1947-03-28

[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
First report of special committee on Dominion Elections Act, 1938.-Mr. Cote (Verdun).

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I desire to move, seconded by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe):
That Mr. William Henry Golding be appointed as deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.
[Mr. Chevrier.l
The essential reason for this motion is one of procedure. If the records of 1938 are referred to, all the precedents will be found. Section 3 of the Speaker of the House of Commons Act provides that whenever the house is informed by the Clerk at the table of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker, the chairman of committees shall take the chair and exercise the authority of the Speaker for twenty-four hours. It follows from this that the Speaker only, or the Deputy Speaker if the Speaker is unavoidably absent, can open the sittings of the house. If they were both absent at three o'clock the sittings of the house could not be opened.
In order to avoid such an occurrence the house added in 1939 the following provision as section 5 of standing order 56:
At the commencement of every session, or from time to time as necessity may arise, the house may appoint a deputy chairman of committees who shall, whenever the chairman of committees is absent, he entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the chairman of committees including his powers as Deputy Speaker during Mr. Speaker's unavoidable absence.
After this new standing order was passed the leader of the house moved that a certain hon. gentleman be appointed. I understand that Your Honour has consulted with the leaders of the various parties and groups in the house.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I am delighted that this motion has been sponsored by the right hon. gentleman. On two occasions I had the honour of visiting the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) and his constituents. Fie is one of the worthiest members of the House of Commons. He is a wise man; he is a good Liberal; he is a true Liberal; he is broadminded; he is devoted to his duty; he has judgment and tact; he has determination. He acquired these attributes because of his long experience in the municipal life of his community, first as councillor and then as alderman. I am delighted that the merits of the hon. gentleman are being recognized. He is the chairman of the Liberal caucus-*
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. POULIOT:: -and he deserves everything he is getting. When a member of parliament shows judgment as the chairman of a party caucus he is eligible for any good post.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay my tribute to my good friend the hon. member for Huron-Perth, but I speak of him from an entirely different point of view, as a workman. He has been a workman for many years. He was trained in foundry

House of Commons
and machine shop practice in an old pioneer company in his town which I myself knew of for many years. I take this as a tribute to the working class-I mean the sensible working class, men like the hon. member, men who work, not just talk. All the time he has been in the house he has demonstrated that he possesses good old fashioned common sense and I congratulate him.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think I should say to the house that it is at the suggestion of His Honour the Speaker that the government is making this provision for a deputy chairman of committees for the purposes mentioned a moment ago by my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). When I spoke to the hon. member for Huron-Perth about accepting the position, it was pointed out to him that we had had a similar post some years ago. That position was filled by an hon. member of this house and an additional remuneration of $1,000 was attached to the position. The hon. member for Huron-Perth told me that he would be very happy to render any service he could to the Commons, but he felt that he did not wish to be remunerated for anything in the way of extra service that this position might involve. I just want to add mjr word of thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for accepting these duties in so patriotic a manner.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, there are few men in the House of Commons with whom I have been more closely associated in a personal way than the new appointee of the government to whom reference has been made this afternoon. I hope that by now he is no longer infringing upon constitutional amenities and that his resignation so far as the Liberal caucus is concerned will be taken care of before he continues with our work.
I should like to add my word of congratulation to the hon. member. He has always been most fair with me in the House of Commons. He has assumed a great load in carrying on his duties, and I suppose he has been in the chair more often than most private members; at least my experience in the house would so indicate. May I conclude by saying that his generosity and the sacrifice he is making in rendering this additional national service is something for which he should be commended most heartily by all sides of the house. If after leaving the chairmanship of the Liberal caucus he continues to carry out his new duties as he has in the past, we will welcome him with open arms.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my leader, who usually speaks on occasions of this kind, to be permitted the honour of congratulating the hon. member for Huron-Perth upon his elevation to the position indicated in the motion. I have known the hon. member since shortly after I came here for the first time, and our friendship has increased with the years. It is not very often that I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), but I do want to say that I agree with everything the hon. member has said, and this goes for all the members of this group.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be wise to multiply words. I simply wish to say that we all agree with all that has been said with respect to the hon. member for Huron-Perth, and we will support the motion.


Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I think if there is any member who has a right to say a word on behalf of the hon. member for Huron-Perth it should be the member for Renfrew North. The hon. member was my room-mate for many years, and you cannot live with a man for that long without getting pretty well acquainted with him. Some time ago I took it on myself to write an article outlining his history and sent it to the local papers. It was a fine story. I doubt if you could find a more hardworking member of parliament, a more honest type of citizen or a better citizen than will be found in the person of the hon. member for Huron-Perth.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. JOSEPH JEAN (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) told the house that when the emergency powers bill was introduced he would lay on the table copies of the orders in council and the amending orders as they appear in the schedule to the bill. Office consolidations of these orders have already been circulated but hon. members will notice that the list of orders which appears in the schedule to the bill does not refer to the office consolidations but to the orders and amending orders as they were passed. So I now beg leave to table copies of the orders, in English and French.
Cartier By-Election



DOMINION ELECTIONS


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the illegal striking of at least 1,500 Canadian citizens from the electoral list of the electoral district of Montreal-Cartier, who will be deprived of their right to vote in a federal by-election which will take place on March 31, in the electoral district of Montreal-Cartier, because of the government officers' failure and lefusal to discharge their duty and of their striking from the electoral lists the names of those persons without any affidavit or through affidavits given under fictitious names in violation of rule 27 of schedule A of section 17 of the Dominion Elections Act, and their closing of the revision offices, while hundreds of persons were waiting to have their names maintained on the list, and the refusal to extend the time for such revision and increase the number of revising officers as provided by section 99 of the Dominion Elections Act, with the result that those citizens will suffer a great injustice.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that while we have rules in this house which give to hon. members the privilege of asking leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance in the hope that the discussion may lead to some correction being made, the question which is raised by the hon. gentleman is not of such urgent public importance as to attract the interest of the house, nor could any correction be made by the house at this time. If some people believe that they have not been properly treated in the matter of the right to exercise their vote I believe the proper thing would be to appeal for a remedy to our civil courts. I do not think I can permit the hon. gentleman to move to adjourn the house to discuss this matter, as we have already before the house several important matters to be considered. I am therefore obliged to refuse the motion of the hon. member.


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker, before you give your final decision, may I say a word?


James Horace King: I am sorry, but hon. members know that the ruling of the Speaker is not debatable, and I have already refused the hon. member's motion.


Maxime Raymond: But Mr. Speaker, the rule is that a member has the right to give the reasons why he is entitled to present his motion.


James Horace King: The hon. member will admit that his motion is long enough for us to understand what he wants. I am satisfied from a reading of it that it is not a question of sufficiently urgent public importance to move the adjournment Of the house, and so I have refused his motion.


Maxime Raymond: Then, Mr. Speaker, I appeal from your decision.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I did not declare his motion out of order. I followed what has been the practice in this house for many years, that of refusing his motion, not declaring it out of order, because I did not consider it of sufficiently urgent public importance to be considered on a motion to adjourn the house. It has already been decided many times by this house that there is no appeal.


Maxime Raymond: We have the right of appeal from the ruling of the Chair. That is the privilege of members of this house. We are never bound by a ruling of the Chair unless a majority of the members approve it. So I appeal from your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. COLDWELL:: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. gentleman should be given an opportunity to give his reasons for his motion?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: On the point of order, this question was decided by the house-I am sorry I have not the reference before me- on an occasion when Mr. Ralston raised the very same question and was seconded by myself. The Speaker had ruled that there was no appeal, and the question was whether there was any appeal from the Speaker's ruling. The house sustained the Speaker's decision that there was no appeal from his ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: Does that bind the house forever, Mr. Speaker-just one Speaker's ruling


James Horace King: There is nothing more binding on this house than the majority approval of his ruling by its members.


Major James William Coldwell: Is not the procedure of this house always under its own control except when the matter is covered by a standing order? There is no standing order covering this point.	,

Cartier By-Election


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is the rule at Westminster and here that the Speaker's decision, especially when sustained by a majority of the house, is always binding.


Major James William Coldwell: Only for that parliament.


Maxime Raymond: I recall distinctly the ruling to which the Minister of Veterans Affairs referred, when Mr. Ralston, sitting to the left of the Speaker, proposed the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. The Speaker declared his motion out of order and Mr. Ralston appealed from the ruling of the Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I am not mistaken, the rule with respect to bringing up a matter of urgent public importance is that the hon. member presents a copy of his motion to the Speaker before the house assembles, so that the Speaker may have the opportunity of considering whether the time of the house should be taken up in discussing that particular matter as a matter of urgent public importance. The Speaker, when he comes into the house and the motion is proposed, gives his ruling and that ruling is not debatable. That is one of the matters that is left in the hands of the Speaker of the house in order to assist in the procedure of the house, in the expedition of its business. It stands in a different category from the ordinary matters that come before the house.


Maxime Raymond: Are we denied the right to appeal from the ruling of the Chair?


James Horace King: Order. I would call attention of hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 747, a ruling given by Hon. George Black, Speaker, February 19, 1932:
The Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision that it is not urgent to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance being appealed from was confirmed by the house.
Hon. members will recall that during last session-I do not remember the date-I myself gave the same ruling based on that precedent. Some hon. members appealed and the decision was sustained. I suggest that the house proceed now with its business.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I have the floor for just a moment? It seems to me that the ruling you have just read further confuses the issue from the point of view of the hon. member, because as I read it, the Speaker's-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows that the Speaker's rulings are not debat-83166-117
able. There will be no confusion at all if hon. members accept the rules and the precedent which has been given.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Horace King: Order. I invite the house to proceed with its business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, the Speaker's refusal to allow an appeal in the reference given by Your Honour was put to the house.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member must realize that he is not speaking on a point of order; he is debating the ruling given by the Speaker. Even if the Speaker wished to permit the hon. gentleman to do so he could not, because it is against the rules. Therefore I ask the house to proceed with its business.
And some hon. members having risen:


James Horace King: Order. I have brought to the attention of hon. gentlemen the ruling given by a former Speaker. I could give other rulings along the same lines, given by former Speakers. Hon. members should be satisfied with that decision. I do not see why they rise in their places to appeal, because there is nothing before the house.


Mr. P. E. COTE (Verdun):: By leave of the house I move that the first report of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, presented to the house this day, be now concurred in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Horace King: Order.


Maxime Raymond: I maintain we have the right to appeal from the decision of the Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Horace King: Order.
And some hon. members having risen:


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I have already given my ruling and I hope that hon. members will realize that the Speaker is doing everything possible to be fair to the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: It is his duty not to permit any hon. member or hon. members to cause confusion in the house. If hon. members do not wish to abide by the rules of the house, the Speaker, with regret, will be obliged to apply the sanctions which he can apply in such cases.

Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Speaker, we have difficulty in hearing in this section of the house. Has Your Honour ruled that this is not a matter of urgent public importance?


James Horace King: Order. Moved by Mr. Cote (Verdun)-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Horace King: -that the first report of the committee-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has not the unanimous consent of the house I cannot put the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Introduction of bills.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Orders of the day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Let us act grown up for five minutes.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: When do we start having a dictatorship?


Humphrey Mitchell: Sometimes when I look at my hon. friend I find that he looks like a dictator. Let us break this up for just five minutes.
Referring to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) on Wednesday, March 26, arising out of a telegram from Mr. B. Mackenzie, president of the Canadian Fishermen's Union, objecting to entry into Canada of Newfoundland fishermen to engage in the Nova Scotia fishing industry, I would like to make the following statement,
For many years Newfoundland fishermen have been allowed entry each season at Canadian Atlantic ports to assist in operating ships engaged in deep sea fishing. The fishermen .who enter Canada under this arrangement are checked out at the close of the season.
In years past it has been necessary to supplement the number of Nova Scotia fishermen to maintain full operation of the industry. Men with the particular skill, coupled with the desire to engage in deep sea fishing-


Mr. BENTLEY:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: It will be on the record; the hon. member does not need to worry about it.


Thomas John Bentley: We want to hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is the first time anybody has said that he could not hear me.
In years past it has been necessary to supplement the number of Nova Scotia fishermen to maintain full operation of the industry. Men with the particular skill, coupled with the desire to engage in deep sea fishing, are relatively scarce. The Newfoundlanders have the special knowledge and are available and the result is that they have served to play a helpful part in the industry. These Newfoundlanders fish on exactly the same basis of sharing in the catch as do Nova Scotia fishermen.
The number of Newfoundland fishermen entering Canada for the purpose indicated is small: ninety-three have been admitted to date for the 1947 season. Owing to the recent fishermen's strike the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources temporarily suspended the entry of men from Newfoundland for this operation.
It is understood that fishermen from Newfoundland will be employed only where Nova Scotia fishermen are not available and that their employment will accordingly result in no aggravation of the unemployment situation.



BANANAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PARK MANROSS (London):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. So far as customs tariffs are concerned, will bananas be on the free list after March 31, or will they be dutiable?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Speaking from memory, Mr. Speaker, I think the exemptions from tariff duties on bananas lapse on March 31 with the lapse of the War Measures Act, and the usual customs tariff provisions will apply.



INQUIRY OF MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Is the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply sitting there in the heart of the Liberal party reading that excellent paper, the Globe and Mailt


Mr. HOWE:: I want to anticipate the debate of this afternoon and see what charges we have to meet.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It must have great influence towards conversion.

House of Commons



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the attention of the government been drawn to charges of serious irregularities in the preparation of electoral lists in the Cartier by-election, and what action has been taken by the government to correct them?


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: A telegram came in just after lunch today and a reply is being sent to the sender in Montreal.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the answer?



EXPERIMENTAL FARMS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. If not already made, when will the appointment of a superintendent for the experimental farm station at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, be made?
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: It has not yet been made but is under consideration, and of course it will be made by the civil service commission.

The Clerk Assistant having called order No. 1-House again in committee of supply:
And Mr. Speaker leaving the chair:


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The order of the day has already been read.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put the motion.


James Horace King: Hon. members will realize that the Speaker, being close to the table, knows what is going on. The assistant clerk has already read three times the item which has been called, to go into supply. As no motion should be put on Thursday and Friday, I left the chair.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as far as I could hear, no motion was put, and after all, the motion to leave the chair must be approved by the house before the Speaker leaves the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not on Friday.
83166-117J


Major James William Coldwell: There are no departments in supply. The house has not gone into supply yet.


James Horace King: I would call the hon. member's attention to standing order 28, which reads:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question


Angus MacInnis: That applies only to
departments that have already been put into supply, and no department has been put into supply so far.


James Horace King: The standing order is very clear, that on Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question.


Major James William Coldwell: That is in the event of departments being in supply, when we can discuss the estimates of the departments that have already been put in. There are no departments in supply and I contend that the motion to leave the chair should be put to the house.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but it is the practice.


Major James William Coldwell: May I read it all, Mr. Speaker:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.


James Horace King: I would point out to the hon. member that that applies when we know in advance what is going to be taken by the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Horace King: We do not know today what is going to be taken, and I would go further. It is the practice for the Speaker to leave the chair wdthout putting any motion, and the Speaker bases his rulings on the advice of the Clerk of the House, who is fully conversant with the rules.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to citation 232, which reads:
This standing order sets aside Thursdays and Fridays for the house to go into committee of supply, or ways and means, without the Speaker putting any question. The committee cannot take up the estimates of a department on those days unless that department has already had
House of Commons

part of its estimates considered in committee on some other day. But this course can be changed by the consent of the house.
It requires the unanimous consent of the house to do, Mr. Speaker, what you suggest doing this afternoon, and I suggest that the motion should be put.


James Horace King: The hon. member will realize, having read what he has just read to the house, that unanimous consent is given in committee and not in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


James Horace King: I think I have given enough latitude since the beginning of this sitting to discussion of the attitude of the Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice there is an ominous silence on the other side of the house. I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) on this ruling, because usually he discusses matters of this kind.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I will not permit any discussion. I had already left the chair when an hon. member rose.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I must respectfully submit that your ruling is wrong. I dislike doing this, but I will appeal from the ruling.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wonder if the following are not the facts-that there was an agreement among all parties in the house, I think, that we would take up interim supply as the first, order of business this afternoon. That is my recollection anyway, and my understanding. I quite agree myself, and I am often very wrong-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -that the motion should be formally put, as well as any announcement by the Clerk, because the announcement might not be heard by some of our friends in the far corner of the house. But I do say this. Seeing that we had a general agreement yesterday that we would take up this item, I think that once the house is in committee unanimous consent will be necessary if anyone wishes to speak to something else. That was my understanding last night, and there must be some mistake if we depart from the gentlemen's agreement we had then.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister puts an entirely different complexion upon it. On those grounds the matter has a different light. I am anxious however to preserve the right of this house to do certain things which it is given the right to do under the rules. If the
IMr. Coldwell.]
minister makes an appeal of that kind he does so on a different basis and it must not be considered that if we allow it to be done we are establishing a precedent. It must be understood, with all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling you attempted to make is not accepted by the house.


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Maxime Raymond: The minister has referred to an agreement. I was not a party to the agreement and I did not agree.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put the motion.
Mr. Speaker having left the chair, the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The house in committee of supply-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Hon. members will allow the chairman to read the resolution:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $190,921,733.56, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1918, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $1,216,374.91, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 15, 19, 120, 123, 124, 127, 137, 138. 100, 162, 163, 165, 175, 384 387, 389, 485 and 489 of the said estimates; and the sum of $1,016,666.66, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1948, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1948.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the resolution?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: As a back bencher of the Liberal party I wish to rise to a question of privilege. I cannot sit here in silence and give assent to the Speaker refusing to allow the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie to stand up-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


James Sinclair: I insist on finishing my point of privilege, and I have not finished yet.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member cannot, when the house is in committee, raise a point of privilege on what took place in the house. The point of privilege must be taken when the Speaker is in the chair.

House of Commons


James Sinclair: I had no opportunity, because the Speaker walked out of the chair. The Speaker would not listen to the hon. member.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must ask the hon. member to observe the rules of the house.


James Sinclair: We are having no opportunity to observe the rules of the house this afternoon.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think every hon. member will agree with me that what has taken place in the house cannot be discussed when we are in committee. There will be another opportunity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Victor Quelch: I wish to point out that we did not agree to the Speaker leaving the chair. He walked out of the chair.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. That criticism should be directed to the Speaker -when he is in the chair.


An hon. MEMBER:: Page the Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: The house is now in committee of supply. There is a resolution before the committee. The committee will direct me whether or not I shall report the resolution. Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman, we were given to understand that, because we had gone into committee without the formal passing of the motion, any hon. member had the right to take exception to it in committee; and unless the unanimous consent of the committee were given, the matter could not be discussed. That was the ruling which the Speaker gave. Is that the position now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that an hon. member moves that the committee rise?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie was just standing up when the chairman was sitting down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In order that no hon. member of the house may properly say that he was not seized of the intentions of the house today, may I recall what was stated on the last page of Hansard last evening in regard to the business of the house today. Interim supply and the supplementary estimates were referred to specifically. So that
when the hon. member says that he was not notified, it is possible that he was not consulted with regard to the arrangements for interim supply-


Victor Quelch: He did not give his consent. It was agreed that only by unanimous consent would we go into committee without a vote 'being taken. This hon. member did not give his consent to that procedure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That may have happened. I do not know anything about the facts with regard to the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie. I know that was the general agreement of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a suggestion to make which may solve this difficulty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It may.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. Minister of Finance.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am only trying to expedite matters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will sit down then. But if the committee would just listen for a moment, I should be obliged. I take it that the desire of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie was to discuss some matters arising out of the situation in the electoral division of Cartier. In the supplementary estimates which I had hoped we could consider this afternoon there are estimates relating to legislation in the House of Commons. If I may make this suggestion, I think that any question which he would care to discuss on the motion to adjourn the house could be discussed on that item. I am not insisting on it, but I wish to point out to the house that it is important that interim supply be voted today; otherwise it may prove impossible to pay the civil service salaries and wages as usual.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is all right. I do not press it. I understand we had hoped to adjourn at six o'clock, not to meet the convenience of myself or my colleagues, I may say. I am simply making that suggestion. I do not wish to curtail the discussion of the election in Cartier or anything else. I am anxious to get interim supply through today.
1S34
Cartier By-Election

I discussed it with the leaders of the parties, it was announced in the house last night, and I had counted on being able to do so.


Victor Quelch: Will you call that item first?


Mr. HANSELL:: Call the item under which the matter can be discussed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, do that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should be very glad to do that, only we are in committee of supply. There would be no objection to doing that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. After all, there is a fundamental principle involved, that every hon. member of this house has the right to ventilate grievances before supply is voted. Inasmuch as that was not done at the previous stage in the procedure, I suggest that we do it in committee, and that the hon. gentleman be given the opportunity to ventilate the grievances which he feels he should ventilate before we vote supply and interim supply in this committee.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie.


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that we have had occasion to refer to the electoral methods used in the constituency of Montreal-Cartier. There was an election in 1943 and another one in 1945. Previous to the 1943 and 1945 elections there had been a provincial election where Mr. Cohen had been elected. In some polls when the box was opened at six o'clock it was found that although the list contained only 100 or 150 names, more than 200 voters had registered. In 1943 the electoral lists were prepared by the enumerators. At that time hundreds of people were disfranchised1. The same thing happened in 1945. Now we see a repetition of what took place in 1943 and 1945. The only difference is that it has been aggravated. In 1943 and 1945 the names of hundreds of people were omitted from the list. This time not only were names omitted from the list, but after receiving certificates stating that their names would be inscribed on the electoral lists, people received notices that because of affidavits made by unknown people, affidavits not sworn and in some cases not even signed, their names were to be removed.
What took place? Let me give just one example. In one poll in Montreal there is a man who is well known all over the province. I refer to Doctor Stephen Langevin, who has been living on Sherbrooke street for the last thirty years. He is a property owner. He was 
visited one day by the enumerators who, mind you, were appointed at the suggestion of the two candidates, communist and Liberal. He received a certificate stating that his name would be inscribed on the list. A few days later he received notice stating that his name would be omitted because he had moved. He is there; he is a property owner. He has never lived anywhere but in that block; he has been practising there all the time. On the last day or second last day he went to the office of the revising officer because he wanted his name on the list. Several hundred people were waiting to get into that office. He could not get in, but while he was waiting he made up a list of I do not know how many names of people who were also waiting because they had received similar notices. They were waiting, but they could not get in either. Now this gentleman and all his family will lose their votes on March 31; and that is just one example.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the primary right of a man in a democratic country is the right to register his vote when an election is held to return a representative to the House of Commons. In this election some 1,500 people in Montreal will be deprived of that right on March 31 because of these irregularities. I hold the government responsible for this because these officers are employed and paid by the government, with the money of the public.
In this instance three persons, Paul Rioux, Charles Frechette, and Roland Beaudoin alias Beaudin, swore to affidavits that Doctor Langevin and others had moved or were unknown. I have a list here of the names of some of the people:	Anna St. Vincent,
Madame E. Parent, Madame E. Brisebois, Mademoiselle Florida Gagnon, Madame Ernest Parent, Omer Gagne, Samuel Brisebois, Madame Eugenie Alarie, Madame J. Roch, Monsieur J. Roch, Mr. N. O. Laeelle, Madame O. Laeelle, Monsieur A. Arsenault, Miss M. Provost, Mr. Roland Guay, Madame Jacqueline Alteben, Mademoiselle Cordelia Gagnon, Madame Pineault, Mademoiselle Clarice Langevin, Mademoiselle Antoinette Dionne.
These are a few of the names of the people who are going to be deprived of their right to vote on Monday next. Other persons have been struck off the list because of declarations which do not contain any reason why this should be done. According to electoral law such affidavits must set out the cause for which it is asked that these people be struck off the list.

Cartier By-Election
It has been, said that there was no recourse, no remedy for this situation. There was one, a very clear remedy. I quote section 99 of the Dominion Elections Act:
If during the course of any election it transpires that insufficient time has been allowed or insufficient election officers or polling stations have been provided for the execution of any of the purposes of this act, by reason of the operation of any provision of this act or of any mistake or miscalculation or of any unforeseen emergency, the chief electoral officer may, notwithstanding anything in this act, extend the time for doing any act or acts, increase the number of election officers, including revising officers, who shall however, be appointed by the appropriate ex-officio revising officer, who has been appointed for the performance of any duty, or increase the number of polling stations-
The chief electoral officer had the right to increase the number of revising officers when hundreds of persons were waiting at the office to answer these false affidavits. The door was *closed at ten o'clock, however, and they were given no hearing. This was known by everybody, because these facts were published in the newspapers. The chief electoral officer knew about it; he was called here but he did not want to do anything, and there the matter stands.
I said some people have been struck off the list at the instance of people who have not even sworn to the notice they have handed the revising officer. In this connection I could quote many names. I have here a *copy of the notice served on an elector. What happened? The elector received a notice that somebody had sworn in an affidavit that he *was unknown, or that he had moved. This notice was delivered by registered mail. Who delivered that registered letter! It was delivered by employees of the post office department. They knew these people were there, because the letter was delivered, but in spite of that fact no one said anything and the government did nothing. More than that, the names of electors which already had been inscribed by the enumerators were struck out even before affidavits were given the revising officers. I have the proof here. Some notices were sent under date of March 14, while the affidavits were not signed until March 15.
I do not want to delay the business of the -committee more than is necessary, but this is an important matter. I think I have said enough to convince the people that although we .are supposed to live in a democratic country, we are not in fact living in a democratic country'. As I said, the primary right of anyone living in a democratic country is the right to register his vote when an election is held to -.elect representatives to the House of Commons.
At the present time we are complaining that the people have no more confidence in public men, but what confidence can you have when you see all these things going on, I would not say with their consent but at least with their benevolent knowledge?
An lion. MEMBER: Blessing.


Maxime Raymond: "Blessing", somebody said. They say that they are fighting communism, but if the Liberal candidate in Cartier is fighting communism he and his representatives are adopting the communist method. There is no difference between what is going on in Cartier during this election and what has gone on in Russia or Poland.
I thank you. Mr. Chairman, for having allowed me to give a few facts. Before concluding my remarks may I say that I think there is still time for the government to act. The election is going to take place on Monday-


An hon. MEMBER:: Postpone it.


Maxime Raymond: No; the election is going to take place on Monday. The chief electoral officer could appoint some revising officers, or he could increase the number of officers to receive these complaints.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the law.


Maxime Raymond: The law is there; the law is clear. Section 99 gives the chief electoral officer the power to extend the time for anything which is included in the act.


Mr. LALONDE:: Was that asked for?


Maxime Raymond: It was.


Maurice Lalonde: By whom?


Maxime Raymond: I called up personally. I did not speak to the chief electoral officer, but I spoke to his son *who is in the office and he told me that he could not do anything.


Maurice Lalonde: That is hearsay evidence.


Maxime Raymond: I am told that they called his attention to that. Even if his attention was not called to it, these things are known all over the country. People know what is going on in Cartier at the present time. I appeal to the government to be fair and to do what they can do before March 31.
Cartier By-Election

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with much interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie. I am sure that everybody in this committee agrees that there is nothing that should be conserved as a more precious privilege than the right, of those who are entitled to do so, to vote. Parliament has provided an elections act which I think in a general way contains all the safeguards which members of parliament felt could be devised to assure that individuals might properly exercise that right. The act provides for the office of chief electoral officer. From the knowledge I have had of what has been going on I am. sure that everyone has confidence in our chief electoral officer. I think everyone feels that he endeavours to administer that act in a fair, impartial and judicious way and to carry it out in the spirit in which it was passed.
Parliament has provided that enumerators shall be appointed. These enumerators are appointed by the returning * officer, but I understand that they are designated by the representatives of the two parties who obtained the largest number of votes at the preceding election. There is possibly a weakness in the act with respect to the remuneration of enumerators at the rate of so much per name. I do not think that is the best way in which the remuneration of enumerators should be provided for. It may prove to be an incentive to gather as many names as possible for which they are paid, I think at the rate of seven cents per name, as part of the election expense.
However that may be, the act provides that the chief justice shall be ex-officio the revising officer and that he shall appoint his assistants. That is what was done in Cartier. I am sure that all those who have the privilege of knowing Chief Justice O. S. Tyndale will be confident that he would not be a party to nor would he tolerate anything that might amount to interference with the exercise of an elector's franchise. Presumably the chief justice appointed revising officers. The act provides that when the lists are drawn up the electors in the constituency may object to names. The hon. member says that objections were filed to some 1,500 names and that in accordance with the terms of the act they were stricken from the list. Notice was given to those whose names had thus been objected to.
The hon. member says that the revising officers closed the offices at ten o'clock at night before an opportunity had been given to all those who had responded to the notices to state their cases. I do not know about that personally. I do know that there were complaints of offices having been closed and that application was made to the courts in

that regard. That is not something with which the government has to do. It is not something that it would be tolerable to have a government deal with; it must be something under the control of the judicial authority.
The revision was performed under the control of the judicial authority. Application was made to the courts alleging that there had been irregularities. I have not the record before me, but the newspapers report that application was made to the courts and that the justice who disposed of the application was one who formerly occupied the chair of this house. I think he is known to a large number of the members of the house. He heard the application, he considered the facts which the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie has mentioned, and he dismissed the application, saying that there was nothing under the act which he could do or order.
The hon. member says that there is something that could be done by the chief electoral officer. I should be glad if he would suggest what could be done by the chief electoral officer.


Maxime Raymond: There is section 99.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Is that the section which says that the chief electoral officer can extend delays? What is the suggestion of the hon. member? Does he suggest that the chief electoral officer should postpone the date of the election? I should be glad if the hon. member would make a concrete suggestion, because I am sure there is not a single member in this house who would not concur in the adoption of any practical suggestion that might be made. It may be that our law, in spite of our best efforts-when I say "our best efforts" I mean the best efforts of the members of parliament-to make it a good law, is deficient in some respect. If it is and there results any kind of prejudice there could be a contestation and an invalidation of the election. If the hon. gentleman feels that there is anything at this time that can be suggested to the chief electoral officer that would take care of what he says are grievances I would be glad if he would make the suggestions and I am sure that, if they are practicable, there is not a member of this house who would not applaud his suggestions and recommend, so far as the members of this house have authority to do so to the chief electoral officer, that he implement them.
I am sure that no one wants to see a single elector deprived of the right to cast his vote. I have been told that there are some 37;000 names on this list. It is unfortunately one of

Cartier By-Election
the consequences of the greater congestion of population that we know less about each other. The closer we live together in large cities, the less we know about our immediate neighbours, and it is quite possible that affidavits may have been filed by people who said So-and-so is unknown. I am sure that there are people living probably within one hundred yards of me in Ottawa who are unknown to me. That is one of the unfortunate circumstances which arise in congested districts. In the rural districts we all know each other. It may very well be that there is a deficiency in the act. It may very well be that it should not be possible to strike a name off a prepared list on the simple affidavit of some other elector that that name is unknown. That operates satisfactorily in rural parts, but I am not at all convinced that it should be possible to strike a name off a list in a congested area merely because some elector comes along and says, "That name is unknown to me".


Mr. JOHNSTON:: But 1,500 names is a different thing.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is not a very considerable number in a population of 67,000.


Gordon Graydon: In a close election it might be.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not trying to defend anything. I am merely saying that in that congested area it is quite conceivable that
1.500	names would be unknown to a very large number of those residing in that constituency. But that is something that does not take care of the present grievance. That is something we shall have to consider when we have the committee operating to improve the provisions of the electoral act. What is important at this time is to find if some practical method can be found to take care of what the hon. member mentions as the grievance of
1.500	people whose names have been struck off the list. If there can be found anything practicable I would be glad to have the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie or any other member suggest it, and I am sure that the electoral officer would be only too glad to implement any practical suggestion that is made.


Mr. HEON:: Mr. Chairman, I was very glad to hear the right hon. minister say that this house under noi circumstances either directly or indirectly would approve any procedure which would deprive any elector of his right to vote. After all, that is one of the sacred rights which are left to us, the right to vote.
I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie said. I for one consider him to be a gentleman and a man of great experience who would certainly not come before the house at this time and delay its ordinary business just for the sake of putting before the house something he could not substantiate. But whether the revising officers acted in good faith or in bad faith- and I assume it was in good faith-the fact remains, if my hon. friend's figures are correct, that 1,500 voters are being disfranchised. That is the problem with which they are faced.
I am not prepared to say that this house can solve that problem today; I agree with the minister there, except possibly that the documents which my hon. friend has could be submitted immediately to the chief electoral officer. If the chief electoral officer is satisfied that there has been disfranchisement, whether in good faith or in bad faith, revising officers could be appointed today and ordered to sit tomorrow and Sunday and hear these
1,500	cases and find out whether they have been disfranchised rightly or wrongly. I have not scrutinized the act but certainly justice should be done. We are faced with affidavits and charges that fellow Canadians have been disfranchised. I have before me two of these affidavits which have been handed to me by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie and which tell the story. I am sure that no hon. member with legal training would be able to explain why these documents were prepared in this way. It is known that ways and means are provided in the electoral act of denouncing, if I may use that word, to the electoral officer an elector whose name should be struck off the list. There are forms provided by the chief electoral officer in which the denouncing person can insert the name of a person who, he thinks, should be disfranchised, and giving the reason therefor. On the first page of this affidavit which I have in my hand appear these words: "Avis A L'Electeur Vise Par La Contestation". That is signed by the revising officer. This particular notice was sent to Mr. Gagne Omer, 270 Deboisbriand, Montreal, who is the elector threatened with disfranchisement. The notice is addressed to him, signed by the revising officer, and it is dated March 13, 1947, which is the day when the notice was sent out over the revising officer's own signature to the elector who was being threatened with disfranchisement. On the second page there is an affidavit to be made by the denouncing person, and this affidavit is dated one day after the notice was sent out. I am prepared to let the minister look at it. I am not trying to allege anything I cannot prove.
Cartier By-Election

The other notice was sent to Mr. Jean-Paul Coctu-I shall not attempt to analyse the name-residing at 4381 St. Dominique, Montreal, and was signed by the revising officer on the 14th day of March, 1947. The affidavit which should precede the notice is dated after the notice was sent which, of course, does not make sense either. Therefore I am suggesting to the minister-I am not attacking any of the officers; it is quite possible, the law being complicated as it is, that mistakes are made and can be made- that when these kinds of mistakes are being perpetrated it is time for parliament to correct the situation or amend the law.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would appear from the documents which the hon. member sent me that there is something irregular there. The dates the hon. member has mentioned appear to be those on the document, but I do not know that that constitutes anything that the house can do anything about at this time. Since we are revising the election act we should probably consider whether the onus should be on the person whose name is on the list to prove that he has a right to stay there or whether we should put the onus on the one who is contesting. It seems to me that it might be preferable, in order to strike off a name that has been put on the list by presumably independent enumerators, to have a hearing and not merely a filing of an affidavit. At the present time it appears to be the other way around. It is not in accord with tile usual practice that a judgment goes against the elector unless he proves affirmatively that it should be given in his favour. Apparently that is the way the law reads at the present time.
The hon. member has suggested that it might be possible for the electoral officer now to appoint revisers to sit tomorrow and Sunday. I am not sure that that can be done. However the suggestion is one that the chief electoral officer will consider, and I am sure that anything that he can do he will be only too happy to do, because I think we all feel that that is his attitude with respect to the administration of the act.


Georges-Henri Héon: Will the minister agree with me that, not only for next Monday but for any future election, we should not disfranchise a man on the strength of an affidavit unless the man who is threatened with disfranchisement has a hearing?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the burden on the one contesting the right to have a name on the list should remain with him, and that he should not have the name struck off until 
he has appeared before the revising officer and established that it should be struck off.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to take any part in the argument now before the committee. No one can condone striking names off the list, if they should be on. I merely rose to explain how names are put on the list. According to the act at the present time in a city subdivision two enumerators go together to call on householders and ask for the names in a house. Unquestionably enumerators have not always done what they should. I have known enumerators to say to each other, ''You take that side of the street and I shall take the other." In that way irregularities creep in. Of course they get through the subdivision much quicker. They get seven cents a name, and they earn their seven cents much more rapidly.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order. I should like hon. members to keep order. It is most difficult for the hon. member who is trying to speak; I can hardly follow him.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sure that the committee which has been appointed to make some revision in the election act will take into consideration what has been said by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie. The chief electoral officer himself, who is thoroughly qualified and eminently honourable, will be of great assistance in assisting the committee to make the changes that should be made. It is a serious offence to strike names off the list. On the other hand, it is the simplest thing in the world to put names on. It is no trick at all to put names on which should not be there, because the enumerators are paid seven cents a name. They are not compelled to make certain that the names which they are writing down are names of people who actually reside in the house or in the apartment. They put the name down. Every hon. member, particularly those representing city ridings, know of many names which have been put on the lists and which should not be put there. On the other hand, there is no defence for striking off names that should be on the list.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Argenteuil is a good one if it can be carried out. Certainly the house should see to it-if it is at all possible to do it, and surely it is not too late to do it-that every man and woman entitled to vote in the riding of Montreal-Cartier should be given the privilege of voting.


Mr. HACKETT:: That there is opportunity for discussing and improving the election act goes without saying, but really that is not

Interim Supply
the matter that is before us. The question is, can we do anything to ensure an honest and fair election in the riding which is voting on Monday next? I have not the election act before me. I have taken a hurried look at the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, and if the power to correct this hateful situation is not found in that act, it is the only power that is missing therefrom. I think anyone with the ingenuity of some of my hon. friends who sit on the front benches opposite and who develop emergencies with a facility that challenges all rivalry should be able to give us just a wee emergency and do by order in council whatever is necessary to enable the people of Cartier to elect the man of their choice.
Elections, as they are conducted in some parts of the city of Montreal have been a scandal for a long time. That is no secret; it is a source of regret to many people. Those people are not restricted to those who sit on the left of Mr. Speaker. I know that hon. gentlemen who sit to the right of Mr. Speaker regret the practices which are indulged in, and I certainly hope that some way will be found between now and Monday morning to. make these lists complete.
Extraordinary powers are given to the chief electoral officer. Whether or not they extend far enough to enable him to revise these lists in the emergency which has been set forth by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie, I cannot say, but here is an opportunity for an excellent piece of work if it be undertaken expeditiously. I am sure that all members of the house as well as the population of the country at large would rejoice if they knew that the practices which have prevailed in the past could not be indulged in with success and impunity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I say a word before *the hon. member for Yorkton gets up. An undertaking was given yesterday evening, or there was an understanding, that we would adjourn at six o'clock today to meet the convenience of certain hon. members, but I think I must point out that we may have to sit this evening. I take it that the house would be prepared to do so, because it is important that interim supply should go through today.


George Hugh Castleden: It seems to me that if *governments make mistakes we shall be a little better off if they do not make the same mistake twice. I refer to the Montreal elections, which are gaining quite a reputation in Canada. This is not the first time that things have happened in exactly the same way in the same constituency. In 1943 the hon. member
for Rosetown-Biggar brought up similar charges on the floor of the house, and it would seem to me only the part of wisdom that great care should be taken by the officials to have special provisions made in order to ensure that this kind of thing shall not be repeated. It appears to me at any rate that there are persons in that constituency and that part of Canada who are interested in preventing the democratic processes from operating, and that is a serious offence. After the suggestion made by two hon. members, offices should be immediately opened to make it possible for every resident eligible to vote to be given an opportunity to vote on Monday next. If that is done we shall have gained something.
I seriously suggest that in the future the house undertake some changes in the election act which will make it a serious offence for persons to interfere with the operations of democracy in this way.


Gordon Graydon: If we have had enough of Cartier, we might come back to finance. May I ask the minister why there is a distinction between the estimates calling for one-twelfth in interim supply and those which call for one-sixth?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The bill which will be. based on this resolution is in the usual form. We are asking for one-sixth of all items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1947-48, which begins on Tuesday next, and one-sixth of the two items in the supple-mentaries for 1947-48, tabled in the last couple of days, and an additional one-twelfth for certain special items which are listed in schedule A of the bill. These are items totalling almost 815,000,000, included in agriculture, legislation, mines and resources and trade and commerce. They are items such as experimental farms, legislation-that is, the House of Commons and the Senate-mines, and geology branch of mines and resources, and trade and commerce, where an unusually large portion of the total year's vote is expended in the early months of the year. For instance, in geology, they send out surveys early in the year, and in the case of experimental farms expenditures for seeding are made early. A substantial part of the votes is required early. The total is relatively small, 819,000,000 in all, and we ask there for sufficient supply for three months, and in the other case for two months.


Gordon Graydon: The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the house but not in his place. I wish to ask one question in connection with the estimates of 1947-48 in his department. I have tried to find an estimate which covers the organ formerly
Interim Supply

known as Canadian information services, but I do not find it in the estimates of 1947-48 in external affairs, nor have I found it in any other item. Can the minister enlighten me?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would have to ask the officers of the department to give me the information in that regard. When the estimates for the Department of External Affairs were made up the transfer had not been accomplished. They were made up at a time when the Canadian information service was not a part of the Department of External Affairs. My impression is that in the ordinary estimates for 1947-48 of external affairs there would not be an item applicable to Canadian information service. There must be in some other chapter of the estimates something that had been prepared for them and I shall have to find out where that is and give the information.


Gordon Graydon: In the order in council of February 5 of this year, when the Canadian information service was finally transferred, or when its function was transferred to the right hon. gentleman's department, there was a provision that the money which was provided for the old Canadian information service * should be used for the information services now to be controlled and directed by the Department of External Affairs. My understanding at the time was-I have not the order in council before me at the moment- that it applied to the year ended March 31, 1947. It would seem that the money voted for the Canadian information service for 1948 must be on the loose, so to speak, and perhaps the minister is quite right in suggesting that his officials should look into the question and on another occasion he could advise me where that money is, the amount, and why for the coming year it is not part and parcel of the external affairs estimates.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member is quite right. The order in council provided for the transfer of such money as had been appropriated for the service up to March 31, 1947, but of course it could not affect the fiscal year 1947-48 because there had been no money appropriated by parliament for 1947-48. However I will find where provision is made in the estimates now before the house for 1947-48 for that service.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: There is an item I should like to secure some information on. I asked certain questions on it three weeks ago, to be exact, on March 7, and as yet no information has been forthcoming. I am not going to refer to any previous debate; I am just going to bring to the attention of the 
minister the questions I then asked. I refer to the question regarding the further expenditures to be made by the federal authority to the provinces in connection with the dominion-provincial offers of December last. Your Honour will recollect that the original offer made to the provinces in 1947, or rather the original cost, was 886,200,000, making, together v.'ith statutory subsidies and moneys collected by the provinces, $124,900,000. The last offer that was made in the month of December raised the offer to the provinces by approximately $100,000,000 in excess of the original proposal made to the provinces in 1945.
From 1945 on, from the time of that offer, until December, 1946, from time to time the ante was raised or the amount of the offer to the provinces was increased. All throughout the piece the attitude taken by the dominion government and its representatives was that social security measures to be provided by the federal government would remain the same as under the offer of 1945; in other words, that social security measures and public investment measures as comprised in the original offer of 1945 would continue to be the basis. Then certain settlements were made with the provinces; certain of the premiers of the provinces settled with the government on the basis of the offer in December, 1946. It was generally assumed that the social security measures originally promised in the 1945 plan would be the same, but when the minister spoke in the city of Toronto on January 27, 1947, he said:
I wish to make it equally clear that the overall commitments of the dominion are not being increased.
That is under the December, 1946, offer.
As a result of increased rental payments from the dominion, the provinces will be able to assume, and must expect to assume, a somewhat greater financial responsibility. The dominion government will be able correspondingly to reduce some of the burden which it was prepared to assume for a public investment and social security programme.
Through you, sir, I say to the minister that, as far as I am able to see, this was the first time any suggestion was made that the original offer of 1945 to the provinces covering public investment and social security was being altered. I ask the minister this question: Is it intended that some change be made in so far as public investment and social security is concerned? On the proposals that were made initially in 1945 certain of the provinces signed. Were they given to understand-and we will take Saskatchewan and Manitoba as an example-

Interim Supply


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend knows the agreements were on the basis of the budget offers of 1946.


John George Diefenbaker: They signed on the basis of the budget offers of 1946?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of June, 1946.	,


John George Diefenbaker: Then did any other province sign in December, 1946, or January, 1947, on any other basis than the budget offers of 1946?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nobody has signed yet. I will answer my hon. friend in a minute. I will answer in one piece.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. In answering that, I would ask the minister to explain what he meant on this occasion when he spoke in the city of Toronto, because certainly the speech was carefully prepared.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: And delivered.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As all my speeches are.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, as all my hon. friend's speeches are.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are eloquent.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is true. What did the minister mean by that? Is it intended that the provinces shall assume a larger share of old age pensions in return for the larger grants that are made in the offer of December, 1946? And in respect of what will the provinces be required to assume, to use his own words-


Douglas Charles Abbott: "Somewhat greater financial responsibility".


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, "somewhat
greater financial responsibility". Sir, the minister was able to quote those words, which indicates that particular emphasis must have been intended in the use of the words, particularly as he remembers them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily. I have an excellent memory, and I heard my hon. friend read them just two minutes ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I read the same excerpt three weeks ago, and it is a matter which is of great interest. I should like to hear what the minister has to say.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to answer. Unfortunately I was not in the house when my hon. friend made his speech, and I had really thought I might discuss this matter in some detail, as I shall no doubt be called
upon to do, when I bring in a bill to authorize the execution of agreements with those provinces which have decided to enter into them. However I am prepared to answer my hon. friend now.
I make the obvious statement first, that I meant exactly what I said in the speech in Toronto and in a statement which I think I gave to the press a bit earlier. If I may paraphrase what I said or elaborate what I said, it is this. As my hon. friend has pointed out, the social security and public investment proposals which were put forward in 1945 were of a sweeping and comprehensive nature. They included old age pensions, public investment, a proposal for health insurance, health grants, assistance in building hospitals and so on. They covered a wide field. My hon. friend has mentioned that the increase in the dollar cost of the offers originally made by the dominion in 1945 to the final alternative options in 1946 was something of the order of 8100,000,000, and I think that is about right. I think the minimum payments under the original green book proposals were of the order of $124,000,000; and I think the estimated payments, not the minimum payments, in 1947, if all the provinces came in, would be of the order of $224,000,000, although I think the minimum would have been about $206,000,000. However the minimum payments provided in the budget offers of my predecessor in June of 1946 were of the order of $188,000,000 if my memory serves me aright; the increase involved in the revised or alternative options of December, 1946, was something of the order of $26,000,000. I meant in my speech to which my hon. friend ha3 referred that this additional $26,000,000 which was being added to the minimum payments to be made to the provinces under the terms of the revised offer, would have to be taken into account when we came to sit down-if we do sit down, as I hope we shall-to consider these wider proposals. I do not say they will be taken into account in old age pensions; I do not say they will be taken into account in public investment; I do not say they will be taken into account in health insurance, health grants or any other of the wide variety of proposals. But I do say that the approximately $26,000,000 should be taken into account when we sit down with the provinces to discuss these various measures and to decide the apportionment of the cost of them.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, that does not quite cover the situation. The minister has given a very good and lucid staternent, but certain provinces
Interim Supply

have agreed to accept the offer of December, 1946. All right. Now, when those provinces agreed to accept that offer, which included $26,000,000 over and above what had previously been offered, at the time they agreed to the acceptance were they advised that because they were going to receive more than some had agreed to accept earlier, by the agreements they signed, they would thereby be expected to assume a somewhat greater financial responsibility for the public investment and social security programme that was originally brought to their attention? That is the simple question; were they advised of that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not say they were formally advised. Of course all the provinces which discussed entering into these agreements brought up the question as to what was the position of the government with respect to the other proposals, social security, public investment and the like. That position was made perfectly clear first, I think, if my memory serves me right, in a telegram sent by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Saskatchewan sometime in July. Of course I cannot quote the terms of the telegram, but no doubt my hon. friend is familiar with it. The gist of it was that the dominion adhered to its original plan, but that of course it could not be implemented until a sufficient number of provinces had evinced their willingness to enter into the taxation agreements. When the dominion increased its original offers by about $26,000,000, if my memory serves me right, and I made the statement to the press-the house was not sitting at the time-that statement was in approximately the same terms as the speech I made later in Toronto. I am speaking from memory and I would not be sure; it could be easily verified, but I think it will be found I made that statement at the same time.


John Thomas Hackett: Was the statement in January?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say from memory; perhaps it was.


John George Diefenbaker: There is just one thing more. As far as the communication in July, 1946, to the government of Saskatchewan is concerned, that really does not enter into what happened at the time the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Manitoba and the other governments agreed, in December, 1946 and January, 1947, to accept the new offers amounting in all to an increase of $26,000,000. What I want to get from the minister is not what he told the press, because, as I remember it, what he told the press and 
what he said in the city of Toronto jn his speech to the board of trade on January 27, both occurred after the provinces agreed to accept the new offer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, what my hon. friend said to the press and what he said in Toronto would not have been communicated to the provinces that agreed to accept the new settlements, unless he so advised them.
Mr.'ABBOTT: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the simple question is this. When the various provinces agreed to the new proposals in December or January, were they advised before they agreed to accept those proposals that, since they were getting this extra amount, they must realize that they would be able to assume and must expect to assume a greater financial responsibility in reference to social security and public investment than was contained in the original proposals, which in turn were confirmed as far as Saskatchewan was concerned by the telegram of the Prime Minister in July, 1946? That is all I am asking.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, and I answered that by saying no, they were not formally advised; that is in relation to social security, public investment and the whole field of proposals in that category.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, were they informally advised?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was taken for granted, of course, that they would have to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I am trying to get at. The provinces agreed before the minister made his statement to the press in January.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is perfectly right; they have agreed to. enter into certain taxation agreements, and I answered my hon. friend by saying they were not formally advised, that when we sat down to consider these wide and comprehensive proposals, the extra $26,000,000 would have to be taken into account in apportioning the extent to which a province, for instance, would participate in health grants or health insurance or any of the other proposals. That is perfectly right.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is very frank, and I thank him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought my words were perfectly clear in the statements I made in both places.

Interim Supply


John George Diefenbaker: Oh. but that is exactly the point. The statement as to the conditions in respect of the payment of the extra 826,000,000 to the provinces is not communicated to the provinces at the time they agree to the new proposals, and no reference is made to it until some two, three or four weeks after the provinces have agreed to accept those proposals. That is the point I am making. Certain provinces agreed to accept the new proposals in December and January, 1947.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right; and they are in the process of authorizing them in the various legislatures now.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Thereafter the minister took the position that in return for the extra $26,000,000 they would be expected to assume larger responsibilities in connection with social security and public investment than had been accepted as their responsibilities from 1945 on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. but which had not been accepted, if my hon. friend will forgive me.


John George Diefenbaker: That is so, but which had been founded as the basis of the dominion proposals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The point I am making is this. The basis of the dominion proposals was that the provinces, in return for certain rentals, would have certain social security and public investment responsibilities assumed by the dominion government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I must correct that. The revised budget proposals were these; that in consideration of certain rental terms the provinces were to surrender certain tax fields, and the Prime Minister assured them that if and when a sufficient number of provinces entered into that agreement the dominion would be prepared to reopen the discussions with the provinces at another conference, or otherwise, in regard to the social security, public investment and other proposals of the original conference of 1945. The dominion is still ready and anxious to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: And willing to
found any representations or plans it puts before the provinces at this new conference absolutely on the original proposals regarding social security and so on?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, in simple language what it means is that in sitting down to discuss these wide and varied social security proposals, public investment proposals and the like, the dominion government says ''The taxpayers of Canada are not putting up the
$26,000,000 twice. That has to be taken into account." I think that is a perfectly fair position to take, and one which should be taken. The amount obviously is not very large. It does not bulk largely, for instance, in a comprehensive contributory old age pensions plan payable to all persons at the age of seventy. But even in these modern days an additional $26,000,000 is an appreciable sum of money, and the provinces will have that amount over and above what was contained in the budget proposals of 1946.


John George Diefenbaker: Then this is clear, to make it equally simple; that in return for this extra $26,000,000 the original proposals of the dominion as to social security and public investment will be reduced by that amount?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I will not say they will be reduced 'by exactly $26,000,000, but I will say that in the wide and sweeping programme which, if it were fully implemented, I am told would involve something in the nature of $400 million a year-perhaps I had better not quote figures too glibly, but I believe it is something on that order-


John George Diefenbaker: 1 thought it was $600 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It depends on what basis you put it. In any event it involves some hundreds of millions of dollars a year, covering various and varied activities such as old age pensions, health insurance, health grants, assistance in the building of hospitals, and so on. My statement was that this $26,000,000 would have to be taken into account. If a province is in a better position, as a result of these increased offers, to provide assistance for the building of its own hospitals-I take that as an example-it could be a sweeping and comprehensive programme, but in essence my statement is that the $26,000,000 must be taken into account so that the taxpayers of Canada do not have to provide it twice.


John George Diefenbaker: As regards the provinces which are to be expected to take that $26,000,000 into consideration, those which have agreed to sign did not know that that was a condition before they agreed? That is correct, is it not?'


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is probably correct.


John Thomas Hackett: I understood the minister to say that the second offer included about $100 million more than the first; is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which offer is my hon. friend referring to?
Interim, Supply


John Thomas Hackett: I am referring to the one which was made, as I understand it, in December.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is my hon. friend referring to the budget offer? I will put it in that way.


John Thomas Hackett: I am taking the budget offer as a basis.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The second offer was about $26,000,000 more.


John Thomas Hackett: To what extent would the $26,000,000 be reduced by the conditions which were attached to it, at least in the minister's mind?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to elaborate his question. I may be stupid, but I do not understand it.


John Thomas Hackett: I understand from the discussion which has been going on between the minister and the hon. member for Lake Centre, that the basis of the second offer differed from that of the first and that, as a consequence, there would be deductions which would be made from the second offer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I did not say that. Perhaps I had better make clear what I was trying to say at any rate. I said the offer of December, 1946, differed from the budget offer of June, 1946, only in the manner in which the minimum payments to the provinces were calculated; that was the only difference between the two offers. There was no difference in principle; it was simply a difference in the method or manner by which the minimum payments to the different provinces were arrived at. As a result of adopting that different method of minimum payments to the provinces, there was an increase of some $26,000,000 over the original budget offer. I answered the hon. member for Lake Centre by saying that if and when we come to sit down to discuss this wide field of social security, public investment and other proposals, that $26,000,000 will have to be taken into account in arriving at the basis upon which the costs of these proposals will be shared by the dominion and the provinces.


John Thomas Hackett: If the first offer had been accepted, the $26,000,000 would not have been taken into account?	*


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Mr. FLEMING:: It begins to appear that the provinces which have signed agreements on the basis of the acceptance of either the second or the third of the three offers made by the government are no farther ahead by reason of having done so, if there is to be an agreement eventually with respect to full

social security and public investment. The minister has used the expression "if and when" in referring to the time when the provinces might be called into meeting again to discuss these other questions. Will he be a little more explicit as to the "when"? When is it the intention of the government to call the provinces into meeting again to discuss these matters of social security and public investment, and on what conditions will it be done?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that question has been answered already by the Prime Minister who is the appropriate one to answer it. In essence-and again I have to paraphrase because I did not come prepared to debate dominion-provincial relations and I must speak from memory-it would be when a sufficient number of the provinces have evinced a willingness to enter into taxation agreements. Then the dominion will, without delay, convene or invite the provinces to confer on these questions of public investment and social security. I think it should be fairly obvious to most hon. members that it is hardly feasible to do that so long as the two largest and wealthiest provinces feel that it is desirable and in their own interests to arrange their fiscal affairs in their own way. That is a matter of opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister will pardon me, his last answer leaves two questions still open. First, he said when a sufficient number of provinces have indicated a willingness, and he elaborated on that. As I interpret his remarks, he would not have a sufficient number of provinces as long as Ontario and Quebec do not accept the proposals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, that is inevitable. I do not know that the Prime Minister said all the provinces because he might have had in mind, for instance, the possibility of one of the smaller provinces not coming in for one reason or another, and that that would not prevent the holding of a conference to discuss these other proposals. In my judgment, such a conference could produce no useful result unless the greater number, if not all the provinces, were in agreement on the taxation question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is another question that still seems to be left in the air. How many provinces will you call in when the dominion government considers that enough provinces have entered into agreements and that there is to be a conference of the provinces?

Interim Supply


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is asking me a question which should more properly be addressed to the head of the government. If he wants my own view I would think that all the provinces would be called to such a conference, or at any rate all the provinces which had entered into agreements. It is difficult, in fact it is almost impossible to embark on a social security scheme on a provincial basis. The whole plan which was put forward to the conference in 1945 was for national social security measures and old age pensions on a national basis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the government should be absolutely explicit in connection with this matter. The Minister of Finance has indicated that some of the questions which I have asked and which are troubling many people in this country can be answered only by the Prime Minister. The fact of the matter is that we have been trying to obtain information on these important points and we still lack essential information. I draw the attention of the committee to the language of the speech from the throne. We have had occasion already to complain about its ambiguity, and I quote from page 3 of Hansard as follows:
Once suitable financial relationships have been arrived at with the provinces-
We are not told how many, whether it has to be all or just some.
-my ministers have undertaken to seek, in a general conference or otherwise, to work out satisfactory arrangements with the provinces-
Presumably all, but we are not told.
-in regard to public investment and social security measures.
I put it to the Minister of Finance that the government owes an obligation to parliament and to the people of Canada to make it perfectly clear right now as to the terms upon which it is prepared again to summon a general conference of the provinces. I do not think the people of Canada are prepared to wait indefinitely for action in this respect and action cannot be taken until the dominion government participates. It has to take action. These matters of public investment and social security cannot just be left in the air. These problems will not be solved until such a conference is called. It is implicit in the remarks of the minister today and it is implicit in the speech from the throne that a conference must be called by the domnion government. The responsibility for our not having arrived at the necessary decisions with respect to these important fields of social security and public investment rests squarely upon the shoulders of the dominion government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer that and I will answer it at once. In the first place, this house will have full opportunity to debate dominion-provincial regulations when the bill to authorize taxation agreements with such provinces as have evinced a desire to enter into such agreement is introduced. As to the duty of the dominion government to convene dominion-provincial conferences, there is no such duty. There is nothing in our constitution about convening or convoking dominion-provincial conferences, and no province is compelled to attend one. All that the dominion government can do is to invite the provinces to attend a conference. The dominion government has invited the provinces to attend conferences to settle this question of taxation, social security and the like on two occasions, first in 1941 and second in 1945, and every member of the house is familiar with the results of those two conferences.
My hon. friend says there is a duty in the dominion government to state when it will convene a conference to discuss social security proposals. He quoted from the speech from the throne, which is fairly specific, and if I recall correctly, the Prime Minister, when asked a question, answered along the same line. I am not in a position to speak for the government on that point, but I will say this, that I can see no purpose that can be served, nor do I think the dominion government should take the responsibility of calling a conference-


John George Diefenbaker: Who else could call it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can see no purpose in calling a dominion-provincial conference until at any rate the majority of the provinces and most certainly the two wealthier provinces have indicated that they are prepared to enter into taxation agreements, because otherwise any such conference would be perfectly futile. The dominion government could not possibly assume the responsibilities which are involved in the social security and public investment proposals unless it had these great fields of income and corporation taxes. That is the answer to my hon. friend. If I may say so, the responsibility for the failure to reconvene the conference, if any opprobrium attaches to anyone, rests on the provinces which, no doubt for excellent reasons of their own, have not seen fit to enter into taxation agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister suggest for one moment that the provinces or any province could call a dominion-provincial conference?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why not?
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister serious? This is a serious matter for the people of Canada who are looking for some settlement of these questions of social security and public investment, which are important for the future of this country. Does the minister seriously suggest that a province could call a dominion-provincial conference, and will he go farther and say that if any province or provinces call a dominion-provincial conference now, the dominion government would attend to discuss questions of social security and public investment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps it would not be appropriate for a province to call a dominion-provincial conference. Perhaps that is right. But I answer my hon. friend by saying this. I will repeat what I said a moment ago, but let me preface it by saying that I am just as conscious as any other member of the house of the importance of getting what I believe to be a sound fiscal structure in this country. I have spent a good deal of time in the past few months trying to accomplish that purpose, without complete success, I must confess. I feel that the fault is not entirely mine at any rate, -but that is a matter of opinion. I say this, that in my view the dominion has discharged its full obligations in this regard. It has tried on two occasions by the conference method to arrive at a solution of these fiscal problems, but for reasons which were stated by my predecessor in his budget speech of last year in far better terms than I could use, we were not successful. So we took the other method and made our own proposals to the provinces. Those proposals were optional. Any province which felt that it could do better for itself by not accepting them could follow that course. The result has been that so far certain provinces have felt that it was in their interests to enter into taxation agreements. Others have not. I do not quarrel with that position. But I do say that the dominion government has done its share, and until there is greater evidence on the part of some provinces that they feel a plan of this kind is satisfactory and desirable I can see no purpose in calling another conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It seems to me that there is a conspicuous flaw, if I may say so, in the reasoning which the minister has offered to the committee. He said that a conference was called and that it did not succeed. He will well recall that at that conference certain pro. posals were made by the dominion government. The conference adjourned. And now

what the dominion government has done has been to change drastically its own proposals on at least two occasions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just by increasing the
amount.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The proposals which were put before that conference and on which the conference did not reach agreement are vastly different from the proposals which have been made from time to time since by the dominion government. Yet the excuse-I cannot [DOT]give it any higher name-which is offered by the dominion government for its failure to reconvene a conference that is vitally necessary in the interests of the nation is that the proposals submitted to the conference nearly a year ago were not accepted. The dominion government has departed far from its own proposals made to that conference, and yet it persists today in refusing to reconvene the conference to consider other proposals when it itself has drastically changed the proposals it made to the conference at that time. I do not hold the present minister entirely responsible in this matter. The failure to arrive at a necessary decision at that time was attributable directly to the inflexibility of the proposals submitted by his predecessor-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No such thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and the rigidity with which his predecessor approached this question, not in any spirit of compromise, not in the kind of spirit that brought about confederation, but in a rigid, uncompromising, take-it-or-leave-it attitude. Quite frankly, those of us who know the present Minister of Finance do expect of him something better than the rigid and uncompromising attitude taken by his predecessor in this matter, and we are going to be sorely disappointed if the present minister follows his predecessor's rigid and uncompromising refusal to reconvene the conference on up-to-date terms when his government has departed so drastically from the terms which it submitted to the conference last year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I am sick and tired of hearing people talk of the uncompromising rigidity of my predecessor. It is nothing but a catch-cry, and it is used by people, I regret to say, for political purposes. There was no uncompromising rigidity about the present Minister of Justice. He made concession after concession during the course of those negotiations from August, 1945, until the conference broke down in May, 1946, and anyone who tries to contradict that is simply not talking in accordance with the facts. I

Supply-Agriculture
am also sick and tired of hon. members opposite trying to picture me as the little fixer who will concede everything.
After that outburst, Mr. Chairman, although I should like to go on debating dominion-provincial relations and conferences and so on for an unlimited length of time, I would point out that at the moment we are trying to get through interim supply. I am in no hurry. I do not know whether the house wants to sit after six o'clock tonight. But I have to get this interim supply and the supplementary estimates through. I should have said in my preliminary statement that in voting this interim supply and the supplementary estimates I give the committee the same undertaking that has always been given, namely, that it is without prejudice to the rights and privileges of every hon. member to discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for discussion from time to time throughout the session. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be restricted in any way as a result of the passing of these supplementary estimates. That is the usual undertaking, and of course I [DOT]renew it now.


Mr. GILLIS:: We have been talking all afternoon about dominion-provincial relations. Has the government come to any understanding with Nova Scotia with regard to signing an agreement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not yet.


Clarence Gillis: Then you have a Tory premier down there.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the committee go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I desire to move the following resolution covering the amounts dealt with a few moments ago in committee of supply.
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948. the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely, first, the sum of $190,921,733.56, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the estimates as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1948; second,
an additional sum of $1,246,374.91, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of several items of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1948, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply; third, the sum of $1,0'16,666.66, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the items as set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending .31st March, 1948.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 107, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1948.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the second reading of the bill.
Gordon Graydon: I just wish to elicit from the minister the usual undertaking that this bill is on all fours with similar bills passed in previous sessions. In the limited time we have at our disposal it is not necessary to go over it in detail so long as the minister gives us that undertaking.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is in the same terms as bills passed in previous years save, of course, possibly in the amount granted. It is in exactly the same terms as other bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administrative service-
611. Departmental administration - further amount required, $3,200.
Mr. KNOWLES:: Just before you start with these items, Mr. Chairman, and in view of the misunderstanding we had earlier today, can it be clearly understood that dealing with these items does not constitute the opening of any of the departments so far as the main estimates are concerned?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I give that assurance readily, Mr. Chairman. I give the same undertaking with respect to these items, that passing them does
1S4S
Supply-External Affairs

not preclude discussion of each item on the main estimates. They are the final supplementary estimates for last year.


Gordon Graydon: That does not apply to this item, because it will not be in the estimates this year. Last year's estimates have been passed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can make an explanatory statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
616. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration-further amount required, $42,500.
Gordon Graydon: Is this all in western Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: The suggested extension of the act has not been passed by parliament and does not yet apply to the east.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is for prairie farm assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian contributions to international commonwealth organizations-[DOT]
621.	Commonwealth communications council,
Gordon Graydon: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
622.	United nations organization working capital fund, $201,000'.
Gordon Graydon: Have other nations made their full contribution to this fund or are there any nations in arrears?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not like to say that there are no nations in arrears. At the time of the general assembly there were some small sums in arrears, but a very insignificant portion. The reason for the supplementary estimate is that when the original working capital fund was set up it was intended that it would be used for the first year's contributions to the united nations. At the general assembly, however, it was decided to continue that fund at least for one year more, reducing it from 825,000,000 to $20,000,000, so that our portion of the assessment requires
[Mr. Abbott.J
this further additional sum. But it remains to our credit for future contributions to the costs of the assembly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
625. International commission on air navigation-further amount required, $2,400.
John George Diefenbaker: Within the last few days there has come from Washington word that a bilateral agreement in regard to passenger airways has been negotiated between the Canadian government and the state of Peru whereby certain airways will operate between Canada and Peru, and the Peruvian airways will have the right to enter Canada. Has an agreement been negotiated or completed whereby airways will operate between Peru and Canada, and what concessions if any are being granted to the Peruvian company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To the best of my knowledge no agreement has been entered into as yet with the government of Peru. Negotiations are taking place. The proposal is with regard to the fourth freedom. There will be mutual exchange under the fourth freedom and the Peruvian airways will have the right to land in Canada and deliver passengers from Pern destined for Canada and to pick up in Canada passengers destined for Peru. That is the fourth freedom agreement, and that is the basis of the agreement at present under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it intended that airways between Peru and Canada will be operated by the Peruvian government or by a company organized under the laws of Peru?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a company organized under the laws of Peru. The question of ownership has been examined both by the United States and by Canada and we are satisfied that the position of ownership complies with the Canadian regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the Canadian regulations, as I understand, it is necessary that a company coming into Canada be owned seventy-five per cent by the nationals of the country under which it is incorporated. Am I correct in that? Is that not a matter of agreement between the nations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The exact wording is that it shall be substantially owned and effectively controlled, but the seventy-five per cent is not mandatory. There is flexibility in that. In the case of Peruvian airways, we are satisfied that it is substantially owned and effectively controlled by the state of Peru.


John George Diefenbaker: The information given to me was that the arrangements had

Supply-External Affairs
been entered into and approved and that all that remained was the commencement of the communications. Can the minister say when, under the tentative plan, this international air-wajrs will commence operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I would have been informed if negotiations had arrived at anything near that stage. It is possible a temporary permission for a single flight might be granted before the treaty is completed, but so far as I know there will be no operation until the treaty is completed, and I do not think negotiations have been advanced to the point where there is certainty as to when the treaty will be completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the Minister of External Affairs will be able to say what the situation is with regard to the treaty between Peru and Canada in reference to this matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are at the present time no commitments of any kind, and my understanding is that these arrangements are covered by an exchange of notes after the technical arrangements have been worked out by our department in charge of air navigation. There has not yet been any commitment between the governments. The technical features are being discussed between the Department of Transport and the representatives of the Peruvian company. It has not yet reached the stage where it will be dealt with on a diplomatic basis between the two governments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
628. Intergovernmental committee on refugees, $8,400.
Mr. KNOWLES': Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs comment on this item and tell the committee what progress is being made by this intergovernmental committee on refugees?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The intergovernmental committee on refugees is not the international refugee organization but a committee that was set up in 1938 to deal with displaced persons prior to the last war. I can give the hon. member the figure. At the sixth plenary session of the intergovernmental committee on refugees held in London from 16th to 21st December, 1946, final approval was given to the administrative estimates for the year 1947.
The estimated expenditure for 1947, as approved at the plenary session amounts to £94,000. To provide this sum and the necessary working balance, a sum of £117,500 was assessed to the member governments. The
total number of units allotted to member governments for 1947, in accordance with the intergovernmental committee's scale, is 792, on which basis the value of a single unit is approximately £149.
The full contribution for 1947 of our government on the normal basis will therefore be £5,215.
It wms agreed that, in view of the uncertain duration of the life of the intergovernmental committee, a first contribution of half the amount should be requested, and that is being provided for at this time. It is expected that the international refugee organization will take over all the responsibilities of this previous committee, and it is hoped that may be done before the year is more than half over.
Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I wanted to find out.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: So that there is only one-half of the amount assessed w'hich is being called for at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: How many nations have alread3' signified their approval of the I.R.O. up to the present time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not had any information in the last three or four weeks, but the last information we had was that there were thirteen which had approved, and that they were nearing the seventy-five per cent of the amount required to have the organization become effective.


James Sinclair: How does this committee relate to the human rights commission set up by UNO? Where is the connection?	[DOT]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There would be only a vague connection. The human rights commission deals with principles and recommendations as to human rights in the various countries. This was a committee set up in 1938 to deal with the problem of persons who had become displaced before that date. The problem has become a very much larger one as a result of the war. There has been set up by a certain number of members of the united nations the international refugee organization which is to become operative when signed by fifteen nations, representing seventy-five per cent of the estimated contribution. Although it has not yet become effective, a preparatory commission has been preparing the way. As soon as it does come into effect, it will absorb the responsibilities of the pre-war international committee.
Supply


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Does this expenditure on the work of this intergovernmental committee on refugees foreshadow the bringing of refugees into Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Canada has taken the position that it favours the coming into operation of the international refugee organization, and I think, although it has not yet come into operation and there has not been any quota distributed, it would be safe to say that Canada is quite prepared to do its share in proportion to what will be done by other members of the organization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
629. To provide for deficits on certain accounts of the Canadian wheat board, pursuant to guarantees given by the government of Canada, as detailed in the estimates, $20,562,264.11.
John George Diefenbaker: I know what the particulars are regarding this; they are set forth on page 12 of the further supplementary estimates; but I do not quite understand how it is that certain of these items are before us by way of supplementary requirements. Is the minister in a position to explain how it is that the wheat board accounts are separated.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to do that. During and since the war, the Canadian wheat board has been engaged in a number of operations in grain and seeds under the authority of various orders in council under the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. In the early stages of the war, deficits arising out of these operations were met out of the war appropriation. Since there is no longer any war appropriation, these deficits must now, of course, be met out of moneys specifically voted by parliament for that purpose.
At the moment, these deficits are being carried by the Canadian wheat board and appear as an asset in the accounts of the board under the heading "Due from the dominion government." I should perhaps add, so that there may be no misunderstanding, that these deficits have nothing to do with the wheat board's ordinary business of buying and selling farmers' wheat. They arose out of emergency operations which have already come to an end.
When these sums are voted and paid over, the government will have settled its accounts with the wheat board as at July 31, 1945, which is the latest date for which the year-end accounts are available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IMr. St. Laurent.]
[Stage Direction]
631. Annuities Act-To authorize payment from the government annuities fund to the original purchas.er of all payments received for the purchase of Canadian government annuity contract No. 38420 together with interest thereon at 3 per cent per annum for cancellation of said contract, $1.
James Sinclair: Would the minister give an explanation of this most unusual item?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not so unusual. I do not need to make a speech about it. There was a person who had an annuity of her own, and also an annuity purchased by another, which was not discovered until later. Under the law you may have only one annuity, and there must be a refund.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
633.	The Senate. General administration- further amount required, $5,000.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask if it is possible to pay this in kind instead of paying
15,000	cash? Could we give them oleomargarine instead?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
634.	House of Commons. General administration-estimates of the Clerk-further amount required, $71,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word about this item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I intervene for a moment? What would be the will of the committee with regard to sitting after six o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: Come back at eight o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it would take us only about fifteen or twenty minutes to finish.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Eight o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Suspend the six o'clock rule.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


James Horace King: Mr. Golding of the committee of supply reports that the committee have considered certain items and report progress, and ask leave to sit again. When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Later this day.

Supply-Legislation
'Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North): Is this being done by motion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend objects to it he may say so. I would move that the house resolve itself into committee of supply.


James Sinclair: This is my opportunity to speak to this motion, I presume. Certainly, when the arrangement was first mentioned we hoped that we would be through by six o'clock. The reason we are not through is the obstruction, mainly of the Conservative party, for whom this concession was made. So I see no reason at all why we should not sit tonight. In view of the impending recess, I think we should sit again at eight o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My resolution should have been that the Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock this day.


James Sinclair: My remarks apply, anyway.
And Mr. Speaker having left the chair:


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the motion has not been put to the house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs moved that you do not leave the chair, but surely that motion must be carried.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


James Horace King: I would call attention to the fact that if it is the wash of the house to go into committee of supply it is not necessary that any motion be put. If hon. members wish to sit after six o'clock there should be a motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did move that Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock.


James Sinclair: I rise to make two points. In the first place, it is not after six o'clock, so that the motion is clearly out of order. My second point is that this was a concession to the Conservative party for their own benefit. To my mind, they could have speeded up the debate this afternoon. but they did not do so. The western members are most anxious to get the debate through and get home, so I suggest that the motion be defeated and that we go on and sit at eight o'clock as usual.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might say a word, though possibly it has no bearing. I agree with what my hon. friend has said, that there has been perhaps a little delay this afternoon, but if we could conclude our proceedings before eight o'clock we could get the legislation over to the other place and push it ahead there. I do not know whether this will have much influence.


James Sinclair: Are they sitting at eight o'clock?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not say as to that.


Angus MacInnis: I am not sure of the situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My motion would
require unanimous consent, and evidently that is not being given.


Angus MacInnis: I am not rising to oppose the motion, but I am wondering why we must finish these further supplementary estimates tonight. If it were the supply bill I could see some point to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can answer my hon. friend. It is partly to accommodate those in the other place, and to enable us to make the necessary arrangements for the royal assent before the adjournment on Tuesday. It is quite true that this is not so essential as in the case of the other bill, but I think it would be a convenience to some of those in the other place if we could get this bill over there. That is the principal reason. I want to get this bill over there before the adjournment Tuesday afternoon.


Angus MacInnis: Is the bill not through as far as this house is concerned?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; this is a second bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Six o'clock.


James Horace King: I suggest to the house that I put the motion, or if that is not the wish of hon. members I can call it six o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


James Horace King: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was the motion withdrawn by the leader of the house?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The motion was withdrawn because, as far as I could see, there was no chance of its passing.


James Horace King: I must call attention to the fact that the Speaker did not put the motion.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Put it.


Gordon Graydon: As far as our party is concerned, it is immaterial what the house decides. It is a straight question of courtesy, and if the house does not desire to extend that courtesy and consideration we have nothing to say, and no objection to sitting again
Supply-Legislation

at eight o'clock. We can sit from eight until eleven o'clock, and it will be quite all right with us.


William Henry Golding: I think it only fair that if, as a matter of courtesy, we arranged to adjourn at six o'clock, we should try to carry that out. Hon. members opposite are having their dinner, and I do not think it is fair to sit tonight.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I might ask one question, personally I am in favour of sitting until eleven o'clock, but on the other hand I would go this far, that if the leader of the government gave that assurance to the leader of the opposition I believe we should carry it out.


James Horace King: Order. I would call attention to the fact that there is nothing before the house, so that we cannot have any discussion.


James Sinclair: Six o'clock.


James Horace King: If it is the wish of the leader of the house that I put his motion I shall do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put the motion.


James Horace King: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie, seconded by Mr. Howe, that Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Sinclair: To get back to this matter of courtesy, courtesy works both ways. For the last few days in connection with the control bills we have seen little courtesy displayed in the house. The agreement, which I heard expressed, was that the business would be speeded up so that we would be through at six o'clock. We are not through, mainly because of the attitude of and the questions asked by hon. members opposite. Therefore I see no reason to extend courtesy where courtesy is not extended. So I say no.


Gordon Graydon: Might I say one word?


James Horace King: Perhaps hon. members would permit me to make a suggestion. The Speaker should be the voice of the house, and I do not want to impose any point of view on hon. members. If it were the desire of the house that the motion be put, then hon. members would have an opportunity of saying "yea" or "nay," or we could have a standing vote, so that we would know what we want to do.


James Sinclair: As I understand it, there must be unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Those in favour of the motion will please stand.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the motion?


James Horace King: Those in favour of the motion that Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock will please stand.
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 47; nays, 3.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
634- House of Commons. General administration-estimates of the Clerk-further amount required, $71,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say a few words on this item. I regret having to raise a matter like this under these conditions, but it is a subject in which many hon. members are interested, and unfortunately the main estimate covering it is not reached until late in the summer, when it is always difficult to raise the matter. I refer to certain matters in connection with the stenographers who work for members of this House of Commons, and stenographers of this house generally, who are paid out of this vote. There are three points I feel the government should take under consideration.
First of all, something should be done to work out a pension plan for these people. I know the argument that will be advanced from the other side. It will stem mainly from the fact that they are brought in on a temporary basis, that they work for only part of the year, and that some of them do not work very many years. However there are others who have been here for quite a number of years, and I think it is most unfair that people working for the parliament of Canada should in some cases give the best years of their lives and have no opportunity to participate in a pension plan of any kind. As examples of other kinds of government employees who originally were not included in a pension plan I mention the employees of the printing bureau-these are prevailing rates employees -and also the charwomen in the public buildings.


William Ross Macdonald: I think we should stay within the item; the printing bureau has nothing to do with this item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was merely citing these other cases to make my point that some

Supply-Legislation
people who are not full-time civil servants are brought within government pension regulations.


Humphrey Mitchell: What about the members of the House of Commons? Don't you think they should be included? Be logical about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most members of the House of Commons hope to stay here for a long time.


Humphrey Mitchell: Very few of them do. You are due to walk the plank yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister knows how ridiculous that statement is with regard to Winnipeg North Centre. I am serious in my appeal to the government that they take this matter of a pension plan for House of Commons stenographers under consideration.
_ The second point I wish to make in connection with the stenographic staff is that provision should be made to pay their travelling expenses at least once a session from their homes to parliament. The general understanding in connection with the stenographic pool is that members are supposed to have an opportunity to have stenographers from their own part of the country, but so long as no travelling expenses are paid, the effect is to limit these jobs to people from the Ottawa area. I suggest that consideration be given to that point.
The other point is of more immediate concern ; I refer to the conditions under which the stenographers are working in this building at the present time. Part of this is due to an appeal which was made on the floor of this house, namely, that more rooms be provided for members. That was a justifiable appeal, and it still needs to be met as a matter of fact, but in an attempt to meet that need I understand that the stenographers were crowded into fewer rooms than they had before. This means that a greater number of typewriters are being pounded in one room, and to have to work within such limited space is hard on the stenographers, from the point of view of both efficiency and health. I think consideration should be given to trying to improve the working conditions of these people.
Incidentally, one of the things that we are faced with at the present time is the necessity of having to answer the many letters we are receiving to have the tax taken off soft drinks. One thing that could be done to help these stenographers would be for the government to take action on this matter and relieve members of parliament from the necessity of answering these scores of letters on one subject.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member left out the kitchen sink.


Gordon Graydon: He is speaking about a pressure cooker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have made three
points: A pension plan, railway fares, and better working conditions for the House of Commons stenographic staff.


James Sinclair: I wish to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Last year I had occasion to refer to some of the matters the hon. member has mentioned, including the status of the stenographers. I referred also to the lack of amplifiers and the lack of library assistants. I had a little difference with the Speaker today, but I must compliment him upon the action he took during the recess to make more offices available to the members. After making that speech, I received considerable protests from the secretarial staff of the house because they claimed that my remarks reflected upon their ability when I said that it was difficult to get good stenographers. One of the difficulties in getting good secretaries is that mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We want to bring girls from our own ridings, but we cannot do that at the present time. Consideration should be given to improving the working conditions of our secretaries. They should be provided with a proper civil service status. For our own personal convenience, arrangements should be made to permit us to bring secretaries from our own ridings.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to say a word in this connection. Conditions in the stenographic pool would be improved if the eastern members in particular did not use it to conduct their legal, mining and other businesses.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I wish to support the remarks of the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and Vancouver North. I have made a little personal investigation in connection with the space provided for the stenographers at the present time. I wanted to make a comparison with what window and floor space was considered proper for chickens, horses, cows and things like that. I wrote to the Department of Agriculture and asked them what window space they considered was necessary for a chicken. About three days ago I received word that the minimum for health and proper working and functioning was one square foot of window space per bird. There is one room in the House in which seventeen stenographers are working, and yet there are only twelve

Supply-Legislation

square feet of window space. That is less than the window space required for a hen, according to the Department of Agriculture.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have a solution to offer, and I am serious about this. We are not supposed to refer to the senate. I am not saying anything at all against the staff of the other place, except that they do not do one-tenth the work of the girls who have to work for the members of the House of Commons. Why cannot we take over some of the space used by the other staff? Before I came to Ottawa, I understood that parliament was supreme, that the members ran Canada, and if that is the case-


Mr. BROOKS:: You were very naive.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Maybe I was. I come from the far west where we are innocent, honest, young and pure.


James Sinclair: That is before we came east.


George Alexander Cruickshank: True. I can see no reason-I think hon. members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba will bear me out in this-why arrangements cannot be made to take over part of that space. If necessary, one of the committee rooms or some other room could be taken over and made available for the stenographic pool of the House of Commons. In most cases these girls are working long hours and, as the hon. member ^ for Kootenay West has said, under conditions which would not be permitted in British Columbia for a rooster, let alone a hen.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister or someone on the part of the government should make some comment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend knows, the government is not responsible for the administration of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We get that all the time. A private member is not permitted to make any motions involving the expenditure of money. How can we have this matter dealt with?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Make representations to the Speaker.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Could the Minister of Public Works say a word? Surely somebody is responsible for alloting space and seeing that proper conditions exist.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I have no authority over the allocation of space in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is
[Mr. Herridse.J
under the control of Mr. Speaker, but very often he consults with public works and a parliamentary committee as to changes to be made. All I can say is that I am ever ready to help in satisfying the requests made by members of the house and in cooperating with Mr. Speaker, if it is at all possible to meet the wishes of hon. members.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Again, in order
that the record may be straight, our Speaker is not to blame. He has no authority, as I understand it, over that other place which is standing vacant ninety per cent of the time. Somebody must have control over that. It is no use passing the buck to the Speaker because he has no authority over the senate, but somebody must be supreme in parliament and somebody should see that space is not left vacant over there when our staff has to work under conditions as they are at present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance said we would have to address our appeal to the Speaker. Is it in order for the Speaker to speak now' as the hon. member for St. Mary?


Mr. FAUTEUX:: With the permission of the house, I would say this, as I have been invited to take part in this debate. Naturally every member wishes to have an office to himself, and the Speaker knows how many members visit him in his office seeking better accommodation. That applies to all parties, but I would say to the house, as I have said to all visitors, that the Speaker can give only what he has. There is no doubt that we have not sufficient accommodation for the members in this House of Commons, not even for the ministers. The Speaker knows to how much trouble he went before the opening of the session to find accommodation to please every member.
I agree with hon. members who have criticized the quartern in which the stenographers are obliged to work just now. I believe that hon. members are right. But again it is impossible for the Speaker to provide better accommodation for these girls because we simply have not the accommodation. Hon. members may know that during last session it happened about a dozen times that a committee was supposed to meet and the chairmen of different committees standing around in the corridors of this House of Commons came to the Speaker to find accommodation because all the regular committee rooms were taken. So I would take this opportunity to call the attention of the minister concerned to the situation to see if it would not be possible to provide more accommodation for the need of members of the house.

Supply-Mines and Resources


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Speaker, before he sits down, a question having to do with another matter? Has any consideration been given by the Speaker or by the government to changing the hours of sitting of the House of Commons? I have a suggestion to make which is strictly personal and informal, since I have not discussed it with anybody except in an informal way. But I think consideration might be given to the House of Commons relegating its old tradition of sitting from three o'clock in the afternoon until eleven o'clock at night. The difficulties of the * staff of the house have been mentioned and no one has more sympathy with them than I have, but I think our own position should also be carefully studied. I suggest that we should sit from one o'clock to seven o'clock and then call it a day. In that way we would gain three hours on Wednesday. While my suggestion is purely a personal one, I think it would meet with a good deal of approval from the members generally and it would allow us to live more normal lives in this city. We cannot live an absolutely normal life as members of parliament, but it does seem to me that it is hardly fair to ask anybody to work until eleven o'clock at night, no matter how young or how old he may be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Dinner time is not such a good time to consider that.


Gordon Graydon: The minister looks pretty well fed. I trust that some consideration will be given by the government to that suggestion because I believe there is something in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I deeply appreciate Mr. Speaker's answering one of the questions I raised. Would he also indicate whether he or the government is giving consideration to the other two points I raised, first, a pension plan and, second, travelling expenses for the stenographers to Ottawa once a year.


Gaspard Fauteux: If the hon. member will read standing order 89 he will find that it says:
No allowance shall be made to any person in the employ of this house who may not reside at the seat of government, for travelling expenses in coming to attend his duties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rules can be changed. That is the answer to that. The other point was the pension plan.


Gaspard Fauteux: It is up to the house to change the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The circle is complete.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to say a word in this connection because I think the 83166-118i
Speaker sometimes had his fair share of criticism. Last year the hon. member for Vancouver North brought up the question of office accommodation, and I wish to give the Speaker credit for making the best possible use of the office accommodation he had at his disposal this year. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver North did not share in my delightful good fortune, but certainly the Speaker is entitled to credit for the effort he has put forth on behalf of all hon. members.


James Sinclair: Since my name has been mentioned and since I brought this matter up last year, while I did not have the good fortune of my hon. friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley of getting an office to myself, I think the Speaker has done more to satisfy members of parliament with the office space that was available than Speakers have done for some time past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Lands, parks and forests branch-
688. Government of the Northwest Territories [DOT]-Airports, roads, buildings and water systems -construction and improvements-buildings- further amount required, $27,400.
Mr. McCANN:: The explanation for the additional amount required is as follows: due to expanded mining activities in the Yellowknife mining district and administrative responsibilties in the Mackenzie district as a whole, it is necessary to provide increased living and office accommodation, also additional quarters and guardroom for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The construction of buildings was commenced in 1946 but difficulties in purchasing materials and transporting them to various posts prevented the buildings being completed in 1946.
In 1945, the sum of $140,000 was allocated from the war appropriation and subsequently voted as a supplementary estimate for the government of the northwest territories. These funds were made available to the Department of Public Works for dismantling American buildings and salvaging materials for the construction of new buildings. A considerable amount of materials, including over 1,000,000 f.b.m. lumber was salvaged from these buildings at Waterways, Alberta, and Fort Smith, northwest territories. The dismantling of these American buildings was continued in 1946. The sum of $375,700 was provided in the 1946-47 estimates for the construction of departmental buildings.
Supply-National Revenue

In 1946-47, the Department of Public Works carried the following building programme for this department:
(a)	continuation of the dismantling of buildings at Waterways and Fort Smith. The materials salvaged were bundled, labelled and shipped to Fort Smith, Yellowknife and other settlements for building purposes.
(b)	construction of administration building, three residences, and garage at Fort Smith.
(c)	construction of administration building, two double duplex apartment buildings and a new liquor store building at Yellowknife. The erection of several Dallas huts and igloos for living quarters and storage of materials at Yellowknife. The construction of wardens' houses and erection of prefabricated warehouses at Fort Resolution, Fort Simpson and Fort Norman. These buildings, although occupied, are not completely finished.
(d)	shipment of building materials to Akla-vik for the construction of a warden's residence next summer.
(e)	distribution of building materials to the Wood Buffalo Park for use by the park wardens in the construction of new dwellings.
The Department of Public Works, which is in charge of actual construction, has reported that this further amount is required to take care of obligations incurred during 1946-47. The cost of building in the Mackenzie district has been much greater than anyone anticipated, but it was necessary to proceed with the programme to house essential departmental activities due to rapidly increasing developments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
61)0. Ports, outports and preventive stations, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and temporary buildings and rentals-further amount required, $211,000.
Mr. HAZEN:: Did the customs officers who met at St. Stephen, New Brunswick, last summer make any representation to the Minister of National Revenue about their uniforms?


James Joseph McCann: I have no knowledge of any representation being made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
District offices-further amount required, $191,000.
George Hugh Castleden: I have a question to ask on this item which has to do with taxation. Farmers in western Canada who delivered grain in 1944 find that they are now taxed on

the grain which they delivered in that year, which has increased their income to the point where they become taxable, some of them rather heavily. The grain which they delivered in 1944 was grown in 1942 and 1943. Under the government quota system and regulations, they were not permitted to deliver grain at that time. When they delivered grain in 1944 it put them in an income tax bracket. Because of their desire to help win the war in 1944 and because they held back their grain in 1942 and 1943 they are being heavily penalized. There is an injustice there which the minister should look into and try to rectify. I do not find these people objecting to paying taxes when there is income taxable in a particular year, but when they are compelled to pay income tax on income earned on work which they did in 1942 and 1943 it is discrimination. Farmers in other parts of the community and other taxpayers in Canada are not taxed in 1944 on income earned in 1942 and 1943. What is happening is that the whole thing is lumped together in 1944 and tax is assessed on it. These people are being taxed on grain grown in 1942 and 1943 which was not marketed, nor did they receive any money for it until 1944. They were not allowed to deliver the grain which they had. Had they been allowed to deliver the grain, they would not have been taxable because they did not have taxable income. Government regulations prohibited them from getting money for their work in those years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was no space in which to put the grain.


George Hugh Castleden: That is right. They had to go to the extra expense of storing that grain on the farms and building granaries. Government regulations prevented them from delivering the grain. As a result, income rightly belonging to 1942 and 1943 was lumped together and put in 1944. It would be equivalent to members of parliament not being able to get their income for 1942 and 1943; then having the whole thing lumped together in 1944 and being charged income tax on that income for that year. I think there is an injustice there, but I shall not take up the time of the committee to discuss it any farther. I should like to have it looked into.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In this connection I should like to ask a question which has reference to a similar case. Some individuals in my province were unfortunate enough to invest in bonds of the province of Alberta. A certain government came into power and repudiated them and for years-

Supply-National Revenue


Mr. LOW:: They did not repudiate them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Wait a minute until I get through.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is stupid.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It may be stupid to you, but these are the facts. Certain farmers in my riding-I shall put it in this way for the benefit of the minister-purchased these bonds and they did not draw any interest on them for a number of years. When the province of Alberta reassumed their responsibility for the interest it was all paid in one year. One farmer had an income of $2,240. If he had been paid yearly, without repudiation or delay, as he should have been, he would have received $660 a year. I hope that is clear to my hon. friends across the way. It is absolutely shameful for any government in Canada to adopt such an attitude. They are responsible. Is it not possible to make provision for a case such as that I have outlined? If the interest which had accumulated had been spread over the years when it was due this farmer would not have been liable for taxation.


Solon Earl Low: I am sure the hon. member would like to be set right. In the first place, I think he is wrong in asserting that the interest was not paid. The interest was tendered and it was there for the bond holder who wished to take it.


James Sinclair: How much of the interest? The full interest?


Solon Earl Low: At a reduced rate; that is right. That does not say he could not get it if he wanted it.


James Sinclair: If he took it he was then committed not to ask for the rest.


Solon Earl Low: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not so. These excited gentlemen are the same gentlemen who perpetrated, a lot of injustices that they will not admit.


Solon Earl Low: Hon. members have said a lot of things that they do not want to have thrown in their faces.


James Sinclair: Start right now; we can start.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I ask hon.
members to address the Chair?


Solon Earl Low: I am trying to set the record straight. If these people had wanted to accept the interest which was tendered by the province there was nothing in the world to prevent them from participating in the benefits which were to be given to all holders of bonds.


James Sinclair: Benefits? Their rights.


Solon Earl Low: That is right; call it "rights" if you like. If they did not then accept the interest which was tendered and which piled up from year to year, I realize quite well that it did create a problem, and I am quite sure that the Minister of National Revenue should take it into consideration and adjust the whole income tax payment. I think the hon. member for Eraser Valley has raised a good point. I am not objecting to that at all. I simply want to set the matter straight.


John Thomas Hackett: It may take an amendment to the income tax act.


James Sinclair: I also have a couple of farmers in the same position who held some province of Alberta bonds. When the leader of the Social Credit party says they could have drawn their interest, may I say it was not interest in full. If they had taken that they would have committed themselves and they would never have got their full interest. To ask, as the hon. member for Peace River is suggesting, that the federal government should now bail out the province of Alberta's obligation is sheer nonsense.


Solon Earl Low: Of course it is sheer nonsense to say that I made such a suggestion. That is just about the size of the hon. member. Once more I want to set the record straight. Those people who held bonds were not committed. They were given an undertaking that any adjustment made in the future would apply to them. They knew that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In order to keep the record straight-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have allowed the discussion between the hon. member for Peace River and other hon. members, in regard to what took place in Al'berta, to go far enough.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But the hon. member for Peace River made an incorrect statement.


William Ross Macdonald: What was done by another government is not before this committee.
I gave all hon. members wide latitude, but now we should revert to the vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would call the attention of the minister to a few articles that have been published recently, the last of which will appear tomorrow, about the abolition of the income tax and its replacement by a one per cent tax on bank clearings, which amount to
Supply-Public Works

$85 billion. This would dispense with the necessity of taxpayers making any reports, which would be made by the banks. Would the minister be kind enough to study that question during the recess?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will do that with pleasure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a few words to say on this vote, and I am sure the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews) will support me. I refer to the question of the location of these district offices. When the committee were appointed to investigate the question they suggested that one office should be maintained in the southern part of British Columbia, Naturally the Okanagan district requires an office. I say emphatically that the people of southeastern British Columbia are dissatisfied with the present situation, and 1 suggest that an office should be established at a central point so as to serve both districts. Here we have a district in the Kootenays producing nearly $100,000,000 worth of industrial and agricultural products and this government does not take steps to establish a district office in that area. The office in Kelowna is of little advantage to us. I wanted to say these few words in order to express the attitude of the great majority of the people I represent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
648. Departmental administration - further amount required, $4,000.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Possibly I shall be called to order, but on the offchanee that I shall not be I wish to say a word in connection with the trouble which the public works department and other people as well are having in British Columbia, and particularly in the Fraser valley, through not being able to secure nails.


William Ross Macdonald: The vote under consideration is No. 648, public works.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I am discussing the fact that public works cannot get nails in British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait until your vote comes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Listen; one chairman is enough.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member is discussing public works he is in order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Public works and other projects are held up in British Columbia because nails are not available. I understood the minister to say in this house that a large
fMr. Pouliot.]
supply of nails was now available, or that more nails were being made available. My information from British Columbia today is- and I believe that other members have received the same information-that nails are not available. In British Columbia, even with our wonderful climate, we are not going to use aluminum nails all the time when other nails are kept in eastern Canada and the maritimes.
I should like the minister to explain why these nails are not available, in view of the statement he made the other day.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to support what the hon. member for Fraser Valley has said. In my constituency there is a community of ten thousand people, who have had only fifteen kegs of nails in the last month, and we have used more in chicken coops than that.


James Sinclair: I may say that the Minister of Public Works has been generous to my district, but the engineer cannot build wharves because he cannot get spikes. I suggest that the minister raise the matter with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply so as to make sure that the Department of Public Works will get sufficient nails for the projects that have been appropriated to ridings including mine.


John Lambert Gibson: In my riding, in Campbell River, there is a project that will not require nails. It is a complete rock breakwater and is one of the projects that will not call for nails.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I was glad to see the Speaker rise in his place today and speak briefly and to the point all the time. The question I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works is whether he has found all that furniture that we were trying to find out about last year.. Perhaps he will take this as notice of a question and answer later.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to call attention to the fact that Canadian Pacific railway officials in Kootenay West have informed boards of trade that they are unable to carry on the present restricted boat service because of the presence of sandbars. Dredging can be done only at low water in the narrows at Arrow lakes and the dredges have been held up for some time because of lack of funds.


Alphonse Fournier: I will look into that phase of my estimates, but I have not the data on the dredging of Arrow lakes. When the ordinary estimates come up I shall have the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-R.C.M.P.
Chief architect's branch-construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Nova Scotia-
651. Brooklyn-postal accommodation, $4,500.
James Sinclair: I do not want to be critical of the extra appropriation for postal accommodation in Nova Scotia, but I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that the Post Office Department in British Columbia says that there is no place in greater need of proper postal accommodation than North Vancouver.


Mr. WINTERS:: And there is no place in greater need than Brooklyn, Queens county, Nova Scotia.


Douglas King Hazen: What does this item mean, postal accommodation?


Alphonse Fournier: We tried to find space all through the war and even expropriated part of a restaurant, and now we are trying to put up temporary accommodation to have the postal service operated.


Thomas John Bentley: I want to remind the minister that we are very short of post office space in Swift Current. We shall have a big crop this year and a lot of mail. There will be a good deal of money coming to the Department of National Revenue in income tax, and I would ask that we be given enlarged space.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We want post office accommodation, but sites are hard to get in the Fraser valley owing to the inrush of people from Saskatchewan. We are prepared in the Fraser valley to finance the undertaking. We will advance the money to buy sites if the minister will take them over whenever he gets the money. There is no other riding that will make that offer. I would ask for consideration therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
663. To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty-further amount required, $240.
Mr. PROBE:: Last session I asked the Minister of Justice if he would reconsider the present attitude taken by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the payment of marriage allowances for those members of the force who enlisted for overseas service but who did not enlist with No. 1 provost company which was the body in the service to which they were directed at the time of enlistment. To my current knowledge, nothing has been done on
this matter. I believe that the federal government is setting an improper example to the Canadian people generally with respect to the reemployment of veterans without disadvantage to the veterans themselves. I have great sympathy for those young men who enlisted because they felt they could be more useful to their country on the field of battle than by doing the usual police duties, and the fact that they married during that period I do not think should serve as a restriction on their rights to be considered as married men for the purpose of receiving marriage allowances. The Minister of Justice is not in his seat at the moment, so I am just talking for the record, but I hope that this matter does come up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe another minister would make a statement.


John Oliver Probe: I do not know whether another minister would reply or not. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who occupied this portfolio last year, care to comment on that matter briefly?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I think it will be preferable for the right lion, gentleman now occupying the office of Minister of Justice to tell the committee what the intentions in that regard are at the present time. Up to the time I left the department it was felt that it would be detrimental to the discipline of the force.


John Oliver Probe: That is all poppycock.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It may be poppycock, but that was the decision which had been made. If the present minister is prepared to make a decision that wall not be regarded as poppycock, he had better have the privilege of announcing it himself.


John Oliver Probe: Without any personal aspersion on the minister, may I ask that this item just stand?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing this matter on the main estimates.


John Oliver Probe: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian government travel bureau-
670. To assist in promoting tourist business in Canada-further amount required, $175,000.
John Thomas Hackett: I should like some
information as to the nature of the assistance. Is it advertising?
Supply


James Joseph McCann: This amount of $175,000 is for advertising and publicity. It is to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, and the further amount required is as stated.


John Thomas Hackett: It is all for advertising?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. There is a reason for it, though, which we can give.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Give it,


James Joseph McCann: Canada is in competition with many states of the union in the tourist trade, and it is essential that Canadian tourist attractions and conditions be brought to the attention of the travelling public of the United States.
It has been deemed advisable to place a considerable amount of advertising in United States papers. It is difficult to obtain advertising space in United States magazines at the present time, and reservations for space must be made at a very early date. United States publications are in the happy position of being able to insist upon cash with the order at least two months before the date of publication. While, therefore, provision has been made for this amount of $175,000 in the 1947-48 estimates, it will be necessary to pay these accounts before the end of the present fiscal year.
There would ordinarily be a decrease of this amount in 1947-48, but it will be necessary to provide for it again.


John Thomas Hackett: To advance it?


James Joseph McCann: To advance it to meet these commitments.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: May I ask if this sum of money is being spent in cooperation with the provinces? I understand that most of the provinces have publicity departments of their own. Is the minister working through the publicity departments of the provinces, or is he working independently of them?


James Joseph McCann: My understanding is that the provinces have tourist bureaux and tourist departments of their own. The federal tourist bureau works in close cooperation with the provincial tourist publicity departments, and the provinces reap the benefit of the expenditure which is made by the federal authorities.


John Horne Blackmore: That is as it should be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEMOBILIZATION AND RECONVERSION Finance-
686. Advances to Canadian wheat board for payments to millers and other manufacturers of wheat products-further amount required, $8,000,000.
fMr. Hackett.]
George Hugh Castleden: Can I get a statement as to how this $8,000,000 is recoverable? We just passed a $10,000,000 item of the wartime prices and trade board. What does this $8,000,000 refer to?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give that information in a moment.


George Hugh Castleden: How is it recoverable? Can the minister give us the same information for the item on the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The committee is no doubt familiar with the system by which millers receive payments equal to the difference between 77g cents a bushel and prevailing domestic prices in respect of wheat used in products sold under the price ceiling. Payments are made by the Department of Finance through the Canadian wheat board, and any payments that would contribute to excess profits are required to be refunded.
This additional $8,000,000 is required for three reasons: (1) payments which were not claimed in the last fiscal year have come forward in the present fiscal year and have increased the amount beyond expectations;
(2)	domestic sales of flour have increased somewhat; and (3) most important of all, the domestic price of wheat was advanced recently from $1.25 to $1.55, thus substantially increasing the rate of drawback.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational training
[Stage Direction]
688. Vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces, including undischarged commitments of previous years-further amount required, $750,000.
John Oliver Probe: Will the Minister of Labour indicate whether or not this is straight training cost which is being asked for, or whether it includes capital equipment?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is just straight training costs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment insurance commission-
690. General labour transference to industries and agriculture-further amount required, $100,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Some time ago there were reports on the radio and other information, on the basis of which I asked the minister a question, that some of these former members of the Polish forces were holding meetings and asking to be released from their agreement to work on farms for two years. At that time Mr. MacNamara had officials attend some of these meetings, but I have not heard of a report. Is the minister in a posi-

Supply Bill
tion to make a statement to the committee with regard to how many of these men have left the farms, and is it the intention of the Canadian government to see that those who leave the farms are returned to the country of their origin?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can give the answer in two words. I do not know of a movement of men which has been more successful than the movement of these Polish veterans to Canada. We did have some trouble with two or three around the city of London, but that has all been straightened out. Personally I have received but one letter of complaint.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport-
692. To provide for facilities and operations under the administration of the director of mpr-chant seamen, and to authorize payment to the unemployment insurance fund of contributions to cover certain merchant seamen entitled to the benefit of part IV of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1946, under regulations approved by the governor in council and as provided in item 620 of the main estimates-further amount required, $1.
John Lambert Gibson: 'Will the Minister of Transport endeavour to keep before the civil service commission the necessity for some addition to the wages of lifeboat crews on the Pacific coast? I believe he has that under advisement now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport-General-National harbours board-
69//. Halifax harbour-reconstruction of immigration quarters in shed 21-further amount required, $3,000.
Gordon Graydon: Is the weather down there sufficiently warm now that construction can be proceeded with?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand that they have had an early spring.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain 83166-119
expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1947, the sum of $55,839,512.54 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Shall I be in order now to speak on some general matters?


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member may speak on the resolution, but his remarks must be confined to the terms of the resolution.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to refer to a matter coming under the Department of Agriculture.


William Ross Macdonald: This money already has been voted, and the committee is dealing with the ways and means of raising the money, not ways of spending it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 108, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1947.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the second reading of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: Before we give the bill second reading, may I ask for the same undertaking that was given in connection with the previous bill?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; it is in the same form as the earlier appropriation bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to say a few words in connection with the payment of subsidies on oats and barley. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture has left the chamber, but I am sure the acting leader of the government will relay to him what I have to say and the advice I have to give. My information from the province of British Columbia today is that the farmer gains very little by the subsidy which has been granted on oats and barley because the feed companies in British Columbia, working under what I honestly believe to be a monopoly, have raised their prices to such an extent. As a result, the egg producers will have to produce eggs at a loss unless some action is taken by this government to increase the subsidies, either through the Department of Agriculture or under the omnibus bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.

Royal Assent


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, it is not carried yet. I supported the government on the omnibus bill the other day, but on Monday I am going to say something about the control bill. If there is to be a control bill it must be made to work; otherwise it should be withdrawn entirely. I want to make sure this matter is brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. The subsidies have been of little benefit to the egg producers of British Columbia; and unless some action is taken, I definitely intend to deal with the matter under the control measure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I have received letters from my part of the country expressing the same view.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
James Horace King: It can be taken to be six o'clock now, so I leave the chair, and the house will resume its sittings at eight-thirty o'clock this evening. Since the house will have to go to the senate for royal assent, I would ask that there 'be at least twenty members in order to have a quorum.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the government that they protect us in this respect?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will do our best.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will pair with you right now.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at 8.30 p.m.


ROYAL ASSENT
James Horace King: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 28, 1917.
Sir:	I have the honour to inform you that
the Hon. Patrick Kerwin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber this day at 8.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain hills.

I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, D.S.O., Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Department of National Defence Act.	.
An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
An Act to amend the Feeding Stuffs Act, 1937.
An Act to amend the Fertilizers Act.
An Act respecting Supplemental Payments on Rural and Land Mail Contracts.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1947.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1948.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at nine o'clock.
Monday, March 31, 1947