leader of this party is concerned, as a result of joining two Progressive Conservative seats in Manitoba. Is Portage la Prairie to be penalized because in a by-election it defeated the government candidate? Is that one of the reasons why Pontiac is being altered as well? Are they being penalized because in by-elections each defeated the government condidate?
There is nothing sacrosanct about the findings of a committee. In committee there was an agreement in so far as Nova Scotia was concerned. It was agreed that there should be two seats in Nova Scotia created for Halifax, one a city and one a rural seat. Was there anything sacrosanct about it? The day before yesterday we were advised in Halifax, that the government had decided not to follow the recommendations of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Advised by whom?
Redistribution


John George Diefenbaker: We were informed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) on Saturday last, that the- government had decided not to follow the unanimous recommendation of the committee. I do not argue that question at all in so far as Halifax is concerned. I understand the situation there. But if there was nothing sacrosanct about an agreement on the part of the members of the committee in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, why should others be about the findings of the committee where any other part of this country is concerned? I am asking the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter. In 1932 he pointed out that nothing was more dangerous to the public life of the country than to bring in what he called a gerrymandering measure in the last days of the session. It undermined democracy, it was a dangerous proceeding, and, regardless of whether parliament was to prorogue within the next day or so as planned, he and those associated with him intended to fight until they obtained justice.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not get it.


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal with that question a little later on. I wish to adopt the definition of "gerrymander" as given by the right hon. gentleman at page 5276 of Hansard of 1932-33:
The word "gerrymander" in political parlance simply means that in redistributing a constituency the boundary lines are so altered as to do an obvious injury to one political party and give an obvious unfair political advantage to another party.
That defines what a gerrymander is. Tell me what justification there is to take away township after township from a constituency and then say that it is necessary in order to bring up the population and make it equal to that of constituencies adjoining it, to add on other parts of other constituencies?


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: Why did the hon. member recommend it to the committee?


John George Diefenbaker: There is a fine question; I have heard that before. It was once raised as a defence by a highwayman who stuck a gun into the face of a victim and said, "Your money or your life"; and then afterwards said, when charged, "Why did he consent?"


Colin William George Gibson: Did the hon. member not sign the recommendation?


John George Diefenbaker: That was exactly my position in so far as that committee report was concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Bracken: Will some minister advise what, the government has for us this evening?


James Joseph McCann: At seven o'clock it is proposed to take up private bills. When they are disposed of we shall resume the debate on Bill No. 453, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act. After that is disposed of we shall go into supply.


Howard Charles Green: What department?


James Joseph McCann: Fisheries.


John George Diefenbaker: We shall not go on with this tonight?


James Joseph McCann: No; tomorrow.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 416, to incorporate the Yellowknife Telephone Company.-Mr. Robinson (Simeoe East).
Bill No. 173, respecting the Woman's Auxiliary to the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 414, to incorporate the Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Labrador (as amended, and recommending that the title be changed to, "An Act to incorporate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Labrador").-Mr. Dorion.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Charles Gordon Nelson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Pamela Mackay Alderdice Johnstone.-Mr. Mayibank.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Lilly Evans Auty.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Esther Lancit Weiss.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Bruce Montgomery Cooper.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marion Naomi Gomery McGee.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Margaret Hazel Reid Koppel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of James Alexander King.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Proctor Clifford Neil.-Mr. Maybank.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Elizabeth Anne Eden Lindsay.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Ernest Edward Joslin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Jessie Alberta Allan Derby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Dorothy May Duff Hisey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Elizabeth McIntosh Barber.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Muriel Lucy Brighton Burdon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Constance Mae Ponman Newman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Florence Alice Mapston Calcutt Doak-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Rose Housefield Blumstein-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Gertrude Loiseau Gaulin-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Marie Rose Alba Bernadette Lapointe dit Robin Ricard- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Thelma Genender Lefkowitz-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mary Joyce Joly Clark-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Gertrude Helen Cavford Collins-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Francis George Isaac Fellows-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Elly Maria Charlotte Alden McBride-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Thompson Dorrance-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 54, for the relief Una Kathleen Balmfirth Little-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of William Walter Woodall-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Helen Lilian Jaques Bowen-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Doreen Jeanette Sibley Tirbutt-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Ida Norma Thompson Thornton-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Evangeline May Connelly Stervinou-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 61, for the relief ofi Olive Viola Olsson Ferguson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Evelyn Ethel May Reich Macdonell-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Ernest Edward Lippiatt

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Elizabeth Butler Roberts Lambton-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Libby Margolese Smith-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Jean Elizabeth Thompson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Isabella Hodgson McRae Edwards.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 68 for the relief of Marjorie Aileen Copping Ladouceur.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Annie Mildred Parnell Smellie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Veronica Donnelly Hope Johnstone Shelley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Irjia Alina Agnes Vaisanen Shanahan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Isabel Lindsay Mackay Dietz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Edith Dean Michaels.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Maurice Michael.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Otto Hemlein.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Mary Josephine Jessop Croker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Rose Lazar Nadigel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Frances Clare Lynch Layton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Robert Alfred Nall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Juliette Adrienne Labrosse Renaud.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Jean Isabel Dalton Ryan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Rose Elkin Steinman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Clinton Escott Vipond.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Alison McKinnon Palmer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Ralph Wighton. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Claude Garcin Coffin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Bea Helen Taffert Levin.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Elsie King Moorbouse.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of William John Edgar McVetty.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Alfred John Holton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of William Howell MacDonald Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Henrietta Elizabeth Forde Norrie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Gaston Cartier. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Margaret Lillian McCorkell Baldwin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Hilda Wylie Bannister.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Sarah Goldberg Cohen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Esther Mary
Harding Breeze.-Mr. Maybank,
Private Bills-Divorce
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Jessie Mac-Farlane Boyle Smith.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Paul Jaeggin.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Murial Agnes Martin Adams.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Edwin Theo-philus Phillips.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Lillian May Alsop Mackenzie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Robert Crawford Kirk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Robert Thomas Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Ernest Wright. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Theresa Sherpitis Morganti.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Omer Mont-petit, junior.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Harold Robinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Margaret Cote Truax.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Netta Cheyne Lee.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Bessie Letov-sky Silverman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Percy Coleman Stuart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Pearl Vesta Fields Hollenbeck.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Adele Kuznetz Lesser.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 122, far the relief of Joseph Alexander Oswald Mercier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Michael Maturjiw, otherwise known as Michael Mat-wijow.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Eugenie Beatrice Smith Ricketts.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Hilda Mary Charlotte Kelly Smith.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Eileen Louise Thomas Bleakney.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Eugenia Drake Armstrong Newell.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Muriel Aileen MacKeage Fewtrell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Evelyn Marie Elliott McGrath.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 130, -for the relief of Mary Nellie McGurk Stone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Cipoire Segall Wurmbrand.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Violet Olive Magdalene Allchin Clark.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Victor Reid Murray.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Agnes Jane Irwin Everitt Dixon.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 138, for the relief of Peter Samuel Rosen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Rose Waselev-sky Balakirsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Sophie Wener Finestone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Norma Mary Sharp Chapman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Douglas Wilson Bradshaw.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Muriel Amelia Dufty Rochet-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Ethel Ornstein Pf-effer-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Hilda Katz Delnick-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Emilienne Grinsell Daoust-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Alice Hamilton Peck Stevenson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Doris Victoria Bellisle Page-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Sydney Beaver -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Gladys Kathleen Wilkins Todd'-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Norma Elizabeth Jane Murray Hanko-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Bernadette Mayfordi Roy-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Ellen Irene Gertrude Preston Hastie-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Marjorie Winnifred Bearman Smeall-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Mary Winnifred Joyce Dick Dunford-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Eileen Ardis Locke Thompson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Margaret Hamilton Bergeron-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Norma Marzitelli Rudzik-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Eileen Millar De Levi-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Hildia Constance Caroline Mosley Dwyer-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 162, for the relief o'f Louis Marcel Frigon-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Florence Nancy Maria Haworth Stewart-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of John Bemth Jones, otherwise known as John Berth Jones -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Patricia Violet Puttock Bromby-Mr.. Maybank.
Bill No. 166, for ithe relief of Dorothy Hawkins Myers.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Evelyn Deltoff Moore.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Eveline Hache
Groulx.-Mr. Maybank.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Annie Lucy Hurteau.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Evelyn Alice Lancaster Chenoweth.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Robert Lus-sier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Robert Rosaire Loiselle.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Marjorie Evelyn MacPherson Puley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Sarah Rafferty Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Ida Berman Zatz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Patricia Ellen Burt Williams.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Charles Alfred Michel Kelly.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Pearl Summers Slater.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Aime Jacques. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Grace Evelyn Smith Copeland.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Jesie Gertrude Noel Magee.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 193, for -the relief of John Luchuck. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Rhondda Blanche Peace Hurford Smith.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 195. for the relief of Mabel Grace Mattinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	196,	for	the	relief	of	Marcel
Simonon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Marian Susan Willson Roberts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Jean Gainfonth Grossman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	199,	for	the	relief	of	Evelyn
Mildred Cook Stone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Lily Elizabeth Harris Cunningham.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Mildred Merica Ruth Goodreau Snyder.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Harry Powell. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Margaret Patricia Fairhurst Richards.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	207,	for	the	relief	of	Evelyn
Florence Esson Pugh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Katie Rhoda Brick McGrath.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Louise Guiol Ghetler.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	210,	for	the	relief	of	Georges
William Curtis Johnson.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Melville Mae Rundle Swinburne.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Ruby Weldrick
Hunt.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Doris Shapiro Kolman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Mary Margaret Rider Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Fennie Nettie Adelstein Waldman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Gustave Lucien Verhelle.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Ruby Campbell Matts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 218. for the relief of Dorothy Kathleen Morrison Germain.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Sophie Rad-wolsky Closner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Muriel Emma Wood Durrell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of William John Carmichael.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Guido Verdoni.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Ronald John Park.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Gloria Avon Roland.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Gilberto (Albert) Belmonte-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Mildred Lillian Fiude.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Pauline Joan Hyde Murphy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Alsye Mae Lissemore Lawrence.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 229. for the relief of Jessie Leonard Simpson Clunie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Fern Catherine Kerr Ekins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Lilly Elizabeth Ingborg Lindfors Crowhurst.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	232,	for	the	relief	of	Romeo
Richard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	233,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Augustus Dolling.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	234,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Frederick McDowall.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	235,	for	the	relief of	Woolf
(Robert) Cook.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Adele Brown Kerkofsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Eileen Heath-cote Taschereau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Molly Marco-vitch Schwartz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Betty Gertrude Bernstein Schreiber.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Margaret Joan Anstey Steven Hyslop-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Elly Zahn Kaminsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Naomi Joan Williamson Cantlie.-Mr. Maybank.
Private Bills-Divorce
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Matilda Jane Cumming.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Agnes Dowd Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Ursula Catherine Tetreau Black.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Eleanor Edith McKecknie Martineau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Jack Wallis. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Evelyn Margaret Morrison Cryer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Frances Eileen Scribner Mackay.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Irene Laflamme Kattas.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Eileen Maude Gardiner Richards-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Frances Audrey Gray Lacaille.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Aline Theoret Larose.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	276,	for	the	relief	of Margaret
Betty Rollings Burman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	277,	for	the	relief	of	Beatrice
Dorothy Pountney Alker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Margaret Jean Duff Dorval.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	279,	for the relief of	George
Somerville Blackie Begg.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Lillian Guerasio Galardo-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	281,	for	the	relief	of	Stewart
Davidson Myles.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	282,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Bradford Hurley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Elsie McCormick Albers.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of George Wilson Dyce.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Rita Johnson Cherrier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Esther Cole Zeesman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Celia Yaffe Dubinsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Elsie Marlyn Garayt Johnson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Leone Rhea Leduc Metcalf.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of James Arthur Ableht.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Goldie Slo-vinsky Tkatch.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Harold Fassett Staniforth.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Claire Morgan Lockner Middleton-Hope.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Rose Nemerof-sky Silverstein.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 296, for the relief of James Albert Carruthers, otherwise known as James Albert Fell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Ronald Edwin George.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 298, for ithe relief of Margaret Lena Bertha Dasen Scheffer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Ethel Mary McKenzie Cramp.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Evelyn Alice Howard Smart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Mary Margaret Tibbins Gogo.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Alfred Nelson Nickle.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Arthur Haigh MacGill.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Clinton Leslie Dobson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 305, for 'the relief of Bernard Stanley Bailey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Archie William Young.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Olive Lever Sanborn Lead.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of John Mackie.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Isabel Mercer Leboeuf.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Hilda Irene Gordon Lazarus.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Mary Margaret Bernice Walker Kennedy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Gertie Rabin Bard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Ruth Morrison Henderson Sidders.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Philip Berger. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Harold Swann. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Margaret Isabelle Curry.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Rosamond Edith Bean Crease.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Alma Mary Hanway Eccles.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Alberta Dorothy Olson Colby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Clair Reginald McLaughlin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Eugene Klein.
*-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Daniel Hudson. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Eileen Edna Paget Bray Dundas.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Jessie Goodis Markis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Julia Luejla Audrey Cleroux Babbage.-Mr. Maybank.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Mile Kristo Yoja, otherwise known, as Stanley Vadic.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Anthony Wavroch.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Mary Magee Glasheen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Mary Ann Clorenda Archer Richardson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Gladys May Kay Oliver.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Henry Thomas Matthews.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Ivy Stapleton Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of John William Sydney Jordan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Pamela Mary Gottschalk Muckell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Winnifred Doris Cleaver Wooley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 341, for 'the relief of Eileen Francis Murphy Kerson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Joyce Kathleen Reynolds Swards.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Annie Fishman Minsk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Muriel Alice Goddard Perkins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Irene Elizabeth Burke Robinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Gardner Hinckley Prescott.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Joseph Amedee Alexis Cousineau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Mildred Verna Ruth Schnaufer Case.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Robert Ralph Tripp.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Charles James Langevin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Edward Frank Fulton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Pauline Bertha Marwick Dallison.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Evelyn May McNaught Grandison.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Margaret Turner Shaw Ward.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Oliver Pierre Bernard Lagueux.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Hazel Mair Grant Rubin-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of 'Doris Louise Dickson McMurray.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Ethel Florence Barr Shiells.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Gabrielle Augustine Gilberte DesmaraLs Creelman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Christos C. Koukouvelis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Aime Bibeau. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 367, for the relief of Henry Eaton.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Lodie Kadei Nakel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Margaret Sophie Bolenski Dubeau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Marion Mapes Harvey Allinson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Frances Alice Egg Johnston, otherwise known as Frances Alice Egg Willey Johnston.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Selden Grant Stoddard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 373, for the relief of Elmon Parker Law.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 374, for the relief of James Dewey, junior.-Mr. Maybank.
' Bill No. 375, for the relief of Peggy Alicia Stilwell Kneeland.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 376, for the relief of Alexander Monteith.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Evelyn Clara Woods Cross.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 380, for the relief of Minnie Brai-master Kazarensky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Peter Moroz, otherwise known as Pe'ter Morris.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Lome Earl Barth.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Thomas Wynn Hayes, junior.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Claire Black Wolfe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Anna Lovan-nah Theoret Wilson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Norma Lorraine Desrosiers.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Rose Jacobson Greenberg.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Guido Corbo.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 389, for the relief of Harold Ashton Hugh Roberts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 390, for the relief of Mary Kalich-rnan Pulver.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 391, for the relief of Gaston Dorval Lachance.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 392, for the relief of Donat St. Jean.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 393, for the relief of Sheila Sydney Doner Gordon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Thomas Walter John Moon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Edward Charles
Barron.-Mr. Maybank.
Private Bills-Divorce
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Violet Eileen Lepine Tickner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of Jean Lawrence Ritchie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of Livio Quintino Fantacci.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Bertha Bercovici Hamer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Ann Bogdanof Millichamp.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Beatrice Elman Perlman.-Mr. IVlaybank.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Grace Emily Dawes Matheson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	405.	for	the relief of Gabriel
Burszan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 406. for the relief of Doris Phoebe Potter Potts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	407,	for	the relief of Richard
Andrew Frame.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	408,	for	the relief of William
Page.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	409,	for	the relief of Louis
Gertsman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 418, for the relief of Maud Mary Rose Denton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	419,	for	the relief of Judith
Bychowsky Sanders.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Marie Irene Joly Martineau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	421,	for	the relief of Sam
Pronman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Eva Greenblatt Thow.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Edith Norma Isaac Davidson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Ida Lottie Stubina Pollack.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Minnie Black Herman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Clifford Gilbert Adams.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Dallas Sara Barnes Millington.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Madeleine Agnes Joly de Lotbiniere Doucet.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Adeline Charlotte Simone Desjardins Teakle.-Mr. May-Dank.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Margaret Blane Bowen Adair.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Mary Hrab Navrotzki.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Pierre-Ben-Danais Warren.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 433, for the relief of Ethel Florence Rhodes Pompetti, otherwise known as Ethel Florence Crowdy Pompetti.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 434, for the relief of Elisa Jamoul Hull.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 435, for the relief of Ernest Stanley Rundell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 436, for the relief of Thelma Lillian Dalton Hilger, otherwise known as Thelma Lillian Dalton Goernert.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 437, for the relief of Mary Alice Berrigan Hamelin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 438, for the' relief of Dorothy Mary Boyce Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 439, for the relief of Edith Oberfeld Mintz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Roger Lebeau. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 441, for the relief of Sheila Marcus Issenman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 442, for the relief of Zenobia Per-row Broadbent Emond.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 444, for the relief of Joseph Edmond Gerard Santoire.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 445, for the relief of Alderic Gemme.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 447, for the relief of Joseph Rose-alphee Oderic Dussault.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 448, for the relief of Dan Alonzo Dwight Wright.-Mr. Maybank.
Mr. KN0W7LES: This is all-time high, is it not-348 at one crack.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the next order of business might I mention that I have a bulletin from Canadian Press which I believe the house will be interested in receiving, and which may serve to set at rest the minds of at least some hon. members. It. is dated Halifax, July 14, and states:
The election of John Dickey, Liberal, in the Halifax federal by-election was conceded at 7.52 p.m. ADT tonight by the Canadian Press. With 100 polls out of 359 polls reporting the 32-year-old barrister had a total of 6,997 votes compared with 4.351 for A. A. McDonald, Progressive Conservative, his nearest opponent. C.C.F. candidate H. L. Macintosh with 3,928.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Saturday, July 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann for the second reading of Bill No. 453, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
John Bracken: Mr. RALPH MAYBANIi (Winnipeg South Centre):	Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset
to advert to certain remarks made in the chamber this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). The hon. member made reference to a certain brief. He said it had been stated in the committee that the individual in question had not filed a brief before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when, in fact, he had. I have no comment to make one way or another upon his estimate of the value of the evidence given in the committee in answer to his questions, any more than to say that it is very easy to wait until a witness who has given evidence, which you do not like, is gone, and then charge him in his absence, at a time when he cannot defend himself, with endeavouring to withhold information from the committee. There was plenty of opportunity in the committee for that to be done if such was the intention of the hon. member. My only reason for drawing the attention of the house to that matter is that I consider it very cheap business to attack people who cannot defend themselves. What is quite different is 'the attempted charge made by the hon. member for Kamloops against an individual who can defend himself, and I shall speak of that for just a few moments.
I speaking about this brief, ithe hon. member read a letter. He gave the date of the letter; he did not actually say that I had received that letter and that brief in time to present it to the committee. But, up to the moment that I rose to ask him a question, I think it was clear in the mind of every person in this house that what he was endeavouring to convey was, that I had received this document in time to have presented it to the committee, and, that I had not done so. Whether he intended that or whether he did not intend that, I am sure it was clear to every person in the house. The manner in which he described the incident was such as to imply that the chairman of the committee had deliberately refrained from allowing the committee to consider that particular brief. I do not wish to say any more about that except what I indicated this afternoon, that there is utterly no truth in that suggestion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He never mentioned the
chairman. He said the brief was not there.


Ralph Maybank: The hon. member probably has not been listening very closely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I listened to every bit of it.


Ralph Maybank: I have made the statement that until I rose this afternoon the

implication was that the chairman had withheld the information, but for the purpose of making it all the more certain-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Ralph Maybank: There is no question of privilege. I submit it is no't right that I should be continually interrupted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has said there was the implication that he had suppressed the evidence. Since his charge is directed against myself, I say that there was no such implication, and there was no intention of making any such implication, as the record shows.


Ralph Maybank: I thank the hon. member for saying there was no such intention. My statement Was that, after having read the letter with its date of July 9 and continuing to speak about the evidence not having been presented and remarking that the letter had been given to the chairman, without specifying the date on which it had been given to the chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I read the date, July 9.


Ralph Maybank: That was the last date mentioned. My statement was-and I think it was clear to the house at the time-that there was, whether intentionally or not, the implication in the hon. member's words that the chairman had withheld the information. Now the hon. member says that he did not so intend and I accept his statement of the denial of such intention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have said there was no such implication and I repeat that statement.


Ralph Maybank: I do not agree with the hon. member about that. His manner of presenting the whole case was pretty clear at the time until he was caught out. If I had not risen at the time there never would have been any partial clearance.
I only wish to add this about that matter. This document was given to me after the committee's labours had ended. That was when I first saw it. There was nothing I could do about it. So far as giving a statement about it privately, as the hon. member suggested several times I might have done-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or publicly.


Ralph Maybank: Publicly or privately, and several times he emphasized "privately." In the first place, I do not suppose that anyone could spend his time running around these halls and hunting up the members of the committee privately and telling them what letters had been put in his hands. The

Canadian Broadcasting Act
committee's labours had ended; and, so far as telling the members privately about the letter is concerned, I had not had time to read it, and even if I had tried to tell the members privately, I could not have caught up with the hon. member because he was absent from parliament at the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where was he?


An hon. MEMBER:: In Halifax.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) sought to convey that impression this morning and I did not contradict him. At the time the letter was given to him I was here in parliament and have been on every sitting day since. I had been in Halifax but had returned.


Ralph Maybank: I am glad that on the day the letter was delivered to me he was not in Halifax, but I do not suppose he knew where he was.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to withdraw those words. I have said I "was here in Ottawa at the time the letter was delivered; I have been here ever since that time, and I repeat that statement.


Ralph Maybank: I do not think the statement which the bon. member has made just now means anything, because he has suggested he has been here since "that time", with no indication of what he means by "that time"; furthermore, he does not know when the letter was delivered to me. So it is, after all, just a bundle of words that is quite meaningless.


James Horace King: May I suggest to the hon. member who has the floor that he proceed with his speech. I think he should be satisfied with the statement of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member has stated his question of privilege and I think he should be satisfied.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw. I was here when the letter was delivered and I have been here every sitting day since. That is the plain truth and I ask the hon. member to withdraw.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members not to act like children. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stated that the hon. member for Kamloops was absent on such a day. There is nothing unparliamentary in that. It was the privilege of the hon. member for Kamloops to say that he was here in the house at the time, and I
think he should be satisfied with having said that. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor not to argue the point further but to proceed.


Ralph Maybank: Thank you, Mr. Spe'aker. As you will readily understand, I was not arguing at all. I was just being interrupted frequently with meaningless expressions. I merely wish to make it clear that no document was placed in my hands at any time when it was possible for it to be brought before the committee, and then, not given to the committee.
Having disposed of that, I want to turn to something else which has come up in the course of this debate. A great many detail items have been dealt with, and perhaps it might be well to mention one or two of them iii passing, but I submit that the main idea in connection with the radio report and underlying this bill has not been touched on at all as yet, although from time to time members of the house on all sides profess to be agreed on this particular point.
Before dealing with that, I wish to refer to something that was said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in the course of his remarks. He made reference to the Cana-dan Broadcasting Corporation going "in the red", losing money, and11 think similar remarks were made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). We ought to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the financial record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not a bad one but rather that it is a very good one. It will be recalled that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation started out in the 1930's. It had no money to start with and borrowed money for capital improvements. The corporation paid1 all that money back with interest before payment was due. The record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in. a financial way is a very good one. We should remember that during the war there was a period when licence fees fell off. We should remember that licences ddd not increase year by year but became fewer, owing to the fact that radios could not be bought. It was in these circumstances that the corporation came to the point where there was a deficit in income. To any person who wants to be fair about the record-and I am not suggesting that the hon. members for Eglinton or Lethbridge did not desire to be fair; I say that they did not present quite comprehensive enough a picture in just making a few remarks about the corporation being "in the red"- the main point to keep in mind with reference to the financial record o'f the corporation is that it is good, not bad.
Canadian Broadcasting Act

While I am on the subject, I wish to refer to what the hon. member for Lethbridge had to say.


Solon Earl Low: It is the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell).


Ralph Maybank: I am sorry. I sometimes remember people coming from the places they mention and I keep on thinking of the hon. member for Macleod as coming from the fine city of Lethbridge, but I am sure he will not take offence. I shall try to be more accurate in the future. He made references to the financial record of the C.B.C. and at the same time spoke about the amount of money the private companies made. He spoke as if he thought what was in the report was a charge against the private companies for making so much money, and suggested, I think, that it was surely no crime to make money. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that to look at the report that way is to miss the whole point of that part of the report which deals with the financial records of the private companies. The report in that regard points out only that these companies would appear to be making a good deal of money and not paying a very large licence fee. After all, that is all it states. The report says there is a possibility the companies are making as many millions as are there disclosed, and making such profits by reason of the fact that they are granted a piece of a monopoly, and that it is quite possible private broadcasters are not paying as much as they ought to pay for the privilege of monopolistically giving out news and other forms of broadcasting over the air. I do not know what the position of the socialists may be, but I believe no person on this side objects to the private broadcasters making a good living, making a good return on their capital. As far as I am concerned, I am only too happy to see them doing well. However, if these companies are making a great deal of money by carrying on their particular type of radio broadcasting, and at the same time are getting certain benefits which come from the broadcast operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is paid for largely by public money, it is not unreasonable to suggest that they should pay a higher licence fee. That is all there is to that part of the report. Certainly, for any person to cavil about it, seems to me, with all respect, to be rather unreasonable. Indeed, if the report, on insufficient evidence, said these men are not paying enough for their privilege; if it said that on insufficient evidence, of course the right of criticism would be there-I think the duty of criticism would be there-and I should hope that I would never set my name to a report that said any 
such thing as that. But it is quite clear that what the report does in fact say. It says what I have already indicated, namely, that it is quite possible these people ought to be paying more money. That is as far as it goes.
In view of the fact that some of the proceedings of the committee were called, in question, I think I should say something on the matter. The hon. member for Macleod said that things moved too fast for him at a certain time. It is only fair to tell the house that what happened in that respect was this. When the committee's hearings came to an end, when it finished with what we jocularly called "the live talent" and went into executive session for discussion we met together with a view to discussing various questions-with a view to giving the drafting committee guidance as to the lines along which the report would be made. When that was finished the drafting committee went to work and drafted the report. We met and went over it clause by clause. I believe the hon. member for Eglinton was there at that time. I am not sure of that. I rather think the hon. member for Macleod was. He certainly was at nearly every meeting. He was seldom absent. I might just tell the house in an aside that there was a long time one day when he was the only person in the Tory-Socred. opposition who was present; and, despite what one might call, if one can use the expression with respect to a committee, an immense majority against him, the advocacy that he made was so good that several important changes were made in the report. He was always there, and he was always fighting. I am sure he gained the respect of every person on the committee for the way in which he carried on the fight.
After the steering committee had passed the report on to the main committee we found this position. The hon. member for Kamloops was not there. The hon. member for Eglinton was there for a very short time, if he was there at all. I am told he was there for a short time 'but absented himself quite early. The hon. members for each of the constituencies represented by a Tory member were all absent. There was one exception. The Tory absentees apparently sent as their guard the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), and he stayed there throughout the meetings. The hon. member for Kamloops was represented by the hon. member for St. Paul's. If there was anything about the report that he did not like he was silent about it, silent because he was either at a great distance or at some distance. I do not know how far away he was, but he was far enough away that we might be able to say his voice was silent.

Canadian Broadcasting Act


Humphrey Mitchell: Wherever he was he did not do much good.


Ralph Maybank: That is true. The hon. member for Macleod said that one day things moved too fast for him. He asked whether I thought he had time to get a sandwich. I gave him the reply which he said I gave, "I suppose so," and he went away. But on that day the hon. member's idea of time was a little awry. I said to some person at the time that his idea of time was a great deal like the idea of distance which was harboured by the man who invented near beer. You recall that he was a poor judge of distance. I am reminded of my mentioning at the time to some of my colleagues that the hon. member for Macleod seemed to have lost track of time, because, while he may not think so today, he really was absent for most of the meeting, and this was most unusual for him. I suppose he fell into conversation while he was having that sandwich.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It must have been a Dag-wood sandwich.


Ralph Maybank: And he had a rather long session.


Ernest George Hansell: Nobody offered me any near beer with the sandwich.


Ralph Maybank: Many other statements have been made in the course of the debate. To mention many of them would take up too much time. I come to whait I consider to be the real point at issue in all 'these radio debates. But first, I should like to say that I consider this committee has been acting as a policy committee instead of as a budgeting committee in the last couple of years. I submit, sir, that the real purpose of this committee is to examine the financial affairs of the corporation in just 'the way another committee examines the affairs of 'the Canadian National Railways. In the Canadian National Railways committee we never undertake to declare policy. Last year and this year we have been going much farther afield than I submit the committee should, and for this reason, if no other, that we are not as well equipped as a cabinet to determine the policy, and we have not at our hands the great deal of technical information that we ought to have. I have no complaint about the work that has been put upon us, but I believe people are likely to get the wrong idea about the nature of this committee's work. It does seem to me that if the committee is to make policy we shall be changing the whole legislative structure of the parliament of Canada
and we shall have government by committee instead of by council. I submit that is not wise.
But whether we have the right to make policy or not, as members of parliament we certainly have the right to discuss it, and the question that has to be settled in all our minds here is this very simple one which came up in 1932 and earlier: "Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be the favoured instrument of broadcasting in this country? Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be the supreme chain broadcaster, or is it not? Are private stations to be allowed to exist and fulfil a community need, or are they to be allowed to expand into networks of national broadcasting?"
That is the thing that was basic when this institution was set up, and it still is. There is the consideration which has determined the committee, as to whether it would or would not recommend in favour of a regulatory body. Believing that for the reason that ithe Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is robust in the service of Canada, and that that is the main point at issue, 'the committee concluded that the easiest way of effecting that was to have the CB.C. continue to exercise the functions it is exercising today.
I personally would have no objection to a regulatory board. I am not so strongly for it, but I would have no objections to it. If, however, I were writing a law establishing a regulatory body I would write it in such a way that it would be entrammeled about so that it could not do anything to injure the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is the crux. For example, I would entrammel it in the same way as the transport board is hindered from touching grain rates in western Canada. But of course what we had put before us was nothing of that sort. What we had put before us, and what the Tories promptly espoused, was the creation of a board which would be appointed by parliament and could be touched only by parliament, a board whose affairs could be reviewed only by parliament, subject to both houses of parliament, a body which should have all the powers possessed by the transport department and those possessed by the broadcasting corporation. In fact, they wanted to set up another body as strong as parliament, and when I learned that, I considered it would create a fascist organization.
Some persons, I believe the member for Macleod in particular, have made the statement that some members have their minds made up for them. The hon. member never spoke a truer word. Some people appeared
Canadian Broadcasting Act

to have their minds made up for them right from the beginning. In fact, from the very-second that the private broadcasters' brief was laid on the table, every Tory on the committee, and those associated with them, advocated that particular thing which was claimed in the brief. Their minds were made up for them all right. There is no question in the world about that. They came to the committee every day with prepared leading questions. If they were not briefed every evening they acted as if they were, and it shows how quick they were to pick up the point of view of those who desire to obtain private monopoly over radio. That is the position they took, and we might as well have this issue between the Tories and us cleared up now. The case is not one of socialism; it is not a case of government ownership of some industry which is usually run by private persons. This is a question as to whether or not we should control a monopoly, and on that I feel there should not be any doubt, any more than Mr. Bennett had doubt at the time he originally proposed the national set-up.
We have kept a monopoly over broadcasting, what I call country-wide broadcasting
that is, the network-and if the Tories now want to turn back and eat their own child, as some animals do, all right. Let us have the proposition clear, that the real issue in this matter is whether we shall have a private monopolistic network broadcasting or whether we shall not. All other matters fall into pale insignificance compared with that.
We can have a regulatory body as long as it is understood that the robustness of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation continues. We can have anything as long as we are first of all agreed upon something upon which we were at one time all agreed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while there are numerous subjects which are germane to the motion before us and which might be discussed, I know it is the desire to get on with other legislation. I am probably like the fellow who proposed to his girl and when she asked him why he did not say something more he replied that he had probably said too darned much already.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If one may judge the remarks about the radio committee, it must be rather fun to be on. the radio committee; it seems to be so full of prima donnas. The question which I propose to discuss for a few minutes was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank): Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be the supreme broadcasting authority?

When the C.B.C. was set up it was supposed that, by the imposition of a licence fee, a tax on the private owner of a radio set, superior service would be provided, to that of private stations. The radio fee was to enable this national instrument to provide better radio service. Now what is better radio service? I think Mr. Speaker, that better radio service must, in the final analysis, boil d'owm, to this-the service that is most acceptable to the Canadian radio listener.
I do not think we can say what is better theatre, what is better opera, what is better painting. The public must be the judge of what is better theatre, what are better methods, what is better public entertainment.
Let us see what we find in the Toronto district. The Toronto district is the best market in Canada; but, more than that, it is the most competitive and the most concentrated.
What do we find in the central Ontario district or Toronto district which comprises something over a million people concentrated within a twenty-mile radius? I want to quote the results of the Elliott-Haynes survey of Toronto stations. The figures I propose to give are the percentages of sets in use, turned to the stations in Canada. They are for the three months of January, February and March, 1947, published in April by the Elliott-Haynes Limited- research organization which did work for the Department of Finance during the war. I should like to put these on Hansard in tabular form, but I shall read for the time being:
Elliott-Haynes Limited
Percentage of sets in use:	Tuned to the
stations indicated.
These figures taken for the three months of January, February, March, 1947, published in April by Elliott-Haynes Limited, research organization which did work for Department of Finance during war (survey on what induced people to buy bonds) and now takes surveys for C.B.C. and independent stations.
	Percentage of Sets		on
Name of Station	Morning Afternoon	Eveningper cent	per cent	per centCBL 	19-1	22-6	13-9CFRB 	25-9	20-3	35-0CHUM 	5-5	6-6 (not on air)	CJBC 	10-0	4-3	4-6CKEY 	24-8	27-5	23-0WHEN Buffalo	5-5	8-6	11-3Others 	9-2	10-1	12-2
Morning is 9 a.m. to 12 noon. Afternoon: 12 noon to 6 p.m. Evening is 6 to 10 p.m.
Morning and afternoon surveys were taken Monday through Saturday. Evening surveys were taken Sunday through Saturday.
Others include CHML, Hamilton; CKOC, Hamilton; WGR, Buffalo; WKBW, Buffalo; plus some New York and short-wave stations.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
First four mentioned take 10 per cent of listeners in Toronto average over the period; with various of the "plus some . . . etc." . . .taking a quarter of one per cent, etc.
Figures are over-all averages for first three months of this year.
First, CBL; in the morning, 19-1 per cent; afternoon, 22-6 per cent; evening, 13-9 per cent. That is the listening audience on the percentage of radio sets in use.
CFRB, the private station, in the morning, 25-9 per cent; in the afternoon, 20-3 per cent, and in the evening, 35 per cent; nearly three times the drawing power in the evening of the key station CBL, in the Toronto district.
We now come to CHUM, a daylight station only: in the morning, 5-5 per cent; in the afternoon, 6-6 per cent; in the evening, not on the air.
Then we come to CJBC, the key station of the dominion network: in the morning 10 per cent; in the afternoon, 4-3 per cent, and in the evening, 4-6 per cent. I think it is significant that here is the key station of the C.B.C. in Toronto which does not have the drawing power of CHUM, a purely daylight subsidiary station.
Then we come to CKEY, a comparatively new station operating on a comparatively low power. Here we get the figures as follows: in the morning, 24-8 per cent; in the afternoon, 27-5 per cent, and in the evening, 23 per cent. Here we have two privately owned stations, according to an independent survey, out-listening and out-selling the C.B.C. stations; here we have them providing, on the basis of an independent survey, better service, and service of interest to the listening public, than the C.B.C. stations in the Toronto area, both of which are key stations for networks.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is providing the service? Are the private stations providing the service, or are the C.B.C. stations providing the service? Those who want to listen to CBL in the evening were 13-9 per cent; to CJBC, 4-6 per cent; to CFRB, 35 per cent; and to CKEY, 23 per cent. Those are the figures for the independent stations. But we come to another factor which is significant. We come to the fact that in Toronto, as in many other places, there is competition from the United States stations. I would just mention one, WBEN in Buffalo: in the morning, 5-5 per cent; in the afternoon, 8-6 per cent, and in the evening, 11-3 per cent. There you have an American station from Buffalo- a station on the N.B.C., I think, although it may be on C.B.S.; it does not matter which it is; it is on one of the chains-out-selling and out-drawing, almost by three to one, the key station of the dominion network. Here is a situation which surely shows that something
is wrong with the C.B.C. This air is free. There is a preference of the people who are listening to the United States station, three to one, over the key stations of the dominion network. I have not said what is good and what is bad. Surely what is good must be based on what people want to listen to. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that before these extra powers are given to the C.B.C., considerable searching should be done, on the part of the C.B.C. and the government, into the service which is being provided by this government emanation. It may be that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programmes are more intellectual, with higher quality music; but the question is, do they draw the listeners? I do not think there can be any other yardstick. From people who listen to the radio I understand that there are just as many soap operas and just as much, to use a better word, ballyhoo, on the C.B.C. emanation as there is on the private stations, particularly the United States private stations. I suggest that, before these powers are given to the C.B.C., considerable searching should be done.
If, as is asked, the wave lengths are changed, and if the dominion network takes over the wave length of CFRB, the most popular sta^ tion in the whole area, by three to one, what will happen? There are a number of questions I should like to ask the minister responsible. First of all, if you change the wave length of CFRB and give it to CJBC, are you not running the danger of having an even greater number of your Toronto and southern Ontario listeners forced, by choice, to listen to the United States stations? Are you not driving the Canadian listener out of the Canadian air by changing these wave lengths? I suggest that you are running a terrible risk in doing this. In that connection I should like to ask the minister four questions: 1. Has the United States given its official consent to using the 860 kilocycle band in Ontario at a power of 50,000 watts or more? If so, has it demanded in return any other concessions; and, if so, what are those concessions? If not, what is the use of taking this frequency, since with it CJBC could not then increase its power as planned?
2.	Is there a clause in the North American regional broadcasting agreement which would force Canada under certain circumstances to vacate the very favourable channel of 540 kilocycles now occupied by CBK, Watrous? Are there any secret agreements to this effect with the United States or Mexico? If so, why were these written?
3.	What secret agreements, if any, exist, with either the United States, Mexico or Cuba in connection with any other Canadian channels?
Canadian Broadcasting Act

4.	Why are negotiations concerning wave lengths not considered public property in Canada, as they are in the United States, Mexico and Cuba?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we have to judge this question on its merits. If the C.B.C. is, by test, providing a service, your Canadian listener will listen; he will demand it. If the C.B.C. is not providing that service, Mr. Speaker, wild horses will not get the Canadian public to listen to C.B.C. stations. The proof? An independent survey. That is true, not only in the Toronto area, but, I believe, right through Canada.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: I would point out that when the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment.


James Joseph McCann: In closing this debate-


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I must draw to the minister's attention that there is an amendment before the house which I shall now put.
Amendment (Mr. Church) negatived.


James Horace King: The question is on second reading; when the minister speaks he will close the debate.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I should like to make a few brief remarks about some of the things which have already been said in this discussion. It is generally known and understood that radio in this country and elsewhere is one of the big prizes in the current struggle for power by reactionary private enterprise. An agitation has been carried on in Canada as it has been carried on in the United States. Here an unscrupulous campaign has been carried on in an attempt to discredit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and at the same time to expand commercialism.
During the debate I have been struck by the short memories of some hon. members opposite. For instance, several members of the Progressive Conservative party have said that they thought some new and separate board should be set up to regulate and license broadcasting. They are forgetting a basic principle to which their party long held, and which is that all broadcasting should be coordinated under a national system, for which purpose we must have some regulating power.
Let me say that there is nothing new about that principle. It was first established by par-

liament when the last Conservative government was in power. It was embodied in the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932. A commission was set up under that act, a commission which had even broader powers than the present corporation.
The main change in the act of 1936 was to set up a corporation to be independent of the government in carrying out the functions laid down, instead of the old commission set up by the Conservative government under the act of 1932, which had been right under the thumb of the government of that day.
In the following years, successive parliamentary committees reaffirmed the principle, and with the concurrence of Conservative members who were on the committees. I well remember that, because I had the honour of being chairman for several years of the committee investigating radio broadcasting.
In the last two years, certain private radio interests have been campaigning for a change in radio laws which they think would give them more freedom to make profit and to exploit the public through channels which they have been allowed to use. Some of my hon. friends seem to have decided to forget the principles of their party, have repudiated them, and have allowed themselves to become the champions of private interests. I presume that members of the Progressive Conservative party have been speaking for themselves, because neither this year nor last year, when a similar debate took place, have I heard the leader of that party declare as to what was the policy of the Progressive Conservative party.
Tonight when he spoke he referred to the fee. I believe that his criticism was entirely unfounded and that he has not the right idea with reference to how the matter will be handled. He said, as is correct, that there should be an appropriation bill for this amount of money. There will be. Each year there will be; and it will be in the estimates in order to cover the costs of administration. Probably this year, since it is too late for that estimate to come in the supplementary estimates it will appear in the further supplementary estimates which will be brought down at the end of the fiscal year. Each year there will have to be voted by parliament, and it will go into the appropriation bill, an amount of money to cover the costs of administration and of collection. So that I submit there will be an opportunity for discussion in parliament yearly with respect to matters pertaining to costs of collection and administration.
I want to reassert that the Liberal party has a distinct and clear policy with respect to

Canadian Broadcasting Act
radio in Canada. We believe in a nationally owned, nationally controlled and nationally operated system of radio for all the people of this country. It will be nationally operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and nationally controlled by them, a corporation responsible not to the government but to parliament. That is a clear-cut definition of the policy of the Liberal party with respect to national radio; and I have yet to hear from the leader of the Progressive Conservative party what the policy of his party is on 'this matter. Every man in the party has a policy of his own as it suits his own interests or the interests of those for whom he is speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: You have 'three ministers over there tinkering with radio.


James Joseph McCann: No, you cannot count correctly. There are two. It is not hard to count to three-one, two, three; the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has nothing to do with radio. That has been told and it has been explained. I cannot understand the persistence with which hon. members opposite try to carry on arguments on something which they know is absolutely false.


Mr. HARRIS (Dan'forth):: And I can give another one; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) pays for it.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, and you pay for it too. This year the special committee, after hearing full evidence, decided to recommend against any basic change in radio law, and that consideration was much more thorough than has been suggested by any members of the opposition. I do not understand, however, why some had so little to say at the time of the final deliberations of the committee when there was plenty of opportunity to do so. Apparently they preferred to speak in the house, so that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters would know they were discharging their full duty toward that organization.
On the development of C.B.C. facilities, members of the Progressive Conservative party also seem to have very short memories. During the Havana treaty negotiations before the war, we obtained the use of certain class 1-A clear channels. When I say "we" I mean the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the people of Canada. These channels were expressly for high-powered stations already built or to be built into the national system. Plans for further high-powered stations to use these channels were stated publicly and were approved by parliamentary committees in the reports of which Progressive Conservative members have concurred.
During the war, naturally the corporation was unable to continue development of its technical facilities. It was absolutely impossible to get the transmitters and other technical equipment which would have been necessary in those years to carry on the expansion we had in view. Certain private stations, under the circumstances, were allowed to use these wave lengths provisionally at low power. Now some members of the opposition call it legalized robbery when the C.B.C. goes ahead with the original plans to make use of these wave lengths at high power.
I submit that it would be legalized betrayal of the Canadian people who own the national radio system if we did not proceed with the programme which we had in view prior to the war, and which was interrupted because of the war. It would be a legalized selling out of the public interest to certain private organizations if they were allowed to develop these clear channels at high power, instead of the national system, as ivas originally intended.
I must take strong exception to the allegations made by the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Jaques), who cast about charges of communism against certain individuals in a manner which, I submit, was quite unnecessary on the part of a member of the house. He spoke about Raymond Arthur Davies, who went to Russia as a free-lance journalist. At ithe time he was the only Canadian journalist there. The C.B.C., together with a number of leading publications in the United States >and in Canada, accepted some material from him submitted by him. No material from him had been used by the C.B.C. for over a year and half.
Allegations relating to Mr. R. S. Lambert, a member of the C.B.C. staff, were brought before the special committee on broadcasting in 1944, and were thoroughly disproven. 1 think it is highly unfair for such allegations to be made again in this house at this time.
Matthew Halton, resident in Great Britain, is employed regularly by the C.B.C. Anyone without a completely distorted mind w'ho has listened to his broadcasts and heard his critical remarks and analyses of Russian policy would know that he is far from being a communist.
Elmore Philpott is not a C.B.C. employee, but a well known Canadian commentator. 1 think he can take care of himself.
But I must again object to slurs being cast on individuals, especially employees of a public body, when there is no chance for them to be heard or to reply to such allegations.
Canadian Broadcasting Act

The hon. member for Kamloops said that someone had suppressed a portion of the documents asked for in the committee relating to the application of Mr. Charles Shearer for a radio station in Ottawa. The chairman of the C.B.C. has asked me to deny ithis on his behalf. He has advised me what written material presented by Mr. Shearer to the board of governors was given to the committee just as it was in the files of the corporation; and that no statement was taken out of a folder in the corporation's possession, as the hon. member for Kamloops suggested. I think the hon. member is man enough to accept that denial by the chairman of the C.B.C.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The letter from Mr. Shearer is on the record and will speak for itself in that regard.


James Joseph McCann: Several opposition speakers have admitted that the national radio system needs further funds to carry on its service. Even the leader of the opposition admitted that tonight, but he went a lot farther in the election of 1945. His policy at that time and that of his party was that there should be no fee at all, that it should be paid1 entirely out of the moneys of the state. I submit that this bill is a sensible way o'f providing extra funds in the face of rising costs. There is no particular reason why licence fee revenue going to the C.B.C. should be diminished, as at present, by certain costs of administration of a government department. Any members voting against this bill will be simply voting against the continuation of good service by the national broadcasting system.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Moneys received to be deposited in bank.


Ernest George Hansell: There is just a question or two I should like to ask the minister. What we are doing virtually by this bill is to call upon the public treasury for a sum in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. That being so, I think we have a right to expect an answer to one or two questions. The other day the minister said that the cost of talent in the way of artists and writers had increased by about sixty per cent. He did not point out that artists' fees are, in the main, borne by the sponsors and not necessarily by the radio stations. I would not want him to leave the impression that, because artists' fees have risen sixty per cent, the artists appearing on C.B.C. programmes are therefore taking sixty per cent more money out of the C.B.C. That is
hardly right. If the minister has the figure, would he tell us the total amount paid by the corporation to artists and writers?
While the minister is looking up the answer, may I say that I listened to his closing remarks with some interest. He proceeded1 to take apart the hon. member for Eglinton; he then attempted to take apart the hon. member for Kamloops; he also attempted to take apart the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, but he has left me standing here perfectly whole. I feel slighted. I can come to only two conclusions. Either my speech was of such a character and the facts were there that he could not take it apart or else-


William Henry Golding: I dislike to interrupt-	*


Ernest George Hansell: I was just waiting for the minister.


William Henry Golding: We had a long discussion on second reading of the bill, and now I think hon. members should confine their remarks to the section before the committee.


Ernest George Hansell: That is all right; I was kind of filling in time. I thought I saw the minister indicate to his officials to come into the chamber as they usually do.


James Joseph McCann: Artists' fees for programmes for 1946-47 were $2,966,000. What the hon. member says is quite correct; a lot of fees are paid for commercial programmes, but these are the amounts paid for sustaining programmes. The statement which I made is correct, that fees to artists have gone up by sixty per cent.


Ernest George Hansell: We are being asked virtually to vote half a million dollars by this bill, and I do not feel like casting my vote for another half million dollars until I am satisfied with the present arrangement. There is one thing I have not been able to discuss. I want to ask him, in what way would the effectiveness of the broadcasting corporation be decreased by having a separate regulatory body?


James Joseph McCann: I do not personally see any need for any more regulation than there is at the present time. The suggestion is worth while canvassing that within the corporation itself there might be an operating division and an executive division, and probably at some future time that system might be worked out. But this stage of development of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when it is attempting to carry out a long-range programme that was interrupted by the war is, I submit, no time for change.

Canadian Broadcasting Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not understand what the minister has just stated. I ask this simple question: Why does he not consider it fair to have an independent body?


William Henry Golding: The question of an independent body has been thoroughly discussed and the committee must now confine itself to the amendment, which provides that the licence fees go direct to the corporation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister himself just mentioned that as part of his answer.


William Henry Golding: I cannot permit this discussion to go on after the lengthy discussion we had on second reading.
Mr. MACDONNELL '(Muskoka-Ontario): It is not a discussion; it is just a question I am asking, a very simple one. I ask the minister why it would not be fair to have an independent body just as there is for the railways. Why should the C.B.C. be both an operating and a regulatory body when it is regulating its competitors?


James Joseph McCann: I have heard that question discussed of having a board something like the board of transport commissioners, but the cases are not comparable at all. There arc not two sets of broadcasting in this country. The people who have the frequencies for commercial broadcasting have them on a yearly basis. They belong to all the people of this country and, according to the present legislation, any of those frequencies can, if required, be taken over at any time by the national system. That is an entirely different thing from what obtains in connection with the railways. The board of transport commissioners would not dare to say that the Canadian National should take over the Canadian Pacific. If the hon. member will recall, the Canadian National system was absorbed because it was bankrupt and somebody had to take it over.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I might reply to one statement made by the minister with reference to the chairman of the board of governors-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is finished.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister a question. By how much would the commercial programmes have to be increased in amount so that the C.B.C., after paying depreciation and other charges, would be able to carry on without a licence fee?
83X66-358


James Joseph McCann: Where would the hon. member suggest the money should come from?


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the question, by how much would the commercial programmes have to be increased?


James Joseph McCann: Nobody can tell you that.


William Henry Golding: The clause we have before us reads:
. . . The gross amount of the moneys received in each year from licence fees in respect of private receiving licences and private station broadcasting licences without deducting therefrom any costs of collection or administration.


John George Diefenbaker: How are we to find out whether or not this law should be passed unless the minister is in a position to answer a question regarding revenue?


James Joseph McCann: I will give you an answer immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: A moment ago the minister said he could1 not answer.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member knows the figures as well as I do.


John George Diefenbaker: He is getting help now.


James Joseph McCann: The total operating expense of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last year was $5,878.000. There was a deficit of $70,000. The hon. member can add those two figures for himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Was depreciation allowed for?


James Joseph McCann: No. Add those two figures and you get the revenue required1 for the corporation to come out even. The revenue from commercial broadcasting was $1,786,000. The answer would be the difference between $5,948,000 and $1,786,000. plus depreciation, and the depreciation on equipment is at a very high rate, as high as twenty per cent on costly technical equipment. It would probably run in the neighbourhood of eight or nine million dollars.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister, after he had the assistance of the chairman of the committee, was able to answer that question, which 'brings me to one subject which has not been discussed and which I consider pertinent, namely, the degree to which the commercial side of the operation of C.B.C. is in effect today. Here is the surprising thing. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked a question with a view to finding out how much GFRB had been devoting to commercial advertising and the like and took that as a yardstick for the other private stations. He

Canadian Broadcasting Act

also asked for a break-down showing C.B.C.'s figures regarding commercial broadcasting. The strange thing about it is this, that forty-five per cent of the schedule of CFRB is commercial and, according to rumour, it is a very profitable station.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member is not going to discuss private stations now. This amendment has nothing to do with private stations.


John George Diefenbaker: It is my fault, Mr. Chairman, if I did not make myself clear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a wonderful thing when you can get a word of approval from the other side for anything said on this side.


Ralph Maybank: On a point of order, may I say that if the hon. member is always as frank we shall always be glad to applaud.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to get into an argument over that because, after all, the chairman of the special committee had his day today. I was saying that forty-five per cent of CFRB's schedule is commercial, and that private station is entirely dependent on commercial revenue.


William Henry Golding: I would hope that the hon. member will not discuss the private stations on this clause.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just trying to show that with three tinkers among the ministry looking after radio, C.B.C. does not fare very well, and I was just pointing out the difference between C.B.C. and a private station having forty-five per cent of its entire schedule commercial and thereby making a profit, whereas C.B.C. has only thirty-one per cent of its programme commercial and it requires more money from parliament.


James Joseph McCann: You know the reason.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly. I know the reason-the fact that there are three ministers concerned with radio.


James Joseph McCann: That has nothing to do with it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister asked the chairman of the special committee, and then he asks me.


James Joseph McCann: I did not know he was there. We are not as wise as you are.


John George Diefenbaker: That is one thing the minister can say.


James Joseph McCann: We will admit that immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. The situation is this. We had it in connection with the statement made before the committee by one of the officials of the Department of Transport. He gave an ex parte statement setting out the views of the government. He must have set them out, since he is the controller of radio, and yet the Minister of National Revenue repudiated that statement.


James Joseph McCann: I did?


William Henry Golding: Order.


James Joseph McCann: I never made any comment on it, one way or the other.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you accept it?


James Joseph McCann: I am answering your
statement.


William Henry Golding: Order. We are not dealing with the report of the radio committee; we are simply dealing with the amendment. The report has been discussed and I hope we do not get into it at this time.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, please do not shut off the discussion until I have a chance to ask a question. I want to ask the minister what he meant when he said that an appropriation bill would be brought in each year. I think a fair interpretation of what he meant was that an appropriation bill would be brought in for the amount of the cost of collecting the four or five million dollars.


James Joseph McCann: That is exactly what I said.


John Thomas Hackett: Is the corporation to receive the amount twice? Under the amendment it is to receive it directly from the Minister of Finance. As the law now is, the corporation receives the amount collected, after there has been deducted from the gross receipts the cost of collection and administration. If the amendment carries the C.B.C. will receive the gross amount.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


John Thomas Hackett: Therefore the corporation will receive direct from the Minister of Finance $500,000 odd or whatever it would cost to collect these fees. If an appropriation bill is to be brought in for another amount it seems to me that the corporation will be receiving two amounts. I ask the minister if he will be good enough to explain.


James Joseph McCann: It is not very hard to explain; if the hon. member will pay attention I think even he can understand.

Canadian Broadcasting Act


John Thomas Hackett: If the minister is in that mood we may have a little fun yet. I have asked him a simple question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You have had lots of fun all day today.


James Joseph McCann: The money that is collected from the private licensees and from commercial licences is collected by the Department of Transport, radio division, which comes under 1he supervision of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. By an order in council these duties were transferred to him.


John Thomas Hackett: From the Minister of Finance?


James Joseph McCann: No, the Minister of Finance has nothing to do with it at this stage. When the fees are collected there is deducted the equivalent of thirty-five cents for the commission which is paid to those people throughout the country who sell the radio licences. In addition to that, 'there are certain administrative costs. If this bill passes, all that fee of $2.50, or $2 as the case may be, because there is a difference in the amount that is charged, will go to the credit of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. A battery set owner pays only $2 and the owner of an electric set pays $2.50. All of that, will be put by the Minister of Finance to the credit of the broadcasting corporation, and according to the Canadian Broadcasting Act these moneys are paid by the Minister of Finance to the broadcasting corporation as they are collected. Yearly there will be an item in the costs of the Department of Transport, radio division, which will cover the amount of money which they have to pay in commission to private individuals who collect the fee and for the administration costs. That will be passed as an appropriation every year as we pass the estimates, and it will be incorporated in the money bill which comes before parliament and is passed when all the estimates have been passed.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister say whether the amendment which is now occupying the attention of the committee is not sufficient justification for the payment for all time of the total fees, whether it be $2 or $2.50 collected from the users of radio.


James Joseph McCann: Certainly it will.


John Thomas Hackett: In that event, why should there be any appropriation bill for that particular amount? As I understand it, there may be an appropriation bill for other amounts, but for the specific amounts need there be any appropriation bill?
83166-358J


James Joseph McCann: How would parliament
vote the money to pay the commission which goes to private individuals who sell radio licences, or to the costs of administration of that particular department, if it were not brought up as an item in the estimates to cover that particular expense?


John Thomas Hackett: I thought we would have a statutory appropriation which would avail for all time and which would not come up each year in the estimates.


James Joseph McCann: One of the reasons why you could not have a statutory appropriation is, in my opinion, that the amount is not constant.


John Thomas Hackett: Not constant?


James Joseph McCann: It would vary from year to year, depending on the number of radio licences which are issued and other cost factors which enter into the administration of that particular branch.


John Bracken: I do not think the minister is making the position clear if this measure passes, .then the government may, in its details of expenditure for next year and later years, have an item for an amount comparable with this, but that will have been passed by this law as a statutory .proposal-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Bracken: -and being such, it does not have to be passed by the house. It is there and cannot be discussed but does not need to be. That is what I was trying to say earlier this evening. This is an appropriation measure, the same as the act requiring the payment of interest on the debt. It is indicated in the estimates as having been provided by statute. You may put it in the estimates; it may receive some consideration, but it does not have to be passed by the house at that time.	.
Mr. McCAiNN: The item in the estimates will have to be passed.


John Bracken: The item is there simply because, while it may have cost you $540,000 this year, it may cost you $1 million next year, but still the statutory appropriation may be_


James Joseph McCann: Statutory to the extent that that money goes to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but it is not statutory to the extent that the Department of Transport are reimbursed' for their expenditure in connection with the collection of the fees.


John Bracken: It is statutory to this extent, that it does not have to be passed by the house each year. That is the point I made
Canadian Broadcasting -4c/

this afternoon and the point the hon. member for Stanstead is now making.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think there is some slight confusion there. It is statutory to the extent that it concerns the broadcasting corporation; it will not have to come before parliament to get it; it will have it by virtue of the statute, but the Department of Transport will have to have in its estimates votes to provide it with the money which it will be required to spend to do the collecting. It will not be an item to be voted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but it will be an item to be voted to some department to enable that department to do the work.


John Bracken: The only important point is whether, later on, the house can alter the amount when voting supply. With this statute before it, this house cannot alter the amount that may be in the estimates next year or any later year. That is my point. This is an appropriation bill for all time as long as this amendment is in force.


James Joseph McCann: To the corporation.


John Thomas Hackett: May I ask the minister this question. If, as he contends, there must be an appropriation each year, then what is the purpose of amending the act? If each year there must be brought in an appropriation in aid of the broadcasting corporation, why not do if each year? Why do we go about it in this roundabout way? I would suggest that, if the minister's interpretation be correct, the purpose of the act has been defeated', because we shall have to bring in an appropriation act - each year for the amount that is to be saved the broadcasting corporation by not having to pay the cost o'f these fees.


James Joseph McCann: Section 14 of the act provides:
The Minister of Finance shall deposit from time to time in the Bank of Canada or in a chartered bank to be designated by him, to the credit of the corporation: (a) the moneys received from licence fees in respect of private receiving licences and private station broadcasting licences, after deducting from the gross receipts the cost of collection and administration, such costs being determined by the minister from time to time.
The full amount of the fee, as long as it is S2.50, will go to the corporation. There will be no change there. But it is easy to understand that the amount of commission which is paid may be smaller or greater and that the administrative expenses of that part of the department that deals with it may fluctuate. That will be a varying amount from year to year and will occur as an item in. the estimates to be voted by parliament when the estimates of the radio division of the Department of Transport, are brought up. .
f:\lr. Bracken.]


John Thomas Hackett: That being so, what is the purpose of this amendment?


James Joseph McCann: So that, instead of receiving $2.15 out of every $2.50 paid, the corporation will receive the full amount of $2.50 and such other licence fees as are paid by private stations.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: As regards the thirty-five cents payable to the Department of Transport, is that amount payable year after year, from every licence fee, or only where the collector goes around to make collections? Do we all have to pay?


James Joseph McCann: You pay $2.50; the fellow who sells you the licence gets twenty-five cents, and the other ten cents represents administrative expenses.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: When you go to the post office or where the government agency is, is there a 35-cent deduction there too?


James Joseph McCann: No.
Mr, HANSELL: There is one point under discussion where I do not quite agree with my Conservative friends. It may appear that we are close together on matters of radio, but this is one thing where I do not agree with them. I do not know that I want to see that item, which yearly will be included ih the estimates, made statutory. I would rather have it come before parliament every year and have the appropriation voted on, giving us an opportunity to scrutinize the matter here. If it is statutory it is only by common consent that we can get to discuss that particular item. Does the minister agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on second reading when he said that the privilege afforded independent stations over the years have endangered the whole future of the C.B.C.?


William Henry Golding: Order.


James Joseph McCann: I will agree with that statement.


Ernest George Hansell: Will the minister say in what way the future of the corporation is endangered?


James Joseph McCann: Because it defeats the very objects for which the C.B.C. was set up. It was distinctly indicated what the particular job of the private stations would be.


William Henry Golding: Order. This
discussion is out of order.


Ernest George Hansell: On a point of order, may I make this suggestion. We could have asked these questions on the resolution stage; but to accommodate the minister and the house

Canadian Broadcasting Act
we agreed that the resolution might go through without discussion., on the understanding that we should be allowed to fulfil our duty. We cannot ask questions while Mr. Speaker is in the chair. We cannot ask questions until the bill is in committee, and therefore I would suggest that these questions are in order.


William Henry Golding: I appreciate the position the hon. member finds himself in; but, after all, we are dealing with a specific amendment to the act, and in committee members must confine their remarks to the amendment. This amendment has nothing whatever to do with private stations. Hon. members were given full opportunity to discuss the report of the committee and also the amendment.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. member for Macleodi has misinterpreted the attitude of the official opposition. They do not favour the statutory method, as he seems to think.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Why does the minister resort to this method of collection, which is about, fourteen per cent on S2.50, or thirty-five cents? Surely the cost of collecting the revenue of the dominion through the minister's department does not approach anywhere near fourteen per cent.


James Joseph McCann: I do not resort to anything. I have nothing to dio with collecting it at all, nor has the C.B.C. The licensing authority, which is the radio division of the transport department, has adopted this method and if someone could suggest a better method it would be welcomedi. In the old country the collection is made through the post office department. I have canvassed the situation myself and I do not know that there is any better method. If anyone were ingenious enough to invent some sort of lock that could be turned on when people paidi their licence fee and turned off otherwise, that person would make a fortune. If the hon. gentleman could suggest a better method we would be glad to have it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is the cost of collection in the United Kingdom?


William Henry Golding: Order. That has nothing to do with the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: 
Ernest George Hansell: I am giving warning now that I am not creating a filibuster when I stand to speak on third reading. I want that understood.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will not do any
good.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What do they mean
when they say we cannot ask questions?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. McCANN moved the third reading of the bill.
Ernest George Hansell: I do not intend to make a forty minute speech, but before this bill passes I want to point -out to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have not had an adequate opportunity in this house of questioning the government on the radio policy in Canada. We have had an opportunity of speaking to a bill, but we have not had an opportunity of questioning the government. When this bill was in the resolution stage, we thought we should like ' to accommodate the government and the house by letting the resolution go through without questioning. When we reached second reading of the bill, we had an opportunity of speaking tonight without questions being asked or answered. When the bill came into committee stage we could not ask the questions we wanted to ask there. So I do not know where on earth we are to ask the questions and still have them on record. The minister in the debate on the bill said that an opportunity of weighing evidence in respect of radio was given in the last sittings of the radio committee. While that is partly true, the minister knows very well that in those sittings no record was kept. So that the only place we have in which to -ask questions and draw out from the government the answers we want on radio policy, and at the same time get them on the record, is in this house; and, as I say, we have not had an opportunity to do that. Some of us, Mr. Speaker, will have to remember that, and put it in the book of remembrance. When these matters come before another session of parliament, we may not be quite so liberal in accommodating the government or the house.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


An hon. MEMBER:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time
and passed.
Supply-Fisheries
[Stage Direction]


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

[Stage Direction]
87.	To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing, and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 8 and 19, 1942, $400,000.
Mr. McLURE:: I think the minister might give the committee a little information with regard to this item. It is a revenue-producing item and it would be worth while for the committee to hear about it.


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: This item has already been mentioned in previous years. As a matter of fact, it is the only branch of the fisheries department which makes a profit of any kind, and it arises out of the pelagic sealing treaty between Canada and the United States. Under the agreement, in the wording of this appropriation, Canada receives twenty per cent of the fur seal skins taken annually at the Pribilof islands. In 1946 the total take was 64,523 skins, of which Canada's share was 12,905. Of this number, 3,230 have been sent to London and 9,675 to St. Louis for processing and dyeing. This appropriation provides for the expense of transportation to and from processing plants, for processing and dyeing, for customs duty and taxes, for auctioneer's fees, and miscellaneous items such as Canada's share of blubbering costs, packing barrels, et cetera. In 1946-47 the net revenue to the Department of Fisheries was $446,835.93. In addition to that, there was the revenue to the Department of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
88.	To provide for the destruction of harbour seals, $30,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the amount of bounty paid for the destruction of harbour seals?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: It is now $5 per seal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special
[Stage Direction]
89.	To provide for the extension of educational work in cooperative producing and selling among fishermen, $56,000.
Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: I think this is the only item under which I can speak about supervision. During the past few years, particularly during the war-


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: On what point is the hon. member speaking?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The supervision of canneries.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I think the hon. member can find an item in the supplementary estimates under which he.can speak on that subject.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Is there one there?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
90.	To provide for the administrative expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, $60,000.
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: What amounts have been paid out under the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, and to whom have they been paid?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Nothing has been paid out to date.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Has the act been put into operation?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: As yet the act has not been put into operation. It will be put into operation in the course of a day or two.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has the board been appointed?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The board will be
appointed in the course of a day or two. No doubt it would have been appointed before, but I must confess I was a little bit tired of hearing of anything we did alleged as being done in connection with the Halifax byelection. The appointments will be announced in a day or so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the latest
results in that by-election?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I cannot tell the hon. member that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
733. Departmental administration - further amount required, $48,087.
Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Under this item the hon. member for Charlotte can raise the matter to which he referred.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: During the war, when the demand for canned fish and other foods was great, it was noticeable on the Atlantic coast that, to a certain extent, quality was neglected for the sake of quantity. At the present time the mode of inspection of the fisheries department is to take samples of canned goods from all parts of the mari-

Supply-F isheries
time provinces. They are sent to Halifax where they are examined and the report comes back to the canners. I fail to understand why this practice is followed because, while the county of Charlotte is not great in size, during the war there were more canned fish packed in that county than in all the rest of the maritime provinces put together. Still we had to go through the same old formula of sending the fish from the different canneries in Charlotte county to Halifax, where they were examined and then brought back. It would be more beneficial to the canners in that section if some way could be devised of examining the fish on the spot.
My suggestion would be that inspection should take place before the fish are put into the cans. I think it is a wrong idea to wait until they are processed or canned, and then taken for inspection. If anything happens, and particularly in respect of the small canners, a total loss is suffered; whereas, if examinations were made before the fish were canned, the canner would have some protection.
Then, another matter:	A short time ago
a man in the maritime provinces received an order for canned sardines from a country to which we had never shipped sardines before. Samples were sent overseas, and immediately the order came back for several thousand cases. Because of haste in getting the shipment overseas, the canner took sardines which were canned in other sections of the province and shipped them overseas. The result was that those who received them were dissatisfied with the type of goods they received, and there was no repeat order. My suggestion is that we should be much more careful with our inspection in canneries. During the war every man who could get into the canning business wanted to can sardines or other fish. But it has come to the (time when, with the competition we shall have to meet in years to come, we shall have to be much more careful with our quality if we wish to compete with other countries of the world.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
735. Educational extension service, including grant of $1,200 to the Lunenburg fisheries exhibition, additional to the amount provided for in item 78 of the main estimates-further amount required, $1,200.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the educational work to be continued as it was last year? What results were obtained last year? How many men were appointed to do the job of inspection?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: My hon. friend must be
referring to the wrong item. This is a vote of $1,200 to the Lunenburg fisheries exhibition, in addition to the amount provided in the
main estimates. It has to do with item 78, which is already passed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7SB. Fish culture-further amount required, $28,000.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is this for the construction of a building, or for some particular project?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: For the erection of a
hatchery which was destroyed by fire in New Brunswick in 1934, and until this year had not been replaced.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What programme of
fish culture is carried out for the great lakes?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The Ontario government
administers its own fisheries. We take no active part in fish culture there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research 'board of Canada-
737. Operation and maintenance - further amount required, $20,000.
Mr. HAZEN:: I am puzzled by one item in the details at page 28 of the further supplementary estimates-"other pay-list items, $50". What is that for?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This is in connection with work being done by the fisheries research board at the request of the Department of Mines and Resources in what is known as the eastern Arctic expedition, whereby we are trying to make inquiries and studies for that department in connection with the conservation of fish in that area so that the Eskimos may use the fish as food for themselves.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like some information with respect to living allowances and salaries for those in the employ of the fisheries research board.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: They are paid, the prevailing rates of wages.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Why is there a distinction between employees of the research board and those of the fisheries department? I know of men down there who have been in the employ of the Department of Fisheries for many years. They are obliged to be away from home as much as or more than the employees of the research board. At the same time, one is allowed a living allowance and the other is not. What is the explanation?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Those who are in the employ of the Department of Fisheries are permanent employees and their salaries are supposed to be in line with what permanent
Supply-Fishe lies

employees are paid, whereas those in the employ of the fisheries research board are temporary employees.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Why is it that employees of the Department of Fisheries who operate on the British Columbia coast are paid a living allowance, while those on the Atlantic coast are not? AVhy is there discrimination?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: It depends upon the size of the boat. They are paid the same on both coasts.


Mr. WINTERS:: I should like to ask whether men who are employed by the fisheries department are eligible for superannuation, and whether men who work on the fisheries , patrol boats are eligible for the same sort of payments.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Employees of the fisheries research board do not as yet come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, but I hope they will in the not too distant future.


Robert Henry Winters: Will the men on the fisheries patrol boats be given the same consideration with respect to superannuation?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: All' one can say is that consideration might be given to it, but it is a difficult question to work out by virtue of the length of time they may have been working for the department in that area.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On another
occasion I brought to the minister's attention the case of a veteran of the first great war who is now employed by the fisheries department. I know that in 1946 his take-home pay as one of the crew on the boat was $55 a month. At the same time I know of young men in the employ of the research board who are making more money the first year than is this man, who has been there for twelve years. It seems unfair that older employees of the department should not receive the same consideration as newer employees are getting. These newer employees not only get better wages; they get living allowances as well.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: There is not an employee on one of our boats whose remuneration is only $55.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I said his take-home pay was that, but he gets less than $100 a month. This man is a good seaman; he has been on the boat for a long time, but he is getting less than $100 a month. Younger men with practically no experience on the water have been employed by the research board in the last twelve to fifteen months and
are receiving more money than this man who has been employed for ten or twelve years.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: We are endeavouring to adjust a lot of those rates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
738. Construction and improvements and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $75,000-further amount required, $100,000.
Mr. MacINNIS:: Would the minister explain this item?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This item is to provide for the construction of the main building for the research board's biological station at Nanaimo, British Columbia, the total cost of which was estimated to be $175,000. At this date it would not be possible to build this in the present fiscal year. There was provision for this construction in the 1946-47 appropriations in the amount of $100,000. However, on calling for tenders that amount proved to be inadequate and no action was taken. In other words, an amount of $100,000 is being asked for this year, but it is not anticipated that, even though tenders are called for, we can possibly go beyond an expenditure of $100,000 in the present fiscal year. As I said, the estimated full cost of the building is $175,000.


Angus MacInnis: Then this $75,000 should be $175,000?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I am told by the officials that this is all that it .is estimated can be spent within the present year. We cannot possibly spend $175,000.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot find an item of $175,000, although I see mention of $75,000.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: That is for commitments which will probably be made the following year in order that the construction may be completed.
Special-
741. To provide for the extension of educational work in cooperative producing and selling among fishermen-further amount required, $15,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is anything provided in these special items for scallop fishing? That type of fishing is carried on in our province, and some of the fishermen have applied for assistance.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: These three items do not refer to scallop fishing; that would come under item 81 in the general estimates.


Angus MacInnis: How will this amount be allocated as between the east and west coasts?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This is an extra amount of $15,000 to provide for the extension of

Criminal Code
educational work in cooperative producing and selling among the fishermen. There was voted in the main estimates an amount of $56,000, which, if I remember correctly, was to provide $5,000 to the university of British Columbia, $15,000 to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere in Quebec and $37,000 to St. Francis Xavier at Antigonish. This extra $15,000 is to provide $5,000 additional to the university of British Columbia, which is just what they asked for, and $10,000 additional to the school of fisheries at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
742. To provide for the construction of a vessel of particular design for experimental fishing for herring and mackerel, $16,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Where will this vessel operate from when completed?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: This vessel will operate in the maritime provinces along the Atlantic coast. It is under charter to the Atlantic herring and mackerel investigation committee, which is composed of members from Newfoundland1, the maritime provinces, the province of Quebec and the federal government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
7Jt3. To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council, $50,000.
Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: This
appears to be a new departure, and I should like to ask the minister where these facilities are being constructed.


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The availability of supplies of bait at convenient centres has long been one of the difficulties facing the fishing industry, and different plans to overcome it have been tried. There is a growing interest on the part of the provinces for creating a greater development of the industry, which includes fishing, and the providing of bait freezing and storage facilities is a first necessity if the fishing industry is to be expanded. A plan whereby both the provincial government concerned and the federal government would contribute to assistance in providing bait facilities is being developed. It is estimated that the federal government's contribution in such a plan would be $50,000 for 1947-48.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. ILSLEY:: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported1.



CRIMINAL CODE


James Horace King: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate doth insist upon its second and fifteenth amendments made to Bill No. 364, to amend the, criminal code, with which the House of Commons has disagreed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with their honours to consider certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 364 entitled: "An Act to amend the criminal code," to two of the amendments to which this house has not agreed and upon which the Senate insists, and any amendment which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make to the said bill or amendments thereto.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, it will be clear to the members what the procedure would be if the conference comes to an agreement, but if they should not come to an agreement what would the procedure be?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I speak subject to correction, but I think we lose our bill if there is no agreement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: That Messrs. Benidickson, Marquis and Ilsley be appointed managers on behalf of this house of the free conference with the Senate with respect to the amendments made to Bill No. 364, intituled: "An Act to amend the criminal code"; and that a message he sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
108. Departmental administration, $701,576.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister what is the exact programme now being followed in connection with averting industrial disputes, and in settling them where such take place, in view of the new bill that is to be brought in next year?


Humphrey Mitchell: The provinces have assumed their jurisdiction. British Columbia, Alberta

S up ply-Labour

and Saskatchewan have passed legislation of their own; Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick are operating under P.C. 1003; Quebec is operating under its own legislation; Nova Scotia has recently passed its own legislation, and the dominion is operating under P.C. 1003.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the difference in procedure between P.C. 1003 and what is being followed], say in British Columbia which has its own act?


Humphrey Mitchell: The British Columbia act follows closely the fundamental principles of P.C. 1003, with some minor changes, but in the main the right of men to organize and negotiate is recognized by law.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it recognize collective bargaining too?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister whether he has given any further consideration to implementing the recommendation made to him by Mr. Harris Johnstone on December 7, 1945, with respect to the dispute over certain Canadian Pacific railway pension rates. It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to speak at length on this matter as I have done on previous occasions, because the house and the government are fully aware of the situation. I notice there was a little bit of applause-but very little- when I said I was not going to speak at length, but actually, Mr. Chairman, I regard this matter as a great deal more important than some of the matters this house has found time to devote -its attention to in the dying days of this session.
The minister knows that, following representations to the government on this matter from the trade unions affected and representations made on the floor of this house, he appointed one of his officials to make a *thorough investigation of the whole question. That official Mr. H. S. Johnstone, made a report to the minister in December, 1945. That report, including its appendices, runs to some sixty-six pages and the concluding paragraph of the report is a definite and specific recommendation to the minister 'that a royal commission be appointed.
I may point out to the minister and to the members who are following me that this question differs from the subject matter of Bill No. 24, which has been before the house on another occasion; that bill has to do with an attempt to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. The royal commission asked for in Mr. Johnstone's report has to do with the actual dispute that still obtains 
over the pension rights lost by Canadian Pacific railway employees in 1918 and 1919. For these men there has 'been expressed on the floor of this house time and again a great deal of sympathy. The minister expresses his sympathy, the Prime Minister expresses his sympathy for these men, and it is a sympathy borne out of an experience he had with a similar situation some years ago. But the fact of the matter is that that sympathy has not proven of a great deal of assistance to these men. Their case, to my way of thinking, is air-tight. They were able to convince Mr. Johnstone thait they had a case and I do feel that the government should proceed to implement the recommendation made to them by Mr. Johnstone.
On previous occasions the minister, as well as indicating his sympathy, has made various comments. For one thing he said that the money in question was that of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and in reply to that I have called his attention to one paragraph in Mr. Johnstone's report which deals with that very point and suggests that the men had an equity and that their contention on that score was .well founded.
The minister has also said that on previous occasions he has consulted the Department of Justice to determine whether or not there would be any advantage in appointing a royal commission; he has given us the opinion of the Department of Justice that there would not be any advantage, and on the basis of that opinion he has declined thus far to appoint the royal commission. I submit that the responsibility in this matter rests with the minister himself and that he should not crawl out from under that responsibility by quoting the Department of Justice. The fact of the matter is that it might help to solve the problem if a royal commission were to go into this matter and to make a specific recommendation, even though that royal commission had not the authority to compel the implementing of that recommendation. But if a royal commission were appointed and went into this matter, I am satisfied that its finding would be on the side of the men and that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would find that public support would be such as to compel them to pay some attention to the report of the royal commission. I know that the Minister of Labour has had to think of this matter a good many times, because I have drawn it to his attention repeatedly and he has had a great deal of correspondence about it from men representing the unions concerned.
When the Prime Minister made the promise back in 1945 to have the question investi-

Supply-Labour
gated so as to determine whether or not a royal commission should be appointed, an obligation was thereby incurred to carry out the result of the preliminary investigation. I point out again that that preliminary investigation was made, not by a person prejudiced in favour of the men or prejudiced in favour of the company; it was carried out by an appointee of the Department of Labour. That appointee interviewed the employees' organizations. He interviewed all the companies concerned, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Express Company, the Canadian Pacific Steamships. He also interviewed other employers who had been involved in the 1919 strike and had subsequently reinstated the pension rights of their employees, such as the Canadian National Railways, the police department of the city of Winnipeg, the Manitoba telephone system, the post office and other similar large employers. Thus his finding was in the nature of an objective finding about the situation. As I say, he not only answers the usual arguments put up against the case of the men, but concludes with a specific recommendation to the minister that a royal commission be appointed.
That specific recommendation which is contained in the concluding paragraph should be read, of course, in conjunction with the opening paragraph in which Mr. Johnstone says to the minister, "You appointed me to do this task for the specific purpose of concluding with a recommendation one way or the other as to whether or not there should be this royal commission; my recommendation is in the affirmative." I make my appeal once more to the Minister of Labour on behalf of these men to take this step and have this royal commission established.
The only opportunity there has been in this house for a debate coming close to this question was on the bill to which I referred previously when there was wide support for the purpose and the intent of that bill. That bill went to the standing committee on industrial relations. That committee studied it with representations from both sides, and made a report back to this house which was concurred in a few days ago. I admit it was a rather pious statement, but * at least it was pious on the right side. It said that the purpose of the bill commended itself to the committee but that further study should be gone into. To my way of thinking, it is clear that people who have any humanitarian interest at all, any interest in justice, feel that these men have a case. We are not asking the government to pour out money; we are not asking the government to do any-83166-3594
thing out of the way. We are simply asking that they carry out the recommendation of one of their own officials and appoint a royal commission to look into this whole matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you very much, but it is Winnipeg North Centre.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right. I thought it was Rosetown-Biggar for the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the compliment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sure you would. I do not think it is fair to say that the minister is trying to crawl out from under anything. I have never been accused of that before. I have been accused of many things, but not running away from responsibility. As I said before, this thing has been gone into by the justice department. By the very nature of things I take the advice of the legal officers of the crown. 1 am not going to speak at length on the subject; I did so last year. My hon. friend knows the background, and he knows I do not think there is any hon. member in the house who would not be fair to anybody, irrespective of whether they were employees or employers, in a matter similar to this. As I say, the law officers of the crown have advised against it. We have accepted their advice and that is how the matter stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to know what the minister means by his sympathy for these men if he is prepared to do nothing for them.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether I should say what I was going to say. I was fighting for the working class before you ever knew there was a working class in this country. I do not think it is necessary to say these things to an individual like myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to be.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was in the labour movement before you knew anybody interested in them. I am talking about trade unions. I do not think it is fair for my hon. friend to say things like that. When he searches his conscience he will know it is not fair himself, at least if he has any conscience.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say one word on this point. Perhaps what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said did not seem fair to the minister, but certainly it has not been improved by what the minister has said. To refer to the fact that you were
Supply-Labour

in the labour movement before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was born does not mean anything except that you were born before he was.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: That is something neither one of you had anything to do with.


Humphrey Mitchell: Thank goodness.


Angus MacInnis: You just arrived when you arrived. What I wish to point out to the minister is this. I do not know exactly what recommendation the Department of Justice made with respect to the appointment of a royal commission; but the appointment of a royal commission is not a matter that has legal implications any more than the appointment of a commissioner by the Minister of Labour. Therefore it seems to me that the minister is falling back on the fact that the Department of Justice said that perhaps something could not be done even if a royal commission was appointed. But here is a case where the minister can take the responsibility of appointing a royal commission. If the royal commission made a decision in one way, then the employees concerned would have their case strengthened. If it made it the other way, I suppose the employees concerned will have no further basis to carry on their agitation to have their grievance rectified. In my opinion it is really too bad that the Minister of Labour did not exercise his rights and ask that a royal commission be appointed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister either before him or in his mind the exact details of the opinion that he got from the Department of Justice?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I remember very well what the minister told me last year when he had just got the ruling from the Department of Justice. It was to the effect that in the opinion of the department it would not serve any useful purpose. That is quite a different thing from the Department of Justice saying that there is no legal basis for establishing the royal commission. Bearing in mind his responsibility to these men, I contend that the minister has no right to fall back on an opinion of that kind of the Department of Justice. I contend that it is his responsibility to face up to the question as to whether or not a royal commission would do some good. I submit that my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, has put the case pointedly. The royal commission would do one or the other of two things. It would either take the negative side of it and sav that, these 
men have no case, and that would be the end of it, or it would say that these men have a case and then it would be up to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to consider the effect of public opinion on their failure to carry out the recommendation of the royal commission.
The minister gets a little bit worried about the statements which he thinks are a bit unfair to him, which are made on the floor of this house. I wonder what he would think about the statements that some of the men affected make outside this house about his attitude. They feel that he is completely unfair to them; that he is taking the side of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, talking sympathy but failing to express it at all so far as the rights of these men are concerned. It has been a long long battle, but these men who are still living do not feel like giving up yet; they will continue their strugggle for their rights until they win.
I have referred before, but I refer again, to a similar battle that was carried on in this country years ago when the present Prime Minister took up the cudgels on behalf of men who were similarly deprived of their pension rights in 1910. I submit that this is on all fours with that and that the government of the day, being still under the same Prime Minister, should be consistent wdth the stand it took before and take up the cudgels on behalf of these men by at least appointing this royal commission.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend talks about experts, and he and his associates lean on experts. Whatever an expert is I do not know, but I will say, on a question of law, every man to his own last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But this is not a question of law. This is a question of opinion on a labour matter, and I submit that even you are more of an expert than the Department of Justice on that.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend wants my frank opinion, he is leading these men up a blind alley and sand-bagging them for political reasons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will answer that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And we will answer you back too.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member knows as well as I do that you cannot pass a law to spend other people's money-and that is what it amounts to-and I do not think it is fair to these men to try to fool them along and to say that by the appointment of some commission you can make this organization do that which they are not legally bound to do.

Sup-ply-Labour
I think it is unfair. I know the old story of accusing everybody who stands up in this house and tries to take an impartial view of things and to be fair, and to say that such people are fighting on the side of big interests. That is not the correct approach, and I say to my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, that if I want advice I shall take it from those who know what they are talking about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid the minister let the cat out of the bag. He made the statement a moment ago that I was leading these people up a blind alley and that I was doing it for political purposes. May I point out that it was on April 24, 1945, that Mr. M. M. MacLean, director of industrial relations, on behalf of the Minister of Labour, appointed Mr. Johnstone to make this investigation to determine whether or not a royal commission should be established.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What for?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was an election on June 11, 1945. These men are getting the impression now that the appointment of Mr. Johnstone was just leading them up a blind alley in the period of the two months before the election of that year; and they are asking me, time and time again, if that is why this report, so favourable to them, is being shelved. There is a strange coincidence in that the appointment of the commissioner was made just before the election, but when the report comes down a few months after the election we find it difficult to get any action. Does that mean that when the next election comes along maybe we shall get some other device like this, leading these men up another blind1 alley?


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the event of unemployment increasing to any extent, will the labour department itself have any programme, or would it be allowed to have one, having regard to the functioning of the Department of Reconstruction, and1 Supply? The workers generally would look to the labour department, and the minister remembers very well that, in the days of the late Hon. Norman Rogers, that gentleman did' have a very good programme. Will the present labour department have any authority to initiate any programme to take care of unemployment?


Humphrey Mitchell: That comes under reconstruction and supply. I am one of those optimistic individuals who do not look for serious unemployment in the near future. At the moment we have the highest peacetime employment in our history, and with good sense and good management it should continue. I know that some people are predicting hundreds of thousands out of work-


Major James William Coldwell: Wait a year and see.


Humphrey Mitchell: and they take a Satanic delight in it.


Major James William Coldwell: No satanic delight at all. You have no policy and are making no preparations.


Humphrey Mitchell: You don't know the half of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Let the minister answer my question.


Humphrey Mitchell: That comes under reconstruction and supply. The labour department is merely a placement organization.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It has nothing to do with initiating? That will be left with reconstruction?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One word, sir. as one who was born in poverty and adversity and whose 'whole life has been identified' with the cause of labour in, its truest sense. I am sick and tired of the perpetual yapping of the hon. member for Winnipeg North-	,


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -who arrived in this country by accident years after this hon. gentleman to my right was battling for the cause, the real cause, of labour in Canada, and I was fighting for the cause of labour in my own province of British Columbia. This perpetual yapping, yapping, yapping gets the hon. member nowhere. It just wearies the house and tires the house to its very bones. He is doing no service to the cause of labour. We do more for labour than he, and we have proved so all our lives. Just look at the legislation I personally placed on the statute books of British Columbia in the interests of labour and tell me that I have not the interests of labour at, heart. Let them say so. these pulsating pulpiteers who come to this free and unfettered parliament. The. members here, I do not care to what party they belong, have the cause of the working man as much at heart as my hon. friend, and probably more than this pulpiteer from Winnipeg North-


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am getting tired, of all this interference with the progress of the session by the silly, inconsequential and nonsensical speeches of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.
Supply-Labour


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is time we got down to the business of the country as sensible Canadians. Everyone over there is a friend of labour; every single one there is a friend of labour. Everyone around me is a friend of labour. Everyone who comes from the glorious free air of Alberta is a friend of labour, and I sometimes think that the only enemies of labour in this house are the pulpiteers who try to interfere with real reforms when real reforms are before the house. And my hon. friend is the chief sinner among a band of sinners.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Pass the hat.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are a pretty fair pulpiteer yourself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was supposed to be. Now, in my jovial, good-natured way I tell my hon. friend that he should seek to cultivate what seems for him to be the almost impossible quality of reticence in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I am supposed to learn it from you?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not only would it be a gift to himself, but it would be a supreme gift to the parliament of Canada, It would be greatly welcomed and the house would greatly rejoice thereat, in the language of the scriptures, which he has evidently forgotten. Mr. Chairman, may I say this. We are wasting time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -yes, over there, and no one is wasting more time than the hon. member for Winnipeg North, not one single .soul in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre. Have it right for once.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: North Centre. It
makes no difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are always wrong anyway.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let me say this to my hon. friend. We have only a short time now to work together. Let us cooperate. Let us get the work done. It has been done well, and all hon. members, except those who have talked too much, have worked hard during this session. I think hon. members have worked harder this session than in any other in my experience. I want to pay a tribute, if I may-and I hope he will not resent it- to the leader of the C.C.F. group in this house. .1 think he has one of the most brilliant intellects of anyone in this house, and during this session he has made one of the finest contributions which have been made. I must also
[Mr. Knowles.J
say something about my old political antagonist from Vancouver East, He knows that we on this side have for him the highest and most profound regard, because he makes some of the most constructive suggestions which are made in the debates in this house. But let us all cooperate. Let us get on with the work. Let us stop yapping. Let us finish this session and let hon. members go to homes which I trust will be full of happiness, health and peace.


Angus MacInnis: I had not intended to say anything further on this subject, although something more could be said on it; but I think it is time that someone said something to the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the sort of exhibition he has put on this evening. It does not do credit to himself or to the house. Whatever faults my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has, that of yapping is not one of them. I do not believe that it is becoming a minister to refer to what another hon. member says in this house, as yapping; and not only to do it once but several times.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Human rights and
fundamental freedoms.


Angus MacInnis: All right. We all have human rights and fundamental freedoms. Wise men know how to use them correctly, but fools misuse them. One thing which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can do is to state what he wants to state in terms which everyone can understand. That is more than the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has done during the past few weeks. Every time he has spoken here he has been more muddled than he was the time before, and I think it is just about time that we were released from such yapping as he does. If that is a term he can use, then certainly others can use it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let the hon. member come out and fight me in Vancouver Centre and see what happens.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Angus MacInnis: A question was raised, and it was a reasonable one. It must have been a reasonable one, because two years ago, just before an election, the Minister of Labour appointed a commissioner to investigate whether it would be desirable to appoint a royal commission. The investigator he appointed recommended that a royal commission be appointed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that yapping?


Angus MacInnis: Is it wrong to ask or to insist that if there was sincerity behind the

Supply-Labour
appointment of that commissioner, his recommendations regarding the appointment of a royal commission should be carried out. If the minister is disinclined to spend other people's money, he should have refused to spend other people's money by the appointment of this commissioner. When we are dealing with these matters, it is better to deal with them on the basis of facts and not, when we have a weak case, to begin flinging innuendoes around the house. That does not get us anywhere. It does not add to the dignity and decorum of this house. Neither does it hasten the end of this session.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just one other word I wish to say, because there is a little bit of nonsense about me which is frequently trotted out in this house, and I think it is time that it was stopped. I refer to the kind of reference which both ministers have made tonight about their activities in this country before I came here.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has stated it often. I take it that the ministers have looked up the "Parliamentary Guide" and have found that I was born in Los Angeles, California, which is in another country. It just happens that I came to this country at the age of sixteen, which is a younger age than that of either of the ministers when they came to this country. When they came here, they were coming for the first time, as immigrants. When I came I was coming back to the land of my forefathers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have four generations of Canadian ancestors born in this country. I am conscious, Mr. Chairman, that what I am saying about myself has no bearing at all; it is really unimportant, and I would not raise it at all but for the ministers' nonsense. We are all Canadians in this house. But in view of our various backgrounds, I suggest that this kind of nonsense should stop.
I also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that any talk about this group interfering with real reform when we ask for the kind of thing which I am asking the Minister of Labour to do now, is something which those who speak in that way should be ashamed of. The so-called reforms that we have tried to interfere with this year are well known to hon. members opposite. We have had some real battles over non-essential bills these last two
weeks. They have been over the barrel, and hon. members opposite know it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Henry Golding: I have been trying to keep order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and you had considerable difficulty with the last minister. This is something the government can carry out and show whether or not they are really the friends of labour. All this talk does not go down with the men affected. What they want is action; and the action these men are looking for is the appointment of this royal commission.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would suggest to hon. members that we get on with the business. Shall item 108 carry?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to draw the minister's attention to this particular item. Is there any possible way of having more permanent employees and not so many temporary employees? I notice an amount of about [DOT]8132,000 for permanent employees, which is almost four times as much as the amount for temporary employees, which is $464,000. Why not make some of those employees permanent, instead of having so many temporary employees?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can give the answer in a sentence. The matter is now under studty by the civil service commission. During the war a good many temporary employees came into the various departments. I would say that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labour were affected in that respect probably more ihan any other department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
109.	Annuities Act, $568,195.
Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Do the people of Canada pay for the administration of the Annuities Act? If this is a service given to those who take out and pay for annuities, why should the people *of Canada have to pay commission to agents of $313,000 as shown on page 130 of the estimates? I was always under the impression that annuities were something one could invest in if he felt so inclined. But why should we pay commissions of $313,000 in respect of something which goes to the benefit of only those who take out annuities.


Humphrey Mitchell: I find it is the same as the ordinary sort of insurance company, where
the commissions are for selling policies.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is there any reason why the government should wish to expand this
Supply-Labour

service, and pay in order to expand it? Is it not up to the people themselves to take out annuities, if they wish to, instead of, in a sense, our advertising this service and soliciting
it?


Humphrey Mitchell: As I said before, the back-bone of the nation are the thrifty people. I think the same will be true when most of the people who are advocating certain reforms have gone. I do not think it will change a great deal. The whole basis of the annuities plan was to have people prepare for old age at their own expense and by their own labour. It is not on a scale followed by the straight line insurance companies. I believe the maximum is $1,200 a year. However I think it is all to the good, and is a sound policy.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In days gone by, the government has seen fit to set the maximum at $1,200. The cost of living has increased so much that $1,200 no longer does anything like what it did in 1939. In comparison today we would find that it probably takes $2,000 or $2,400 for the same purposes.
I am a great believer in annuities, and I should like the minister to see whether or not his department would give consideration to raising the maximum to * at least $2,000 instead of $1,200.
While there is a certain expense involved in the administration of these annuities, nevertheless they do keep people off the old age pensions, and the amount which otherwise would have to be paid for that purpose is lowered. Although I do not expect the minister would have the information at hand, it would be interesting if he could tell the committee the amount saved yearly by reason of the fact that some old people have an income of $1,200, because of go\*ernment annuities, and therefore do not have to take the old age pensions.
Would the minister give consideration to raising the maximum from $1,200 to $2,000 under the dominion government annuities plan?


Humphrey Mitchell: I should be glad to give that consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a question of privilege, I was questioned a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in regard to dates of arrival in Canada. I find here that he arrived in Canada in 1924; my colleague the Minister of Labour arrived here in 1912, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs arrived here before the war in 1914.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us keep the record straight. I said I arrived at the age of sixteen; the Minister of Labour arrived at the

age of eighteen, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs arrived at the age of twenty-four.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Mr. SKEY:: Let us have a birthday party.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I draw the attention of the committee to what was said by the hon. member for Parkdale about temporary assistance. Would the minister undertake that the next time these estimates are before us the amount for temporary assistance will not be more than $173,000, as it is this year for the annuities branch alone? Total salaries paid amount to only a little more than $228,000. In other words, almost the entire amount is for temporary assistance, rather than permanent assistance. Surely the department must be in a state of flux where many of the employees do not know exactly what their status is. I should think that from the point of view of fair administration the minister should not again bring down figures of that kind.


Humphrey Mitchell: The organization
becomes swollen during the war.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But annuities do not change.


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought the hon. member was speaking generally.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No, I was following up on the point raised by my colleague.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall look into it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It must be a peculiar situation in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
110.	Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of cooperation in industry between labour and management, $257,200.
Angus MacInnis: I notice that this item is larger than it was last year by more than $64,000. In view of the fact that the provinces are now taking over services Which the Department of Labour performed during the war, would the minister explain why the item is larger this year.


Humphrey Mitchell: Last year there were two separate votes, one for the operation of the industrial production committees and one for the conciliation service. They have been put into one item. Actually there is a reduction of more than $83,000 from the expenditures of the two organizations last year.


Angus MacInnis: What activities are being carried on now in industry between manage-

Supply-Labour
ment and labour? Is there any committee or any project which can be considered?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can have the number of committees looked up. I believe it is well over five hundred. I can say, however, that the policy is going ahead with as much expedition as it did during the war, and I think it is a sound policy.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I think so, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: In Great Britain they have more or less let it go, but in this country we have had very good results from these industrial committees, of which I find the exact number is 526. There are forty-five in Nova Scotia, twenty in New Brunswick, 127 in Quebec, 240 in Ontario, forty-three in Manitoba, seventeen in Saskatchewan, ten in Alberta, forty-two in British Columbia and two in Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
111.	International labour conference, $42,000. Mr. SKEY: Would1 the minister explain this conference to us? Was he chairman of it in Montreal, and is it connected with the united nations? Did this international conference recommend that delegates of the international labour movement be empowered to investigate labour conditions in various countries which they considered needed investigation?
Humphrey Mitchell: The international labour organization was founded in 1919 as part of the organization of the league of nations, and was the only part of the league which operated during the war. Last year I was president of the annual gathering of the international labour organization at Montreal where fifty-two nations were represented. It is a long story, but if the hon. member wouldi like to have literature with respect to it I should be glad to let him have it tomorrow.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Did the conference of which the minister was chairman recommend that these delegates have the power to conduct free investigations in any country of the world?


Humphrey Mitchell: It split up into four committees, and they meet about once every three months. The one at which I presided was the annual gathering.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What about this investigation? Mr. MITCHELL: I shall come to that. At the annual meeting you have representatives of all nations. Canada, as one of the eight major industrial nations of the world, is represented on the governing body. Meetings are held once a year. It is a tripartite arrangement between industry, labour and government. They sit in all parts of the world and
study industrial and social conditions and make recommendations through conventions which are forwarded to the respective governments for adoption. Considering this organization purely from a research point of view,
I think it is the best of its kind that has ever existed,
The other question had to do with the united nations. The constitution was amended last year in Montreal, which amendment was adopted by this house. That amendment provides that they are to be an affiliate of the united nations dealing specifically with labour and social conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
112.	Labour Gazette and other publications authorized by Labour Department Act, $72,034.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Can the minister explain the policy behind the Labour Gazette? When an industrial dispute occurs is it discussed in the Labour Gazette?


Humphrey Mitchell: It' is a journal of record founded when the present Prime Minister was deputy minister of labour. If my hon. friends want to read an unbiased journal; if they want to know what is going on in the world in connection with labour matters, I do not know of a better publication.


Angus MacInnis: I agree entirely with the Minister of Labour. Anyone who wants to become conversant with labour matters could not do better than to take the monthly issues of the Labour Gazette and read them carefully. Mr. ADAMSON:	What is the circulation?


Humphrey Mitchell: About 20,000 a month


Agar Rodney Adamson: Who is the editor?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Harry J. Walker.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Who composes the
editorial board?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no editorial
board; it is the minister's sole responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational Training Coordination Act, 1942-
113.	Payments to the provinces under agreements, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $825,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I notice the details on
page 131 of the estimates show $525,000 as undischarged commitments of previous years. How' much would go to each province? Then the second figure of $300,000 also appears to be undischarged commitments of previous years. How much of that went to each province?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As I understand it, this
is a partnership arrangement, and I believe there was a time when some of the provinces
Supply-Labour

did not take their full share. What is the picture today? Are they using it to the fullest extent?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed the
answer is no.
Province
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia ....
Totals


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say
anything with respect to the situation in Manitoba? He has had correspondence from Winnipeg and the Winnipeg members have spoken to him about this matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: The agreements were
for three years and were to expire at the end of this year, but at the request of certain provinces they were extended for another year, to the end of 1949, by order in council.
I received a letter from a municipality asking that it be extended, I think until 1951.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was from the
Winnipeg school board.


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend
knows, the dominion does not deal directly with the municipalities and has not under any government that has been in power up to now. The channel of communication is to the provinces. They deal with the municipalities because, after all, the municipalities are the children of provincial statutes. I think I signed the letter yesterday or the day before to the school board in question, suggesting that- they get in touch with the provincial government, and we shall consider it after we have heard from them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: With respect to the next item, can the minister state how long this will run and what type of apprenticeship training is being given?


Humphrey Mitchell: This is to run for ten
years.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does not Ontario have an apprenticeship act?


Humphrey Mitchell: Ontario pioneered with this type of legislation. I had a good friend in Hamilton, Mr. Joseph Pigott, who fostered


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are not using the
appropriations?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not to the fullest
extent. Here are the figures asked for by the hon. member:
Claims paid up to April 30, 1947
Dominion

Allotment For previous years For 1946-47
$13,000	$2,925.00	$10,662.3335,000	825.89	22,024.0047,500	839.24	26,956.95150,000	54,108.82	76,189.9760,000	16,757.50	50,000.0020,000	120.57	3,167.5935,000	4,858.84	23,227.2550,000	2,595.52	13.207.0655,000	56.08	36,387.18$465,000	$83,087.46	$261,822.33
apprentice training by provincial governments. During the war, the government on my recommendation decided that in order to conclude the war rapidly it would be necessary to provide apprenticeship training for young people in the dominion. I am happy to say that the policy is expanding. The other provinces are taking it up in like manner.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Does the dominion government stipulate what trades the money shall be used in? When does the ten-year period endl?


Humphrey Mitchell: It has eight more years to run. We do not stipulate what trades the money shall be used in.


Mr. McKAY:: On what basis are these payments made to the provinces? Is it on a student basis, or a percentage of the total expenditure by individual provinces on vocational training or a lump sum grant?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is on a fifty-fifty basis by the dominion and the provinces, on an estimate of their requirements.


George Hugh Castleden: What was the total expenditure last year? The estimate was over $1,000,000 and less than one-quarter of that
was spent.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is easily understandable when you have a high level of employment. It has been our experience, particularly with the returned men that they want to go straight into industry. There is not the urge to learn a trade, I am sorry to say, under conditions existing at the moment when we have an expanding economy. I do not know that you can do much about the

Supply-Labour
matter. Every province, without exception, has cooperated magnificently with the dominion in all these training plans.


George Hugh Castleden: None was refused a grant?


Humphrey Mitchell: The relationship between my department and the different provinces is 100 per cent cooperation.


Eric Bowness McKay: With regard to these payments to the provinces, I believe there is a grant for building purposes as well. Is that only for technical education as well?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is another appropriation.


Eric Bowness McKay: That has nothing to do with this?


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I know what my hon. friend has in mind. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking of the same thing.


Eric Bowness McKay: The grant for building purposes applies to technical education?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister has mentioned that there is relatively full employment at the present time and that young men do not want to serve apprenticeships. I would ask whether during the operation of this provision there had been any reluctance on the part of labour unions to allow apprentices to be trained in the various fields. I could not help but feel in the bad days of depression that vocational training of this kind would be a most wonderful thing, because many young lads could not find work and were simply idling away their time. I hope the department is in a position to extend this vocational training should a time come upon us again when there is not full employment.


Humphrey Mitchell: The trade unions have cooperated to the fullest extent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As much as you could wish?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say they have gone all out. I know Ontario because I live here, and I know the people who were associated with the establishment of the apprenticeship plan. I mention Mr. Joseph Pigott of Hamilton and Ernest Ingles of London and the late James Marsh, former deputy minister of labour of Ontario. They all cooperated with the government in the establishment of these plans in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational Training Coordination Act, 1942-
11.',. Expenses of vocational training advisory council, $4,000.
George Hugh Castleden: This is just for
travelling expenses?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Where did the council meet last year?


Humphrey Mitchell: It met in Ottawa about six weeks ago. I cannot say just when they met last year. I have a reputation for having a good memory, but I do not remember everything.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Am I right in understanding that the total appropriation under the previous item last year was not used? Would the minister also answer my question, if we run into a time when employment is not as high as it is today, is adequate provision being made for the training of young men who may not find jobs available?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a pretty difficult question to answer. I have my own personal views about expenditures by governments. I could not tell you what is going to happen this time next year. My own guess would be that we shall still have a high level of employment, but in these days, with international conditions as they are, he is a pretty wise man who would predict too far ahead.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You did not use the whole appropriation last year, only $264,000 out of $1,000,000?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
115. Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $19,160,280.
John Ritchie MacNicol: There has been an increase of 521 employees on the staff of this branch and the salaries have gone up proportionately, by about $600,000. I should like to ascertain why such a large amount is required for temporary assistance; $13,517,930 is a lot of money for temporary assistance.


Humphrey Mitchell: This scheme was established in 1941 during the war when, as my hon. friend knows, the percentage of permanent employees being taken on was low for obvious reasons. It was to give the men returning from overseas priority in civil service positions. The whole question of temporary employees is under study at the moment by the civil service commission.
Supply-Labour


John Ritchie MacNicol: The returned soldiers should certainly have priority in employment in the civil service, but $13,000,000 must cover a lot of employees and what is to become of the displacees?


Humphrey Mitchell: Out of 7,985 employees, 6,889 were temporary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And they are being released?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not necessarily. There has not been the drive by the returned men to get into the civil service such as there was after the last war.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the right place to be. It is the softest place I know.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never take a negative position on anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You must be on safe ground now, you are smiling.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have been on safe ground all my life, particularly during the war years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not when you lose your temper.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was not like some people who predicted for their own reasons that there would be half a million people out of employment six months after the war was over. I am not suggesting who they might have been, but I was convinced in my own judgment, and that judgment was vindicated, that we would have full employment after the war was over and for a long time to come if the world kept its feet on the ground and had the good sense to manage its affairs.


Angus MacInnis: Can the minister tell the committee the number of persons covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1946 and the number of persons covered now?


Humphrey Mitchell: In 1946?


Angus MacInnis: Say in June, 1946, and June, 1947, or the nearest months.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are, in round figures, 2,600,000 now covered. We have not the 1946 figures, but I shall get them for my hon. friend.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: This item would appear to indicate an increase of $11,278,000 for the year 1947-48; yet at the end of the estimates on page 133 in respect of demobilization and reconversion for the year 1946-47 there is an item for national unemployment service. Will the minister straighten me out with respect to this? What is the difference here?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is this. Last year there were two votes, one in the demobilization vote and the other in the general administration vote for the unemployment insurance commission. This year both votes have been added together. That is the reason for the apparent increase. Actually there was a reduction of $259,720 in the expenditure for this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister a question or two with respect to the position of married women, particularly here in Ottawa, and their relationship to unemployment insurance. I think I know something about the basis of unemployment insurance and appreciate the difficulty relating to their question; nevertheless I feel that they have a just complaint. As I say, I have in mind married women in Ottawa who were asked to take on temporary jobs during the war. Very soon after they found themselves in these jobs, they7 were asked to pay unemployment insurance. They asked to be exempted on the ground that their jobs were only temporary and that, when the war ended, they would be unemployed, even though, in part, by choice. They7 were told by7 the authorities that it would be necessary for them to pay unemployment insurance and that it would be to their advantage to do so. I am told that during 1945 and part of 1946 some of these women whose jobs came to an end were granted unemployment insurance when they met the usual conditions; that is, they had to be available for other work similar in character, and that work had to be unavailable for them. But I am told that this year, 1947, women who are being let out, when they apply for their unemployment insurance, are not treated in the same way that similar women were in the last two years. I am told that they are offered jobs not at all similar in character to the ones they7 had been in, and that when they are unwilling to take these dissimilar jobs at much low7er rates of pay they are told that they are thereby7 disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance.
I know that there is an actuarial basis to unemployment insurance, and that it is similar to fire insurance. You pay in, and if you are not so unfortunate as to have to collect, well, you really are fortunate. But these women feel that there is discrimination against them on two counts. On the one hand, because of what they were told when they were compelled to pay insurance, and, on the other, because of the more favourable treatment accorded women in similar circumstances who were let out of their jobs in 1945 and 1946.
I should like the minister to make some comment on that. I have no doubt that this

Supply-Labour
matter has been brought to the attention of his officials, and they know the answers that have been given and the dissatisfaction that these women have felt with the answers. I shall be glad if he will also say something about the situation in general at the present time.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I answer the first question first? In the first place, of course the insurance is administered by the unemployment insurance commission with an impartial chairman and representatives of labour and of the employer. That is the insurance end of it. Then the act definitely stipulates that before you can draw insurance you must be available for employment. This is elementary in an insurance scheme of this description. With respect to the control that we have, there have been set up across the dominion courts of referees, composed of a chairman, a representative of labour and a representative of the employer. If any person considers that he has been unsatisfactorily dealt with or that the officials have not complied with the legislation he has the right to appeal to the court of referees in his locality; and, if he is not satisfied with that, the appeal can go to the umpire. As I said previously, it is generally known that both labour and the employers are represented on these courts of referees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The difficulty seems to revolve around those words we discussed a year or two ago, "suitable employment", and also the way in which the matter is handled in the offices, in the replies that are madie by the people in these offices to the women themselves. For example, I have before me a number of cases about which information has been given to me. In the main they are the stories of married women who had become grade 2 or grade 3 stenographers and who were offered such positions as charwomen, assistants in laundries, ironers. work at slicing bread, icing cakes, baby sitting, housekeeping and so on. When they report that they are unwilling to take positions of this kind and feel that they should not be asked to take them within the meaning of the words "suitable employment", they are simply told by the people in the offices to whom they appeal that nothing can be done about the matter. They have also been told at times that the staff is inadequate to cope with the situation; that they are just now catching up with the married women. I pointed out to the minister previously that part of this problem is created by the more favourable treatment which some of the women got in 1945 and 1946. It is on that basis that the women being let out now consider they are suffering discrimination.
There is another point in connection with that. Can the minister table for the information of the committee the last directives to unemployment insurance offices with respect to the phrase "suitable employment"? We had a considerable discussion over this matter the session before last and, I believe, last session too. I am still receiving complaints, particularly from Winnipeg, to the effect that, on the basis of directives sent out to the unemployment offices, men who apply for unemployment insurance are being told that, after a short period, they must be prepared to accept employment at a five cent cut in salary and, after a further three weeks, they must be willing to accept a ten cent cut, and; so on. Back in the fall of 1945 when we first had a discussion about this matter the minister's argument was that you had to realize that peacetime rates of pay would be different from wartime rates. We are in a peacetime situation now; this practice seems to be going on, and it gives to many labour men the feeling that it is being used to depress wages. I should like to hear the minister's comments and I would also appreciate it if he would table the latest directives regarding terms of suitable employment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think any
member of a board of referees, or any man in his senses in an administrative position would deliberately lay himself open to the charge of depressing wages. I know many of these men who are on boards of referees. They were appointed under my jurisdiction and are well known from one end of Canada to the other. There is absolutely no intention, to my knowledge, of seeking to put such a policy into effect. This is an unemployment scheme and, while there is nearly $400 million in the fund, unless there is a proper administration you can soon wreck the fund.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It did not take long to
do it in England after the last war.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course it did not;
it went bankrupt. I would imagine there has been some difficulty in the demobilization of married women who entered commerce, agriculture and industry during the war. Many such women wish to go back home. In the great majority of cases they have found that home is better than industry. There has to be some regard to a condition of that kind in administering a policy such as this. My hon. friend referred to a directive. As a matter of fact, it is in the mail now on the way to his office. If he wants it put on the record I could put it on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to know that it is on the way. I wrote and asked the
Su pply-Labo ur

deputy for it. Seeing that it has been laid on the table in previous sessions, I think it should be made a matter of public record.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The minister refers to
married women employed in industry who never hoped to collect unemployment insurance. Why should they be charged the same as those who remain in industry?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a simple principle. In life insurance you do not want to die in order to win. In fire insurance you do nett want your house to burn down in order to win; at least honest people do not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With government annuities you live to win.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. There must be
tens of thousands of people who will never draw a cent of unemployment insurance in their lifetime.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: They know it now.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. If I had my way I would provide that everyone should carry unemployment insurance, particularly members of parliament. The life expectancy of this job is rather short. Many people think that members are men of destiny, instead of ships that pass in the night. I have met ex-members of this house who have rendered yeoman service to the country and have gone the way of all members of parliament, often in destitute circumstances. You hear a great deal of talk about politicians, but I have never met a so-called politician who was not poorer at the end of the road for having been in the House of Commons.


Angus MacInnis: This is a question that has given a good deal of trouble and I imagine it is a difficult one. Perhaps when the unemployment insurance scheme has been longer in operation we shall not have so many complaints. In a directive sent to me last year it is stated that in an occupation an offer at a wage rate of five cents an hour lower than the former rate might be considered suitable after three weeks of unemployment, and an offer at a wage rate of ten cents lower might (be considered suitable after four weeks of unemployment. Much would depend on the employment as well as on the rate of wages, but I have a case that was brought to my attention where a woman who had been earning $160 a month was disqualified because she refused to accept a job at $100. She appealed to the board of referees and they sustained the disqualification, not because she refused the position, but because she had placed a restriction of $125 a month on her services. The employment officer who gave evidence swore that no

positions for girls had boon listed at the office carrying a salary of $125 a month. I do not know what can be done. Here again it is a question of the kind of employment and whether a person should be kept indefinitely on unemployment insurance, or until the insurance is exhausted, before being disqualified for not taking employment at a lower rate of pay. Here is a large discrepancy of $60 a month. If it is the same kind of employment, it seems to me that, there is too much of a difference to justify the disqualification.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: There are some rural postmasters who are not civil servants. They run post offices in small communities, and I know some who get a total income of $3,000 or possibly slightly more a year. In some cases, after appointment these postmasters get a girl to do the work while they carry on some other substantial business running into thousands of dollars of income a year. That is all wrong. It should not occur, but it does happen. My first question is this. Do the employees of rural postmasters who are actually in contract with the government come under the Unemployment Insurance Act? Second, will these same employees, who are employees of federal contractors, one might say, come under the terms of the present labour bill now being studied by a committee of the house?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think the hon. member's second question comes under this vote. He is talking now about labour legislation. I do not know what this committee will do next year. You put a nickel in the slot and you do not know what is coming out. I could not answer that question. The hon. member would have to get some expert or some prognosticator to do that for him.


Angus MacInnis: The minister said he was a pretty good prophet.


Humphrey Mitchell: I imagine these other people would come under the act; that is, rural postal contractors. I could not say for certain, but I would imagine they came under the act.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How many are now drawing benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will get that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Second, how many unfilled jobs are listed with the unemployment insurance commission? Third, how many unfilled applications are there for workers on farms? Will it be the policy of the unemployment insurance commission to require able-bodied

Privilege-Mr. Lacombe
single men who cannot find work elsewhere to take farm employment this year, as was done in the previous year?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are a good number of questions there.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How many are drawing benefits, as of a recent date?


Humphrey Mitchell: There are 39,966.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As of what date?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the last week of June. The other question was as to how many are registered.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How many unfilled jobs are listed with the commission? How many employers have sent in applications for employees?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have that figure: 67,000 males; 40,000 females.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The other question was, how many unfilled jobs have been listed for farm work, and will the commission require able-bodied single men who cannot find work elsewhere to take work on farms during the harvest season?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will make a note of that question, and if I can answer it, I will do so tomorrow. It looks as though I shall not get through these estimates tonight. Since a message has come from the senate, I move that the committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If it would not be too much trouble for the minister, I would ask him to put on Hansard a list of the provinces where the unfilled jobs are and where those receiving unemployment insurance benefits are. I would ask him to give a break-down and put it on Hansard.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will do that tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


William Ross Macdonald: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate agreeing to the free conference desired with the Senate for the purpose of communicating the reasons which induced the Commons not to concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill 3fi4. intituled ''An Act to amend the criminal code", and has appointed the bon.
Senators Robertson, Haig and Beauregard, as managers on their part at the said free conference.



HALIFAX


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the house will give me permission, seeing that I placed on record earlier in the evening the first bulletin that came in with regard to the by-election, to give hon. members the latest bulletin. For 334 polls out of 359, the figures given are: for Dickey, the Liberal candidate, 22,808; McDonald, Progressive Conservative, 12.897; and Macintosh, C.C.F., 14,513.


George Hugh Castleden: A fifty per cent gain


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuestlay, July 15, 1947