1948-05-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I note that today marks the anniversary of the birth of my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him, to tell him how much I have appreciated his friendship and' association, and to wish for him many more happy anniversaries.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: May I thank my leader in particular, and the house in general, for their kind felicitations.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, May 14, 1948.
Sir:	I have the honour to inform you that
the Right Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber on Friday, May 14, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



HEALTH SERVICES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house on government policy with respect to health services and health insurance.
From time to time, there have been inquiries in this house and outside as to when the government intends to proceed to implement the specific proposals placed before the dominion-provincial conference in 1945 for the development, by stages, of a nation-wide health program leading up to and ultimately including
health insurance. I am now in a position to give hon. members the desired information. I wish, however, in so doing, to place the health program in its proper perspective in relation to the government's larger and basic aim of securing for the people of Canada a national minimum of social security and human welfare.
Before the outbreak of war in 1939 considerable progress in social legislation had been made in Canada. A substantial measure of social security had been provided by the dominion through the creation of the Department of Labour and other federal labour legislation, and through the establishment of annuities, of pensions for the aged and the blind and for disabled veterans and veterans' dependents; and by the provinces through provincial departments of labour and labour legislation including workmen's compensation and through enactments related to widows' and mothers' allowances, maternity benefits, child welfare, sickness and hospitalization.
In all this, there had, however, been relatively little co-ordination of social security measures and no approach to a nation-wide plan. Even before the war it had become increasingly apparent that if there were to be an avoidance of conflict between the provinces and the Dominion on questions of jurisdiction, and unnecessary duplication of social services with consequent waste of public money, what was required was a comprehensive scheme of social insurance which, by satisfactorily combining provincial and federal services, would constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada.
Since the outbreak of war, there has been a tremendous advance in social security legislation. Far-reaching measures such as unemployment insurance, family allowances, floors under farm and fish prices, increase of pensions and allowances for the aged, the blind, the war veterans and their dependents, have been enacted in the federal fields, while legislation, varying greatly in degree and kind, respecting health services and hospitalization, maternity benefits, and the like has been enacted by the provinces. Notwithstanding this great advance in social services, little advance has been made towards an integration of federal and provincial activities which would combine existing social insurance measures and health services in
Health Services

a comprehensive constructive, efficient and effective nation-wide plan.
The government's policy of bringing into being a comprehensive scheme of social insurance which would co-ordinate provincial and federal activities, and which would include the establishment of a nation-wide system of health insurance was set out specifically in the speech from the throne at the opening of the session of January, 1943. A select committee of this house was thereafter appointed to examine and report upon the most practicable measures to give effect to the policy.
In the course of the general election campaign of 1945, after enumerating some of the social legislation already enacted, I stated that the government's program looked beyond these achievements to the early establishment of other great social measures. I said specifically: "The government is prepared to support a national scheme of contributory old age pensions on a basis more generous than that of the existing pensions. The government also believes that a substantial improvement in national health could be achieved through dominion-provincial co-operation. We have accordingly pledged ourselves to support a measure for federal assistance in a nation-wide system of health insurance, to include assistance to the provinces for preventive medicine. If the present government is returned to office, we shall proceed with these measures as soon as agreements with the provinces can be concluded."
Specific proposals regarding contributory old-age pensions and a nation-wide system of health insurance were made to the provinces at a conference which met in August, 1945, within two months after elections. As hon. members know, it has unfortunately thus far not proved possible to secure agreement with all the provinces.
The government has reached the conclusion that lack of agreement with certain provinces should no longer be allowed to stand in the way of a further immediate advance in the field of public health. We have accordingly decided to proceed with a substantial health program at the present session.
An important feature of the government's health program of August, 1945, was the proposal of a planning and organization grant to the provinces. This grant was designed to assist the provinces in developing their planning and organization for the improvement of existing health services, for the development of new programs that might be needed, and for the detailed planning of hospital and medical care insurance.
In addition to the planning and organization grant, the government also proposed a series
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
of grants for the development and improvement of existing provincial health services. Grants were to be made available for the following purposes:
(a)	General public health services. .
(b)	Tuberculosis control.
(c)	Mental health care.
(d)	Venereal disease control.
(e)	Prevention and control of crippling conditions in children.
(f)	Blindness prevention and control.
(g)	Professional training.
(h)	Public health research.
In addition to these proposed health service grants, the government offered, in the 1945 proposals, to make financial assistance available 'through low-interest loans for the construction of needed hospitals throughout the country.
All these grants were regarded as essential steps in the development of adequate health services for the people of Canada, regardless of whether or not health insurance was eventually to be introduced. It was 'recognized, however, that the proposed grants would have the added advantage of being fundamental prerequisites of a nation-wide system of health insurance.
Although the introduction of these health grants was postponed, in 1946, the Department of National Health and Welfare has continued to give constant attention to the planning of health services. Studies have been carried out by the division of the health insurance studies which was established in 1945 to lay plans for the eventual introduction of health insurance. The research division of the department has also been actively engaged in this field. From time to time, specialists of outstanding ability have been asked to undertake more specific assignments. As a result of the subsequent research, certain modifications have been made, in the 1945 proposals.
I come now to the announcement of the health measures which it is proposed to take at the present session of parliament. These measures also represent first stages in the development of a comprehensive health insurance plan for all Canada. Parliament will be asked in the supplementary estimates to m-ake the necessary provision for the proposed health program.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare plans to arrange an early meeting with the appropriate technical officers of the various provincial health departments and the Dominion Council of Health to work out with
Health Services
them the detailed arrangements of the proposed health grants, and, in particular, the conditions to be attached to their adminstra-tion.
The specific proposals are as follows:
Health survey grant. The government proposes to make available immediately to all the provinces a health survey grant replacing the health and planning organization grant of $625,000 on the basis outlined to the provinces in August, 1945, as amended by the statement I made when the conference reconvened in November of the same year. The amendment was to the effect that the grants were not to be conditional upon the provinces undertaking to enter a health insurance plan.
The non-recurring grant of $625,000 is to be divided as follows: There will be a flat grant of $5,000 to each province; the balance is to be divided between the provinces on the basis of population, with the proviso that in no case shall the provincial grant amount to less than $15,000.
The purpose of this grant is to assist the provinces in setting up the machinery which will be necessary to ensure the most effective use of the other health grants now being proposed, and in planning the extension of hospital accommodation, and the proper organization of hospital and medical care insurance. Adequate safeguards will of course be provided to ensure that the provinces report in an approved manner on the expenditure of the funds and on the results of the studies undertaken.
Health grants. For the following specific purposes, annual grants will be made available to all the provinces along the lines of the proposals first outlined in August, 1945, and later amended.
1.	General public health. A grant of 35 cents per capita is proposed for the purpose of strengthening the general public health services in those areas where the provincial authorities themselves most keenly recognize the need. In succeeding years the grant will increase by 5 cents per capita, and will finally reach a peak at a rate of 50 cents per capita. These public health grants will continue from year to year, with the initial commitment amounting to approximately $4,404,000 for a full year. In order to qualify for the grants, the provinces will of course be required to maintain at least their present level of expenditures in this field. This same safeguard will be attached to all the other grants it is proposed to make.
2.	Tuberculosis control. To permit an accelerated and intensified effort directed towards the eradication of tuberculosis in Canada, the dominion government will ask parliament to make available to the provinces an annual grant beginning at $3 million and rising over a period of years to $4 million annually. The details of this grant, including the allocation of funds between the provinces, will be on the basis recommended at the time of the 1945-46 conference. The purpose of the grant will be to assist the provinces in the drive which they will now be expected to make to obtain control over tuberculosis, and to extend progressively the areas of free treatment to the maximum possible extent.
3.	Mental health care. Parliament will be asked to make provision for a similar grant to the provinces for similar purposes for mental health care amounting initially to $4 million per annum and rising over a period of years to a maximum of $7 million per annum. The seriousness of the problem of mental illness can best be illustrated by reference to the fact that between one-third and one-half of all the hospital beds in Canada today are occupied by patients suffering from mental illness.
4.	Venereal disease control. In accordance with the proposals made in August, 1945, the dominion government proposes to ask parliament to make available an amount of $500,000 annually to assist the provinces in extending and intensifying their present efforts in the control of venereal disease. Since the grants currently being made to the provinces for venereal disease control amount to $225,000 annually, the net increase under this heading will be $275,000 annually. The terms and conditions attaching to the use of this grant will be similar to those outlined in August, 1945.
5.	Crippled children's grant. Very few of the provinces have at the present time an adequately developed program for the prevention, control and treatment of crippling conditions in children. To assist the provinces in the establishment of a program in this field, and in the development of a rehabilitation and training program for crippled children, the government is proposing to ask parliament to make available the sum of $500,000 annually, to be divided on a per capita basis between the various provinces.
6.	Professional training. In order to meet the need for larger numbers of professional personnel in the public health and related health fields, the dominion government will seek appropriations to make available to the provinces an amount of $500,000 annually. It will be noted that this is twice the amount
Health Services

originally suggested in the 1945 proposals. The purpose of this grant will be to assist in making available the public health personnel which will be required in the development of an enlarged public health program in all fields. The grant will also be available to assist in developing and training the personnel required for the operation of constantly expanding hospital services.
7.	Public health research. The dominion government will ask parliament to make available to the provinces, as originally suggested in the 1945 proposals, grants for the stimulation and development of public health research. It is considered, however, that a larger amount of money than was originally proposed is justified by the expanding requirements of the field. Consequently, though the grant will be $100,000 for the first year, as originally proposed, it will thereafter be increased by $100,000 annually until $500,000 is reached. This grant is an indication of the importance the government attaches to the development of a progressive health program.
8.	Control of cancer. In addition to the grants which were originally outlined in the 1945 proposals, the dominion government is now proposing an annual grant to the provinces amounting to a maximum of $3,500,000 to assist in the development and provision of the most active possible diagnostic and treatment services for the control of the dread scourge of cancer.
First steps in the development of a plan of active control were taken a year ago in the establishment of the National Cancer Insti- ' tute, the function of which is to stimulate the development of an intensive research program in the cancer field. But research alone is not enough. More cancer clinics, more diagnostic and treatment centres are needed, if this dreadful malady is to be brought under control. The dominion government proposes to share with the provinces, on a fifty-fifty basis, the costs of any approved program for the control or treatment of cancer which the provinces may undertake. The grant will be divided on a per capita basis between the provinces.
Hon. members will note that the grants which I have thus far mentioned, with the exception of the cancer grant, correspond fairly closely with the original proposals made by the government to the provinces in August, 1945.
Hospital Construction. Before health insurance can be established on an adequate basis, another development is essential. At the present time there is a tremendous shortage of hospital beds in Canada. If, as the first stage in health insurance, hospital insurance were

now to be introduced on a contributory basis, the demand that would arise for hospital accommodation simply could not be met. This situation was recognized in August, 1945, when the dominion government offered to make available low-interest loans to assist the provinces in increasing hospital accommodation. Since 1945 the situation has not improved. The shortage still remains, amounting now to an estimated 60,000 beds of all kinds.
It is felt that the provision of low-interest loans would not at this time be a sufficient inducement to hospital construction on the scale required. Consequently, the government will seek an appropriation for outright grants towards the construction of additional hospital accommodation. These grants will amount to $1,000 per bed for active treatment beds and $1,500 per bed for chronic or convalescent beds. Analysis of the figures relating to existing shortages clearly demonstrates that the shortage of chronic or convalescent beds in Canada is most acute. As a result of this shortage, our hospitals are congested to an unreasonable degree with persons not requiring active hospital care, but perfectly capable of being treated in chronic or convalescent beds. By placing a premium on the provision for chronic or convalescent beds, which are cheaper to provide and cheaper to maintain, the congestion in active treatment units should be considerably reduced.
The proposed hospital construction grants represent, of course, only a portion of the total costs of hospital construction. The balance will have to be met by provincial grants and by local funds from other sources. One condition which it is proposed to attach to hospital construction grants is that the province shall match the dominion contribution or better it, and that the dominion contribution shall not in any case exceed one-third of the total cost per bed in any project.
The government hopes that the provinces and local communities will take the fullest possible advantage of these grants, in order that, with the least possible delay, the deficiency which now exists in hospital accommodation may be overcome. The government accordingly is prepared to recommend the appropriation throughout the next five years of the substantial sum of $13 million annually for hospital construction grants.
If the hospital construction grants are fully utilized, they will make possible provision for over 40,000 additional hospital beds in Canada. At the end of the first five-year period, the situation should be reviewed. If the hopes and expectations for the first five years are fulfilled, it is estimated that, for the sue-

Health Services
ceeding five-year period, it should be possible to reduce the annual commitment for hospital construction by approximately half.
It is estimated that the expenditure for the entire health program of which I have just given particulars, will require an appropriation by parliament over the next five years of some $30 million a year.
No doubt it will seem to hon. members that in presenting this health program to parliament the government is pursuing a policy which over the years will involve the expenditure of considerable sums of money. That is apparent. But what these expenditures may mean in the preservation of health, in the saving of human life, to say nothing of the lessening of human suffering and misery and not infrequently despair, is beyond calculation.
In commending the acceptance of this program to hon. members, I should like to remind them of the emphasis which, in the interest of the nation, all parliaments, over the years, have placed upon the conservation of the country's natural resources, and rightly so. A country depleted of its natural resources soon becomes a wilderness, a waste. But of all a nation's resources, its human resources are unquestionably the most precious. The preservation in health and strength of its population is surely the best of all guarantees of a nation's power, of its progress and of its prosperity. Our greatest national asset is the health and well-being of our people.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, you have permitted the Prime Minister, in the middle of the session, to come forward with a statement of new policy. I presume you will give some of us on this side an opportunity to make brief observations with respect to what he has had to say.
I am sure the house has listened with interest to what the Prime Minister has said about certain aspects of the social security program. I am sure, too, that members have welcomed many parts of the proposal. I have no doubt that all are glad to see that at last the government has been forced by public opinion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Bracken: I am sure the people will be glad to see that the government has been forced by public opinion to come forward with a better balanced program than the piecemeal type of program to which they have gradually added from time to time in the past.
Obviously we cannot discuss the details of this new program now. This is the first we have heard of it, However, in regard to one of the features of it, particularly, I wish to 5849-250
compliment the Prime Minister. I refer to the financial aid which the government proposes to give in the construction of hospitals. I think that is one of the weakest links in our present social security program.
Judging from what the Prime Minister has had to say, I gather that he must have been reading the social security program which was approved and passed at the last annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative party, because many aspects of the program announced today are in exact conformity with what was passed about a month ago by that convention.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Almost word for word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Bracken: I am interested to know that what I am saying has the approval of so many hon. members opposite. This party has long urged a more comprehensive social security program than we now have. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) has several times advanced the very proposal that the Prime Minister brought forward with respect to hospitalization.
Since the Prime Minister has been permitted to read this new statement of policy, I think I ought to be allowed to read the skeleton statement of policy approved by our party a month ago and announced at that time.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: It will still be a skeleton.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, we listened with some interest and with order to what the Prime Minister had to say and I ask only the same concession for myself.
I said that our party has long urged a comprehensive social security program based on two things:	more generous financial
assistance by the dominion, and administration by the provinces. I will ask the privilege only of reading what I had to say in my address to our annual convention, and then the resolution that was passed at that time respecting the very matters the Prime Minister has raised today. This is what I had to say on April 20:
We will implement a social security program that will provide against the hazards of health and accident, as well as sickness and unemployment. We will provide old age pensions at an earlier age and on a more generous scale. We will carry out these policies, not alone by government grants as at present-we will supplement them by a contributory system to which all wall make a small payment in their earning years, thus making possible a real pension on a higher basis in the place of the present "means test" gratuity basis on which it is now paid.
Health Services

Following that address and the discussions which ensued the following statement of policy was agreed upon:
The Progressive Conservative party proposes a contributory "four-in-one" social security program available to every Canadian irrespective of occupation to provide the following benefits:
(1) Retirement pensions at age sixty-five without the means test; (2) Accident and sickness benefits; (3) Health insurance; (4) Extended unemployment insurance benefits.
Under this program citizens will by contributions made during their working years be enabled to provide protection against the hazards of sickness, accident and unemployment and be enabled to retire in decency and comfort at age sixty-five.
It is intended that this "four-in-one" social security program w'ill be established in collaboration with and be administered by the provinces.
Enabling legislation will be enacted with permissive power to the provinces to adopt the plan, thus avoiding the necessity of constitutional amendments or an immediate over-all dominion-provincial agreement.
Until the contributory plan becomes fully operative the dominion will pay at least 75 per cent of a retirement pension of $40 per month.
Family allowances on a uniform basis, regardless of the number of children in the family.
In co-operation with the provinces a national health program will be established including promotion of improved nutritional standards and effective preventive health services to assist research and control of cancer, arthritis and other diseases and to provide assistance for the construction of hospitals, health and recreational centres.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we have had no opportunity to study the details of the program announced today by the Prime Minister, proposals that have been advanced to us without previous notice, and therefore without opportunity for debate. However, we shall study these proposals to see whether they provide a sufficiently wide social security program and to see whether the means of implementing that program are of a practical and effective character.
There are one or two questions I should like to direct to the Prime Minister, if he is in a position to answer them today. The first one is this. If this legislation is ready, why was it not announced in the speech from the throne? That is what the speech is for. It gives an opportunity for the announcement of public policy. When a policy is announced in that speech, the house is given an opportunity to discuss it. But now in the middle of the session a new program is brought forward.
The next question is this. Has the Prime Minister consulted any or all of the prov-

inces with respect to this program? If so, what indication has he had from it or them as to its acceptance?
I have one other observation to make before I sit down. In his opening remarks the Prime Minister referred to a statement of policy announced in 1945 with respect to social security, a program which he and others said at that time and since was to be dependent upon approval by all the provinces. Now he comes forward and says, "We have not the approval of all the provinces, but we are going forward without that approval."
I just wish to add this. Anything which the government is doing today, could have been done long before this time; this requirement of having the approval of all the provinces has been but an excuse for delay. The evidence of it is in the very announcement we have had today from the Prime Minister.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: The announcement made this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), has taken the house by surprise, for the reason given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bracken), namely, that no announcement of this proposal was made in the speech from the throne; therefore it was unexpected. But while it is a surprise, it is none the less welcome. The view that has always been taken by the party with which I am associated' is that no matter what government is in power, if it brings down legislation which will lay the foundations of a proper social security system, in this country, we welcome it.
I regard the announcement made this afternoon by the Liberal party, through its leader, as but a beginning or foundation, of a more adequate national social security plan. My hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party tell us what they might have done under their program adopted a month ago. But I care not what government is in power; as long as' they bring down legislation that will be helpful to the people, we shall welcome it and support it.
I believe, of course, that this legislation has been popularized to a large extent because four years ago, the people of my own province elected a C.C.F. government. In that province there has been brought into existence the widest plan of health insurance that exists in this country. We welcome the Prime Minister's proposal to assist in the building of hospitals. In my own province the provision of hospital beds has presented difficulties. During the past four years the number of beds has been practically doubled, and still the accommodation is inadequate.
Health Services
One thing that struck me in connection with the research proposals suggested by the government was that the amount worked out-I made a rough calculation when the Prime Minister gave the figure-to about one cent per head of the population of the country. Many of the amounts mentioned this afternoon seemed to me to be pitifully small. We welcome the proposals, however, as the beginning of a program of health insurance and other social security measures for our people.
I want to express approval particularly of the assistance that is to be given in the fight against cancer and tuberculosis, for assistance to crippled children and for treatment of the mentally ill. Those are worthwhile proposals.
It is fortunate that we live in a democracy where from time to time there are by-elections and provincial elections. I have noticed that, for some uncanny reason, exceedingly interesting proposals are often made just about the time these events occur. Of course, I am not suggesting for a moment that any such event provided the occasion for the announcement which was made this afternoon. As a matter of fact, in preparing to take some part in these by-elections I have been reading the pronouncements of the Liberal party, beginning with 1919, on this very subject. While today's announcements may interfere with some of the speeches I thought of making, I am glad indeed that the Prime Minister, before he retires from the high office which he has indicated: he is to relinquish within a short time, has placed before the House of Commons these proposals looking to measures of health insurance and social security which were foreshadowed when he was elected leader of the Liberal party in 1919.


Mr. ROWE:: Thirty years ago.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We have had to wait a long time, but I hope that the foundations now being laid will be regarded merely as such, and that, whoever succeeds the Prime Minister in the high office he now' occupies-no matter from which quarter of the house his successor may come within the next two or three years -will build upon those foundations a great structure of social security and health insurance for the people of Canada.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me a moment or two in which to comment on the important announcement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has just made.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister could leave a better monument to the long years of service he has given to this country as leader of the Liberal party than the foundations of a progressive health security program. I listened with close attention to the announcement he made, and I certainly want to congratulate the government on the step they have taken.
About the only other thing that, might have been done to go along with this program- bringing it down to a simple phrase-would be to extend it just a little further. However, Mr. Speaker, we look upon it as an important step forward. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I should like to see more elections in this country!
We approve heartily the principle of grants to the provinces. Since 1936 Alberta has pioneered and been in the forefront in health security measures, and on that point I take issue with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Our province has certainly led the way; and I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will agree that Alberta now is in a splendid position to make full use of the grants announced this afternoon.


An hon. MEMBER:: What do they do with their babies?


Mr. LOW:: That remark is just about as small as some people can get. We take care of our babies, and that is something some other provinces do not do. We see that they are put in decent homes, where they can grow up to be useful citizens.


Mr. MANROSS:: Your babies grow up; some of the other fellows' do not.


Solon Earl Low: We were particularly pleased this afternoon to see the government take some action against these scourges of the human race which, if they are allowed to run their course, are likely to impoverish whole families-tuberculosis, cancer and similar diseases. This is a splendid start in that direction.
We look upon this proposal only as a step forward, and I am sure that is what the Prime Minister had in mind-that it would be the foundation for a program of health security which I hope in the years to come will grow into the much more comprehensive scheme the Prime Minister must have envisioned.
While I congratulate the government. I should like opportunity to study the details before making any further comment on this proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say a word as to the statement I have just made. It was not intended to be other than
5849-250J
Health Services

what I said it would be, a statement of government policy on health services and health insurance. It was not anticipated that a debate would arise at this time. The fact that the . statement of government policy has been made in such complete form will enable hon. members to see the health program as a whole, so that when the house is asked to appropriate the moneys necessary for the different health services, and for hospital construction, hon. members will have the complete list of the proposed services and an estimate of the entire expenditure involved. No one is being deprived of an opportunity of debating this program, because every dollar necessary to carry it into effect will have to be voted by parliament, and all the appropriations required will appear in the supplementary estimates which will be presented to the house. There will be- full opportunity to debate all relevant matters on those estimates; I wish to make that very clear.
I had no desire to seek in any way to score over any of the parties in this house by making this statement of government policy this afternoon. It has been requested off and on throughout the session, and it has been promised off and on throughout the session.
Mr, COLDWELL: Throughout the years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say at once, speaking in a general way, how pleased I am with the manner in which the program has been accepted by all parties opposite as well as by hon. members on this side. I believe that circumstance in itself will give great satisfaction to the people of Canada. After all it would be strange indeed, with the knowledge we all have of human lives and the problems of individual homes, if all of us were not deeply concerned in these questions which affect human welfare and human well-being. It is no surprise, therefore, that hon. members should have expressed, to the extent they have, approval of this program. I am indeed happy to see the unanimity of feeling there appears to be on the part of hon. members in favour of our doing what can be done by parliament, in the light of our knowledge of conditions, to bring into being in this country an effective nation-wide program of social security and health insurance.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked why we did not have this particular program set out in the speech from the throne. First may I say that if the hon. gentleman looks over the various speeches from the throne from 1913 up to the present he will see in each some reference to some measure of social insurance, either on the surface or to be read between the lines which

has since found its place in today's pronouncement. However I shall be perfectly frank with my hon. friend. While the speech from the throne is intended to give hon. members a lead with regard to questions which it is intended to bring before the house during the session, the speech need not necessarily include mention of all measures to be brought down. The speech itself is a formal procedure which affords to parliament the beginning of its consideration of the affairs of the session. It usually makes mention of the principal measures, but is not intended necessarily to include all the measures. As long as parliament is in session, there is opportunity for the government to bring in new measures if it so desires.
There probably would have been special mention of this program had it not been for a reason which I am sure hon. members will recall. The house was called into session much sooner than had been anticipated when we prorogued. The house met early in December because of certain emergent measures which had required very close and careful consideration on the part of the government before the session opened. In addition, as hon. members will recall, for some weeks previous, I was necessarily absent from Canada almost up to the day the house met. For these reasons it was thought desirable that we should not seek to place before the house, without very great care being given its presentation, a program which from the outset we had hoped it would be possible to set forth at this session. I think hon. members will benefit in the end from the fact that we took the necessary time to deliberate in detail upon this very large question, and present its numerous and essential features in a form which would leave no doubt as to the relation between its different parts.
My hon. friend asked about the consent of the provinces, and whether they had been consulted. We have been receiving communications from the provinces right along asking when we were going to bring in these specific proposals. I would not like to say how many communications have been received, or to attempt to give their details; all I can say, speaking generally, is that most of the provinces have I believe been asking when the proposals would be brought in. The reply given was that we hoped to bring them in as soon as we could get the provinces generally to agree.
If we have delayed in this matter, it is because we had hoped and expected that all the provinces would eventually join with us. I cannot yet understand why the two largest provinces in this country have not found it possible, as have the other seven, to join with

Health Services
this government in working out plans such as have been presented today. If there has been some delay, as I say, it has been because we were waiting in the hope and expectation that when this program was presented to parliament it would be possible to say, in connection with it, that all the provinces had been in conference.
That has not been possible. We have, however, waited as long as we thought we should. However, in what we are now presenting it will, I believe, be seen that if there has been a delay, no province is likely to suffer very much as a result.
I suggest to my hon. friend that I do not think he will find the word "all" in any statement made as to the consent or agreement of the provinces. The words "the provinces" have been used, but the word "all" was carefully avoided in any statement that was made. That was only the part of political wisdom. It might have happened that it was not the two largest provinces that had failed us, but that one of the smaller provinces had slipped up, and that as a consequence matters for all the others would have been held back. I give my hon. friend a word of counsel. It is always wise to try to anticipate all possibilities before they arise. In so doing you do not find yourself unnecessarily embarrassed when the important moment comes.


John Bracken: Then according to his own statement the Prime Minister could have brought forward this program a couple of years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; and if he had, he might have spoiled the whole business. There again might I give my hon. friend another pointer which might be helpful to him at some time, although I am very doubtful if it will. I advise him not to try to do too much all at once. After all, the surest path is the one where you make certain of each step as you take it, and where you do not prejudice the larger outcome by undertaking more than you can expect to get support for at the time.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am trying to answer some.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is a very short question. Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that the use of the phrase, "consent of the provinces" did not mean the consent of all the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that the leader of the opposition had said that I had said all the provinces would have to be in
agreement, and I said to my hon. friend that I did not think he would find the word "all" there. The word "provinces" was used, but it was not "all" the provinces.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I understand the Prime Minister to say-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Wire George Drew.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Why do you not keep politics out of this?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just wanted to be sure, because after all, the Prime Minister is giving us advice and I think it is desirable that we should understand exactly what it is. Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that the use of the phrase "consent of the provinces"-that is, leaving out the word "all"-did not imply it was the consent of all the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that the word "all" did not appear in any statement that I had made. The leader of the opposition had used that word1 expressly, and I was making it quite clear that he would not find it there. I just thought it might be helpful to him on some future occasion to have this knowledge of the fact.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I understand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend understands, then I am sure everybody else in the house will understand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As long as they do, I am content.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In conclusion may I say how greatly pleased I am that this house should have accepted this program, in the spirit in which it has. I believe that the people of Canada will be tremendously satisfied when they learn that these proposals have received the general approval which they have received in the house today.


John Bracken: May I ask one other question? Has provision been made already in the estimates for the expenditures involved by this program, or will new proposals have to be brought down to meet the expenditures?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear me, but I said that the expenditures that would be required by this program would appear in supplementary estimates which would be introduced at this session.
Health Services


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Do I understand that this is to be done by way of supplementary estimates and that there will be no bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No bill, no.


William Earl Rowe: Will the supplementary estimates be brought down before June 7?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what my hon. friend has in mind. I cannot say when the Minister of Finance will bring them down.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Prime Minister made a statement and I permitted the leaders of the different groups to make comments upon that statement; then there were a number of supplementary questions. Hon. members will realize that debate is not permissible at this stage.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege, is there not a rule of this house that entitles an hon. member to speak? The hon. member for Comox-Alberni is an independent.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


John Lambert Gibson: With regard to the Prime Minister's statement, I am curious to know whether Quebec and Ontario stand to share equally, in the benefits the Prime Minister has announced, with the other provinces which have signed agreements with the dominion in regard to income tax.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is yes.


John Lambert Gibson: Do I understand that the grants in aid are contingent upon the provinces maintaining their present levels of expenditure on social welfare?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that was stated in what I said.


John Lambert Gibson: In British Columbia, the province from which I come, we shall be forced to maintain the present sales tax of three per cent which we have been obliged to put into effect because certain funds were not returned to us by the dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not like to enter into an argument with my hon. friend at the moment. These matters might be allowed to come up for discussion in detail .later.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the house is aware, the Minister of Finance proposes to present the budget on Tuesday evening. In Votes and Proceedings of yesterday hon. members will find a notice that I had placed there reading:
That standing order 15 in relation to the consideration of private and public bills on Tuesdays and Fridays be suspended for the sitting of Tuesday, May 18 instant, notwithstanding the special order passed on April 8, in relation thereto.
That motion is just to suspend the hour for private bills so as to enable the Minister of Finance to make his statement on Tuesday evening. If there is no objection, the motion might be put immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the first reading of Bill No. 300 (from the senate), to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Has the government any statement to make as to the termination today of the British mandate in Palestine, which expires at six p.m., our daylight saving time? What protection will be afforded British nationals, and what action has the government taken about the Palestine situation since this matter was raised by me in February 1947 and last spring? I should like to have a reply.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): With respect to the first of the hon. member's questions, I am sure that all hon. members and all citizens of free democracies in the world realize that the world is indebted to the government of the LTnited Kingdom for the burden it has carried for so many years in the administration of the Holy Land. All are equally concerned, and have been much concerned, as to the possibility and even probability of there

Inquiries oj the Ministry
being disorder in the Holy Land upon the retirement of the British forces. I think it would be only fair to say that the disorder, bad as it has been, has not been as terrible as some of us during the last few weeks had feared it might be; there have been repulsive outrages, but it would seem that they have been participated in by relatively small numbers, and that the vast majority of the people inhabiting the Holy Land have not been participants in what we have rightly regarded as terrible outrages. I hope that the counsels that have been given from the united nations and other sources to the respective contenders there, and which appear to have had some influence in pacifying the situation, will continue to have that effect, and that the genuine efforts that have been put forth to help will meet with a still greater degree of success.
As to what measures are being taken for the protection of British nationals, I am sure that the government of the United Kingdom has done all that could be done for their protection.
The hon. member also referred to some question which he had asked in the spring of 1947. I would have to look it up before I would venture to make any answer.


Thomas Langton Church: What steps has the government taken to protect our nationals over there, who are in the midst of slaughter and civil war?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This government has felt that it would be rather impertinent for it to try to intrude to affect the measures being taken by the mandatory power which not only over the years but over the centuries has given proof that it was always conscious of its responsibilities and always did what I think most reasonable men would feel was proper in the discharge of its responsibilities.


Thomas Langton Church: If Britain had been left alone, there wmuld have been no trouble.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not want to insist, but the intervention of UNO was brought about by a request of the mandatory power, which considered that in view of the situation that was arising it must relinquish its mandate.


Gordon Graydon: Are any steps being taken now for mediation in the Palestine situation, and if so, who is to be the mediator? Has any suggestion been made in that regard?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There have been a large number of suggestions, and the latest information I have is that the gentleman to be appointed as a commissioner to carry on public
services in Jerusalem, the appointment to be made by the five permanent members of the security council, was also to continue the good offices that have been performed by the Palestine commission looking towards mediation.


Gordon Graydon: It would seem to me that in a case of this kind only an outstanding world figure would be of much use as a mediator, and I was wondering if any such suggestion had been made and accepted. Two such figures have been mentioned, Lord Louis Mountbatten and General Eisenhower. It seems to me that only an acknowledged world figure who had proven himself to be good at that sort of thing ought to be considered in this connection.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Canadian delegation has felt that it should not take too prominent a part in making suggestions to the powers which have a more direct interest in the Far East situation. We have endeavoured to make it clear that we were willing to help and co-operate in every possible way, but we did not think we should make it appear that we felt we had more information to rely on than had the other powers, who have all been dealing earnestly with the situation. The final suggestion upon which there seemed to be agreement was that all five of the permanent members of the security council would take responsibility in selecting the gentleman who would become the provisional commissioner in Jerusalem, who thus would have not only his own prestige but that of the five permanent members of the security council to assist him in his onerous duties.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Has any consideration been given to the recognition of any new states which may shortly appear in that country?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not like to attempt any premature statement about a situation which has not yet arisen.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Transport? Is it still government policy that all air transport services across international boundary lines and outside Canada will be operated solely by Trans-Canada Air Lines? Will this policy apply
Inquiries oj the Ministry

when Canada implements her part of the agreement for air service between this country and Australia?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Thus far no change has been made in government policy with respect to transpacific air services. If and when a change is made, it will be announced.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	[DOT]
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works of which I have given him notice? In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is the Minister of Public Works prepared to say that he will grant permission for the Saskatchewan government to proceed with the building of a low level bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I have prepared a submission recommending to council approval of the site and plans for that proposed bridge. I have not yet presented it to council because I am awaiting a telegram from the Premier of Saskatchewan indicating whether he will accept the conditions contained in that submission as to the protection of navigation and future works that may be done on the Saskatchewan river.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the
orders of the day the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked a question about margarine and I have since had the opportunity of reading his remarks in Hansard. He asked whether certain sections of the public were immune from the law in respect to the importation of oleomargarine. I assure him and the house that no section of the public is immune from the law in this respect. The prohibition of the importation of this commodity imposed by tariff item 1204 is still in effect.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I
should like to address a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of
[Mr. Knowles.)
Transport. Perhaps it would be better to address it to the Prime Minister, because he is on record in regard to this question. Is it the intention of the government to do anything this year toward the building of the Peace river outlet?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite
correct in saying that I am on record-I do not know how many years ago it was; but I can assure him the Minister of Transport has had the matter under consideration.



ABBOTSFORD AIRPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to direct a question to one of the ministers. I cannot direct it to a particular minister because I do not know under which department it comes. Is it the intention to expand the facilities of Abbotsford airport?


Lionel Chevrier: I take responsibility for the
jurisdiction over airports. I am not familiar with the particular airport to which my hon. friend refers, but I shall be glad to ascertain what the position is and tell him whether there is expansion in project or not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I might be permitted to complete my question. The department is purchasing further property in connection with this airport, but at the present time it is standing idle. I should like to know what use is to be made of the present facilities and why further extension is contemplated when no use is made of the airport.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot answer the question now.



PENNY BANK


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 221, to provide for the winding-up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and the repeal of the Penny Bank Act.
He said: I desire to give a short explanation of this bill. The bill is to provide for the winding-up of the Penny Bank of Ontario, and repeal of the Penny Bank Act, 1927. The Penny Bank of Ontario was incorporated by letters patent dated April 19, 1904. In 1942 the bank stopped accepting deposits, to avoid competing with the government sale of war
Penny Bank Act
savings stamps and certificates to school children, and no deposits have been accepted since that- time. May I say that the request for the winding-up of this bank did not come from the government; it came from the directors of the Penny Bank of Ontario itself. When the act is repealed it will be necessary to take certain steps, and I shall try to enumerate them. But first I should like to say a word on behalf of the department. They have appreciated the work of this bank. It has done a great service to the province of Ontario. It is true that only one province, namely, Ontario, has availed itself of the provisions of the act. It is thought wise to repeal the act once the Ontario bank have repealed theirs.
The steps that will have to be taken after this bill is passed will be as follows: one, the winding-up of the bank will be under the supervision of the inspector general of banks; two, the assets will be realized; three, the bank will discharge its liabilities; four, the bank will advertise, in the areas in which it carried on business, that it is being wound-up; five, on August 1, 1948, or on a later date if the Minister of Finance so decides, the bank will transfer to the post office savings bank an amount necessary to meet the aggregate of deposits of SI or more; six, repay to the members of the bank amounts that they had paid into the guarantee fund and release other members from any liability to the bank pursuant to a subscription to the guarantee fund; seven, deposits of less than SI which have remained dormant for five years will be extinguished; if not having remained dormant they will be transferred to the post office savings bank; eight, any amounts remaining after providing for the foregoing will be transferred to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. The amount that will be transferred to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto will likely approximate $84,000 or $85,000. This will be the residues of moneys that have been earned and those that have lain dormant in the bank, which it would be pretty nearly impossible to distribute on any equitable basis.
Thomas Langton Church: We are now on second reading of Bill No. 221, to provide for the winding up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and the repeal of the Penny Bank Act. I wish to point out one or two matters in connection with it, because no doubt the minister has had some requests for the winding up of this bank.
I am sorry to see this old penny bank wound up. It has had a long history in our city. It was the old public school board in
Toronto that started this splendid work years ago. One of the founders was the late C. A. Brown, formerly chairman of the public school board. One of the advantages of it was that it encouraged savings and thrift among the school children who were in our city schools. If I may be permitted to say so, one of the glories of the Victorian era was that the people kept the state. Now, apparently, the principle is being changed; the state keeps the people. There never was a time in history when the lessons of thrift and savings were more important than they are at the present time. "Save the pennies and the dollars will look after themselves", used to be one of the favourite mottoes on the walls of the loan and saving companies. Workers used to go to the offices of these companies every Saturday night to deposit their 50 cents, $1 or $1.50, or some small fraction of their earnings.
It would be well for the government to reconsider its policy with regard to the penny bank and have it re-established on a new and better basis as part of the educational system of the country.
I am glad to see that section 4 provides that the residue is to go to a great and glorious cause, the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, founded by the late John Ross Robertson, a great Canadian patriot who spent the best years of his life on public health and the Hospital for Sick Children, which has been such a blessing to our city and to our country. John Ross Robertson was one who in a long well-spent life of service and sacrifice served his God, his king and his country most faithfully and well.
I hope the government will consider this constructive suggestion and thus provide for future generations an important lesson on thrift and saving, which should be more necessary in the world to come than it has been in the past.
This matter was discussed this week at a large meeting of representatives from the school boards from all over Canada, held in the Chateau Laurier. I suggest that the principle I have espoused, of re-establishing the bank for the future on a new basis, should be taken into consideration. To recognize it and act upon it would be a blessing to the country.
The house of Commons in these days does not think in terms of pennies; it is dealing all the time in millions and billions, and when people soar away up in the sky like that, it is hard for them to come down again. There is an old Scottish saying, which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) will remember: When you go up in the clouds be sure you keep one foot on the ground; but
Penny Bank Act

that does not seem possible when people are dealing with the astronomical figures that this house deals with now. No wonder the penny bank is being abolished. The government does not encourage thrift nowadays. It takes not only pennies but bigger sums and uses them to send people around the seven seas on useless trips of all kinds, duplicating and not reducing expenditures.
I hope that in the recess the government will consider a bill such as I have suggested, and that the Minister of Finance will introduce at the next session a measure national in scope, which will furnish a means whereby the children can save and be encouraged in the thrift which seems to be lacking everywhere today.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to make just one or two comments on the bill. With much of what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has said I can agree, though I cannot follow his conclusion, because I do not think that any other course than that which is proposed could be adopted. Like him, 1 feel that the winding up of this useful institution is perhaps an indication that thrift is not as highly regarded nowadays as it used to be. Indeed, the very fact that in common parlance we call a halfpenny a penny, when what we have in mind is a cent, is an indication that unconsciously the value of money has shrunk. I join with the hon. member in regretting the necessity for the step that is being taken; nevertheless, when you look at the situation as it is and consider that the public-spirited people who have been carrying on this enterprise have decided that it must be wound up, there is no other course, it seems to me, for the government to take. ' This, it has been explained to me, is virtually a private bill which for constitutional reasons has come in as a government measure. As to the details of it, now that I am on my feet I might make one or two comments. As I understand it, it is proposed to return to the depositors what they have deposited, with the exception that special provision is made with regard to deposits of less than one dollar made by persons who have not been heard from for years, and the balance over and above the amount contributed by these public spirited founders is to be given to the sick children's hospital in Toronto, which, as has been pointed out, though it is referred to as a Toronto institution, does in fact serve the whole province of Ontario. Therefore the claims of the depositors have been fully taken care of, and whatever balance there is is being handed over to an institution which I think carries the approval of everybody.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Notice to be published.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: With reference to the question of advertisement, the bank as I understand it was carried on in ma,ny small places throughout Ontario. At one time it was in as many as fifty, and the number was reduced to thirty-five. There was at one time as much as a million and a half dollars in it. Where will advertisement be made? I hope it will be in the various small places where actually there are branches of the bank.


Mr. MAYHEW:: That is the plan-to advertise it in small places where the bank has been in operation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Repeal.
Mr. JACKMAN:: May I make a suggestion to the parliamentary assistant? I myself remember the penny bank when I attended public school and I can speak of the very useful service it rendered in inculcating the habit of saving among the children of that day, as it has up until the present. As I recall it, the teachers on a certain day of the week used to collect the coppers of the children and credit each child's contribution. It served a very good purpose and was a splendid example to children who might not otherwise have been able to save. It taught them what they should do if they wanted to get on and to provide for themselves in their old age.
Not only do the teachers deserve credit- we cannot trace their whereabouts at the present time-but the directors of the bank and the manager as well, and those who served in an honorary capacity, should be remembered. I might mention Professor Michael Mackenzie, of the university of Toronto, now emeritus, who was to a large extent the father of the idea in the city of Toronto. He gave unstintingly of his time, when called upon, to the organization of the penny bank.
I think it would be a fine gesture, inasmuch as many people who serve the public receive little or no recognition, if the parliamentary assistant or the Minister of Finance would send a letter, in recognition of his services, to Professor Mackenzie, and also recognize
Treaties oj Peace
in the same way those who have served this bank on a voluntary basis for a long period of time.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We can readily accept the hon. member's suggestion, and on behalf of the Minister of Finance I assure him that such a letter will be sent. I too went to school in Ontario, and I can remember when the penny bank first came in.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We were schoolmates.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I know what it meant to the school children and to the teachers. A great deal of effort has been put into this institution, which was undoubtedly a success, but it is felt by the directors of the bank that there are other methods of serving the same purpose and that the teachers can be relieved of this responsibility. Those who have served the institution on a voluntary basis can also be relieved. But in their relief I assure you that the department is most grateful for the service they have rendered to the community. The hon. member for Broadview spoke about reinstituting another bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member for Rosedale.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not know what will be done next year. But may I point out that this act has been in force since 1904, and only one province in Canada has established a bank. That would rather indicate that the rest of Canada was not ready for this kind of bank. However, the hon. member's suggestions will be considered.


Thomas Langton Church: I think the post office bank and the post office will have some difficulty in finding the addresses of some of the depositors in the Penny Bank.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 248, to provide for carrying into effect the treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Thomas Langton Church: I just wish to take two or three minutes of the committee's time in connection with Bill No. 248 to provide for carrying into effect the treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland. As I mentioned the other day, the people of Finland have always loved liberty and freedom. They were and are a fine people and a great many of them came to Canada before the second war. I pointed out also the other day that Russia secured a port in Finland and one in Norway, the port in Finland being at Petsamo. Hungary and Roumania have become Soviet satellite states and many of their people have been deported as slaves by the Soviets. There are several textbooks in the library dealing with the importations of these people by Soviet powers to work in the mines and breakwaters and many other things in the Arctic circle, for what reason I do not known I noticed in the press in the last few days a discussion as to whether a military power could carry out warlike operations if war came-and we hope that it will never come again-in that north Canadian Arctic circle. Surely the government must have some information about the number of these slaves who have been imported out of Hungary, Roumania and these satellite states to the country I named, awray up there in the north country and for what purpose; why they are working as slaves along the lines I indicated. The same thing applied to Italy as well until after their election there.
As I pointed out the other day, we have acquired the power of signing treaties separately. I never believed that it would be a good proposition for a country like Britain which, with her dominions, is vastly superior in natural resources, raw materials and manufacturers and many other ways, to either the United States or Russia. I never could understand why we did not hang together and declare a policy, as we did in two wars, regarding these particular countries and regarding these peace treaties. As Clemenceau, a former president of France, and some others have said, it is hard to make a treaty wdth Britain because she speaks with so many voices the world over. For that reason I think the government should tell us what their policy is. We have seen the policy of the government- we have no commitments; parliament will decide-regarding these treaties. That is what was said in San Francisco, or as declared there, where we gave one great power nation the power of veto. We know that the division of Europe wras agreed upon at Potsdam and
Treaties oj Peace

Yalta and many other places where the leaders of the three countries, the United States, Britain and Russia, met to divide up the territory of Europe after the war and declared w-hat was the power of the nations who had been in the war. We became just a minor state regarding these treaties. What had we to say about them? Little or nothing. We were told down at the united nations in New York, when the announcement was made, that we had very little to say in the peace terms. In connection with this Bill No. 248, I want to say that if the dominions had stood by the mother country, we would have had something to say in the peace treaties and we would not have let the mother country become a second-class power, two little islands on the edge of Europe.
I opposed the doctrine which was laid down shortly after the first war, shortly after I entered this House of Commons in 1922 and 1923, when it was proposed to divide Britain's representation along the lines that some of my friends in my own party supported at the close of the last war, proclaiming that in the treaty of Versailles and many other matters like that Canada should sign its name separately to treaties when we have no military force to enforce the first line of the treaty,
I can only say that I see very little effect in what we shall have. We shall have only the minor part of a small nation. In San Francisco they divided the rich and the poor, the halt, the lame, and the blind, between the nations. They decided there that they would give to one great nation the veto power, and at the present time Russia is carrying it out in a disastrous way for the peace of the world. She has made a new peace pact proposal this week. Well, beware; because once bitten, twice shy; it would be a mistake to take seriously such appeasement proposals. If we close up for a year that institution at Lake Success, we might have some peace for years to come.
Regarding our signature to these treaties, I fail to see how it will result in help for the sick and suffering in Roumania and Hungary, countries which have become slave satellite states of Russia. According to some of the textbooks to which I was referring in the library, the number runs into a million or more. We should have some declaration by the government. Have they any information as to how many of these people in Roumania and Hungary, and to a minor extent in Finland, are being taken and placed in these slave camps up in the northern part of the Soviet country?
I do not think anything said here or any other place would do very much toward giving us any say in the making of these treaties. Any 
part we have will be very minor. We shall be told about it afterwards, as we were told about the agreements reached at Yalta, Potsdam, Moscow and so on.
That shows the folly of trying to make peace or obtain security by such methods at Lake Success. What security have we achieved at Lake Success? Have we been able to end the civil war in India, or Palestine, or get on better with Russia? Have we improved the condition in many other countries which are almost in a state of war? We may sign these treaties, but they cannot be enforced because we have no force to do .so. All we can do is look pretty and pretend, as they are pretending at Lake Success, that we have security when there is no security at all. As Mr. Churchill has said, as Mr. Attlee has said, as Mr. Truman has said, and as General Bradley, the United States chief of staff, told a committee in Washington the other day, we are just as close to war as we were a few years ago, notwithstanding all the pretending we have done at Lake Success and other places.


Gordon Graydon: As I read this resolution, its purpose is to enable the governor in council to take such steps as may be necessary to put into effect the terms of the peace treaties to which parliament agreed last session. When the treaties were before the house at that time my recollection is that our position in Canada with respect to them was somewhat uncertain, though I am speaking from memory at the moment since I have not a single note before me. I believe the minister rather clarified the situation at that time and indicated that it was the opinion of this government, and some other governments closely allied with us in matters of this kind, that we should proceed to give approval to the treaties which had been agreed to at Paris.
At that time some question was raised as to whether or not we should consider and approve the treaties, but after hearing the explanation of the minister I was convinced that our proper course was to agree to them, and we did so. At that time, if my memory still serves me aright, there was some disposition on the part of the government to withhold deposit of the ratification of these treaties until the picture had become somewhat clearer, particularly with respect to central and other European countries.
At this stage I should like to ask the minister, when he rises to reply, to tell us when these ratifications were deposited; and if he happens to have with him the dates that will be so much better. Many of us who were simply laymen in these matters were concerned because of the changed conditions which were so obvious in at least some of the

Treaties of Peace
states with which we were concluding treaties. In Hungary, particularly, as hon. members know, a communist-controlled government with, as I believe some observers have pointed out, the support of not more than seventeen per cent of the people, had achieved office. Naturally, for that reason the people of this country felt we should go slowly in any further moves respecting the approval of the peace treaty, in case that change of government should bring about some change in our relations to the country as a whole. Following the Paris conference, of course, Roumania found herself in a peculiar position and became dominated by communist influence. We all remember that not so long ago the king of that country found it necessary or advisable, whatever may be the proper term, to abdicate, so that today he is no longer the reigning sovereign.
Then, of course, we come to the question of Finland, a country which has had a pretty checkered career since 1939. That checkered career has not always been of her own making, but Finland today certainly is not the envy of any nation of the world, in view of the obvious pressure which has been brought to bear by her powerful neighbour, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I think Finland must be congratulated on standing out as long as humanly possible against the great pressure that has been exercised against her; but she is a small nation right beside one of the major powers of the world. For that reason, of course, we may expect almost anything to happen, having in mind what has happened to other states coming within the Russian orbit.
Other changes have taken place since the Paris conference. Had we been in session some months ago, we would have been expressing fears and suspicions with respect to the Italian situation. Fortunately for democracy, in its free elections only a few weeks ago that country left no doubt in the minds of the people everywhere that if the people are aroused, if elections are free, and if democracy is allowed to function as it should, the people prefer democracy to communism, in spite of all the pressure that no doubt was applied to that country in common with the other nations of Europe.
Prior to the Italian elections, the United Kingdom and the United States made certain suggestions and proposals which I think at the time were favourably received by the Italian people. One of those proposals was that the free territory of Trieste-this was part of the settlement of peace between the allied powers and Italy at the Paris conference-should be restored to the Italian people. No doubt that was one of the diplomatic moves which was
acceptable to the Italians at that time, and no doubt it still is. Some suggestion has been made with respect to making the peace a little easier so far as the African colonies go, but I am not as familiar with that. When the minister replies in this debate I should like him to indicate what the position is now with respect to the two powers' proposal for the restoration of the free territory of Trieste to the Italian people. As a matter of fact, I think when a question was asked the minister of external affairs in the house about that time his answer seemed to indicate that, while the Canadian government might not be primarily implicated in such a proposal, nevertheless it seemed to go along with the other two great powers.
That brings me to another point. By the effluxion of time a great change has taken place in the governmental complexion of nearly all the four nations, with the possible exception of Italy. I am wondering whether, in view of that fact, changes have been suggested. Nations like Hungary, nations like Roumania and nations like Poland can no longer be termed separate, independent sovereign powers as we once understood independent and sovereign powers to mean. Surely that is one of the things we have to take account of in our dealings with what might be called the satel-litic countries of Russia.
Communism when it puts its arms around a nation never lets that nation go so long as those arms remain strong. The result is that we have now not free and independent nations bordering on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; we have the amalgamation of government after government under the flag of communism and under no other flag. In those countries are still people with democratic ideals and democratic objectives. Perhaps we in this country should not be too hard upon those nations particularly upon those sections of people who perhaps in the years that lie ahead may be the nucleus for the revival of democracy in central and eastern Europe.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Just now they are smothered.


Gordon Graydon: As the hon. member for Danforth so very aptly properly and characteristically says they are smothered. Nevertheless we have to treat governments as we find them. I am w'ondering whether we can continue to treat these governments in the same way as we treat other governments all over the world. They are not synonymous in their position with other free and independent governments. In other words we must in the future recognize that these people are under the red flag of communism and for that reason
Treaties of Peace

they must be treated at least until they can revive their democratic systems in that particular way in that particular manner and in that particular fashion.
I want to say something now because I raised this point in a previous debate. I do not want to be regarded as one who is attempting in any way to raise questions about what are officially friendly powers. However I get pretty tired and I think the public is getting pretty tired too with the kind of propaganda that is being carried on in this and other countries. This propaganda which could be called war-mongering is carried on by communist agents and those responsible for the communist line. I am disgusted at times to find our democratic freedom allowing that kind of thing to go on in the way it has.
On the other hand we must not in this country allow ourselves to adopt an attitude or a policy which will be so akin to theirs that we may be regarded as being no better than they are. But there comes a limit to how far a country can allow those who are diplomatically immune to carry on anything more than the normal diplomatic relations between countries. The diplomatic service of the world was built up before there was such a thing as nations which not only had their own territorial ambitions but for some reason or another were not satisfied but wanted to use all means at their disposal that might be legal to see if they could not upset the governments in those countries where they had diplomatic representation.
There comes a limit to how far we can possibly allow that kind of thing to go on. I have no doubt but that the government and the ministry are alert and alive to the situation but I want to tell the committee and the government that certainly when the Dominion of Canada sends a representative to another country he should leave the system of government that exists there severely alone. The kind of government that another country either deserves or wants or merits is none of our business. But we ask other countries to do the same thing to us. What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander in international affairs the same as in agricultural matters.
I should like to see an end to all this international trouble-making. I do not want to be suspicious of any nation but I have studied the report of the espionage committee and I have watched various things that have happened. People have come to me and said that there was a certain liaison between some of the states in central and eastern Europe

and their communistic supporters here and that from time to time they had intimidated perhaps not directly but certainly indirectly certain democratic people in Canada who had relatives over there.
I think the time has come for a showdown with respect to at least some of these diplomatic immunities and some of these diplomatic representatives. We do not ask them to do anything more or less in Canada than we ourselves are prepared to do in other countries. Our embassies must never be allowed to act in such a way as to be accused even indirectly of having the slightest thing to do with anything that looks like espionage. Not only is that important in our diplomatic relations, but it is our people's job to leave other governments alone. Most nations have enough to do looking after their own governments, and, Mr. Chairman, we have that problem here ourselves at times. If we can make a good job of our own government and our own democratic system in the Dominion of Canada, that will be about enough, for the present in any event, for our people to look after.
I think it can truly be said to the great credit of our diplomatic corps generally that I have never heard even a breath of suspicion, and I hope I never shall, with respect to the kind of representation they give in other countries. But so far as other countries are concerned, particularly those which are pressing for a different political and economic system in other countries in which they have embassies and representation, I suggest, and I am very serious in my suggestion, that somehow or another we must see to it that those embassies and their representatives are giving the same kind of representation that we are giving in other countries. I think it is no more than just and proper for us to ask that.
These are just impromptu observations; nevertheless I feel keenly about the matter. I think we as a nation have probably as friendly an outlook and as peaceful ambitions as any other nation in the world. Our people in their daily life and by nature are a peace-loving people, and it annoys me and must agitate people generally across Canada to think there may be other people in the world who do not think likewise. I certainly believe that this nation has a great function to perform in securing and preserving world peace. As has been so forcefully pointed out by many much better qualified and more eloquent than I, there are no aims, national or international, which this country has which cannot be gratified by peace.
I want to ask the minister one other question, if I may, with respect to clause 3 of the

Treaties oj Peace
bill. The powers which he is now seeking from parliament by this clause are very broad. The clause reads:
The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders or regulations and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the treaties, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.
I think it would be of interest to the committee to have the minister explain just what parts or provisions of the peace treaties will require this authority to be exercised by the governor in council. Perhaps the minister would also inform the committee why this particular fine and term of imprisonment have been decided upon. I have no great objection to the clause, but when we had the united nations bill before us containing a similar clause, if my memory serves me aright, major amendments were offered with respect to fines, imprisonment and the like. I am not so sure but that the provision contained in section 5 of the bill with respect to laying before parliament every order or regulation was not also amended.
I did not intend to say much about this bill and I have gone perhaps a little further than the minister expected me to do, but I do not apologize for taking up the time of the house because, when I believe a thing, I am apt to tell the world about it, and that is what I have done on this occasion.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: The only thing before the committee is clause 1, the short title. I think we should dispose of that before dealing with the other clauses.


Gordon Graydon: May I just say in reply, Mr. Chairman, that we allowed the bill to go through without debate on the second reading, and for that reason I thought you would be lenient in permitting discussion in committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There was a debate
on the resolution.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, but not on the second reading.


William Henry Golding: If we carry clause 1, questions can be asked on the other clauses as we reach them.


Gordon Graydon: I agree, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Henry Harris: Suppose clause 1 does not carry?


William Henry Golding: It is for the
committee to decide.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Orders and regulations.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions on this clause. I think it is a matter of some importance. The small number of members present, who may be regarded as the elite of parliament, will at any rate give attention to this point. Clause 3 states:
The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices ... as appear to him to be necessary.
There are two questions I wish to ask the minister, and the hon. member for Peel has anticipated one of them. What kind of things is it that we shall likely have to be doing to contribute to the carrying out of these treaties?
My second question is this, and as the minister was formerly minister of justice he will be able to enlighten me. If you read clauses 3 and 4 together you will see that the governor in council is able virtually to create criminal offences without parliament having any idea up to the present of what kind of things will be made criminal offences. I do not want to be an alarmist about this, but I ask the minister whether this is the usual method of legislating, and whether he, in his capacity as a member of the legal profession and as a former minister of justice, approves this indirect way of creating offences in respect of people who afterwards may be heavily punished.
Clause 5 provides that these regulations shall be laid before parliament, but I do not understand from that that parliament has any power at that time to alter them in any way. However, that does not seem to me to be so relevant. The chief point of my question is to ask the minister whether I am correct, first of all, in sajdng that this gives to the cabinet, the governor in council, the power to make criminal offences by executive act, and whether that seems to be the sound way of doing it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps I might deal with the observations that have been made by hon. members who have spoken. First of all, there are those made by the hon. member for Broadview. Although I do not agree with him, I can sympathize with his point of view. I remember a few years ago visiting the Peribonca district depicted by Louis Hemon in "Maria Chapdelaine", but it had changed. Some would regret the change that had taken place, but it was none the less real. The hon. member for Broadview must admit that things have changed since the time there was only one signature affixed for the British empire to
Treaties oj Peace

international treaties. Some may regard that as an undesirable change. I am not going to argue the matter with the hon. member for Broadview at this time. The change has occurred, and I do not think we are apt to retrace the steps that have brought about the change.
The hon. member for Peel asked what were the dates of the deposits of the ratifications. That of the treaty with- Italy was deposited on September 15, 1947, and the other three on September 19, 1947. The hon. member is right, that when the treaties were approved there was a declaration made that the time for depositing the ratifications had not yet been determined, and would be determined in consultation with the other powers which had signed the same treaty. The matter that was then foremost in our minds was the date for the deposit of the ratification of the treaty with Italy. The government of Italy was hesitating about accepting the provisions of the treaty, and it was only after some harmony had been brought into the councils of the then government of Italy in respect to that, that the other signatories to the treaty arranged for a date when they would, practically all of them, at the same time deposit their ratifications. The same was done with respect to the other three treaties.
It is unfortunate, I think, for the democratic peoples of the world that in Roumania and Hungary there have occurred these seizings of power by governments which we regard as totalitarian communist governments relying upon the power of the police to keep themselves in office. Fortunately the same thing has not occurred in Italy. I think the democratic peoples of the world were quite elated to find that in Italy, there having been a free election conducted in an orderly way, the Italian people chose to remain with the western democracies. I believe we were delighted at their desire to remain with us, and we hope that from now onward their paths will parallel ours in the maintenance of free democratic institutions.
The hon. member for Peel asked what has happened with respect to the proposal of the United Kingdom, the United States and France that the peace treaty with Italy be revised to return to Italy what had been set aside as the free territory of Trieste. That has not made very much progress. Approaches have been made to the Soviet government to fix a date for a meeting to discuss a protocol to modify the treaty. I am hopeful that such a meeting will be arranged. It is well known that most of the signatories to the treaty are now of opinion that the system

which had been devised for Trieste has not been respected. They envisaged a really free territory of Trieste without interference from the two neighbours. They found that that was not going to operate, and that there would not be the kind of free territory that the treaty envisaged. I think that is the reason they came to the conclusion-and we also came to that conclusion-that the only practicable solution would be to replact that territory under the administration of the Italian government.
The hon. member asked about the former colonies. That matter is still being carefully investigated by the council of the foreign ministers, and we must confess that things are being dealt with, not in the manner we would like best, but in the manner which the circumstances seem to make it necessary for us to acquiesce in as being the ones best calculated to obtain results. I do not know what will become of the former Italian colonies. I think it is a fact that there is an over-population of the Italian mainland and of Sicily, and that there is there a high birth rate that is bringing about a situation where annually large numbers of men find that they should go somewhere else. There is not really enough living space there for them to exercise fully their activities. When they had colonies that surplus of population emigrated to the colonies. Prior to that, many of them emigrated to the western hemisphere, both North and South America. There is, I think, a larger force of manpower in Italy than can be profitably used to the full extent of its capabilities.


Joseph Henry Harris: A large number are in north Australia.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Large numbers have gone to north Australia I think there is a realization coming upon us all that it will be to the advantage of us all not to keep them herded into places where they cannot produce for humanity that which they could make available in wider spaces.
The hon. member for Peel asked what parts of the treaty it would be necessary to implement. I think the hon. member was unavoidably away from the house when we had a discussion on the resolution.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, I was.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At that time it was explained that, the treaty of course having been approved by the houses of parliament and ratifications of His Majesty having been deposited, the governments were bound, but under our system the nationals in Canada
Treaties of Peace
do not become obligated to the terms of the treaty by virtue of its ratification. In ithe United States when a treaty is ratified it becomes part of the law of the land and imposes obligations on United States citizens. Under our system, though the governments may bind themselves, it requires legislation to impose obligations upon our nationals. Some of that legislation is within our competence in the dominion parliament; some of it may be within the competence of provincial legislatures, as was decided by the privy council in the reference of 1936.
There are provisions in these treaties to attempt to restore the rights of Italian nationals in patents, for example, that were operative in Canada. There are provisions to restore the rights of Canadian nationals in patents that they might have had that were operative in Italy. There are provisions dealing with ithe settlement of debts, providing that the period of the war shall be excluded from the normal period of statutory limitation. There are also provisions that the assets of Italians vested in the custodian of enemy property may be held and appropriated by the custodian to satisfy the claims of Canadian individuals, and provisions for the collecting of these claims and adjudicating upon their substance to determine what distribution can be made in satisfaction of such claims.
It is for matters of that kind that this legislation is required. As to the form, the legislation is practically copied from the statutes that were passed in 1919, 1920 and 1922, those of 1919 and 1920 having been recommended to parliament by the Conservative government of that time, and that of 1922 having been recommended to parliament by the then Liberal government, in exactly the same form.
The hon. member asked what officials it may be necessary to appoint. I inquired as to what officials were appointed under the statutes that were passed in this form to implement former treaties, and the information I got was that the only official specially appointed was an official to receive and consider the claims of Canadians for compensation out of assets confiscated by the custodian of enemy property.
The question was asked, at the resolution stage, what expenditure might have to be made. This provides that such expenditures as may have to be made will be out of money to be appropriated by parliament. I found that there was no special appropriation except
for the salary and expenses of this official who gathered together the claims and dealt with them. There were other matters attended to by other civil servants which did not involve any special expenditure, which took part of their time, and they received their remuneration as part of their regular salary. It is matters of that kind that have to be dealt with, and it did seem to me that it was urgent to have this passed. A similar bill, however, was passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom.


Gordon Graydon: On all fours with this?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Substantially on all fours. There may be some difference in the order in which the things are expressed. For instance, in our bill we have six sections. In the previous statutes the matter of these six sections was comprised in the preamble and in two sections. The present bill contains the same substance with the exception of this provision for laying before parliament, within fifteen days after it has met, any order in council that is passed. That was inserted, because my experience with this house has been that whenever something of legislative effect is authorized to be done by the governor in council, parliament wants it tabled at an early day. So that to forestall any request that might have been made for that kind of provision it was thought advisable to have it inserted in the bill before it was introduced.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister know whether in fact the regulations did come to be made under the previous statute?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. I have the reference here. Following the treaty of Versailles, Canada enacted a statute, chapter 30 of 1919, second section. Under section 1 of that statute the governor in council was empowered to make "such appointments" and so forth, and in pursuance of this statute the governor in council established the treaty of peace, Germany, 1920, order in council P.C. 755 of April 14, 1920. This order is printed at page XXVIII of the prefix to the statutes of 1920. The order provided for dates and for the liquidation of enemy property in Canada, and for the exclusion from the period of limitation of the period during which the nationals of Canada and the nationals of Germany had been at war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not suppose many people were imprisoned under it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think there was any violation by anyone of any of the provisions of the order, but that i? the form.
Treaties oj Peace

It being legislation to make effective upon the nationals of Canada obligations contracted by the government of Canada, it is usual to provide for a penalty if there is violation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And this bill deals only with matters of that kind?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is all it deals with, namely the desirability of having Canadian nationals comply with the things which the parliament of Canada has approved as being proper obligations for the government of Canada to undertake for its people.


William Henry Golding: Shall clause 3 carry?


Solon Earl Low: I wish to ask a question under clause 3. Does the minister intend to press with dispatch the setting up of consular offices in such countries as Hungary and Roumania? I have received many inquiries with regard to inspection depots and that sort of thing for prospective immigrants who, I understand, have not been able to have inspections facilitated because we have not had the facilities in those countries. Often such immigrants have relatives who have been here for some time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think the delay is due chiefly to the fact that there were no consular offices established there. The department of immigration has been developing its continental European services as rapidly as it could conveniently do so and is continuing to develop those immigration services, as we feel quite keenly that those who are eligible to come to Canada because they have close relatives residing in Canada, should get here just as soon as we can make it possible for them to do so.


Gordon Graydon: If the government could somehow try to get these relatives out of Europe with as little delay as possible, that should be done, because there is great anxiety, as he knows. It would be in the interests of everyone if that could be accomplished as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can give my hon. friend the assurance that not only are we motivated by high humanitarian considerations, but we realize that politically it is desirable to have that attended to with the greatest possible expedition.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take much time, but I desire to express some sorrow, not at the conclusion of peace but that this legislation is similar to that which has been passed by the parliament
[Mr. St. Laurent.I
at Westminster. We were told by the minister that the king or his representative had signed the treaty, that both houses of parliament at Westminster had ratified it and that it comes to us for another ratification without a change.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Would the hon. member permit an interjection?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: When I referred to approval of the houses of parliament, I mean the approval of the houses of parliament of Canada, which was given last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a great deal better. I do not say that in a way to offend the opinion of anyone. I express my own. Even the fact that the bill is similar to the bill passed by Westminster is no argument for me. A bill may be good or bad. If we take it for granted that all the legislation which is passed by Westminster is good, then it may be all right; but in that case we should never speak of autonomy.
What strikes me is the existence of two different attitudes. On the one hand, we follow closely the legislation of Westminster; on the other hand, we contend that we are autonomous and self-governing. Those are contradictory assertions. We cannot be both at the same time. We cannot follow what is done over there at Westminster and imitate it, and at the same time contend that we do so willingly and that we are independent. That is a thing that I understand with difficulty. The time has come when we must assert our self-government or admit that the situation has not changed over the years, and that the only change is one of words. When I asked some questions about the same matter at the resolution stage, I did not want to make any remark about the Secretary of State for External Affairs who was in Canada when the matter was discussed in 1946. I could have been cruel to the Minister of National Defence, but I abstained. For me the matter is now in the domain of the past. We are now called upon to discuss a matter of some importance but one which happened some time ago.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could adjourn the discussion. I have only a few questions to ask.


William Henry Golding: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well. It seems to me that I have made myself clear on the matter. The reason I rise now is that I am afraid that if I discuss the treaty after this bill is passed, I may be fined or put in prison. The bill, which is similar to the one that was
The Royal Assent
passed in Westminster, is drafted in such a way that if the bill is passed the treaty will become sacrosanct. If we refer again to clause 3, we find it reads as follows:
The governor in council may make such appointments, etablish such offices, make such orders or regulations and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the treaties, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.
Then here are the penalties:
4. (1) Subject to subsection two, the governor in council may prescribe a fine or a term of imprisonment or both a fine and a term of imprisonment as a penalty for violation of any order or regulation, and may also prescribe whether the penalty shall be imposed upon summary conviction or upon conviction under indictment or upon either summary conviction or conviction under indictment.
Then it is set out that the fine may be $100 or $1,000. I shall not dwell further on the matter, but I do not consider that the importance we give to the ratification of these treaties can be compared with the non-importance that is given to Canada in those meetings of the big powers.
As I say, I will not dwell further on the matter, but I have a feeling of sorrow about the small role that Canada is playing in these matters. I will repeat, to you, Mr. Chairman, that the voice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be the voice of Canada; and I believe that Canada can do much more by expressing her own opinions through the eloquent minister than through anyone representing the United Kingdom.
Section agreed: to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Supplemental Payments Act to provide that no supplemental payments shall be authorized under the act after the thirty-first day of March, 1949.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Gordon Graydon: I am always anxious not to deprive the minister of any little pleasures that
come his way. I know he has been waiting to give a thorough and detailed explanation of his stewardship over the last year, and also to indicate his plans for the future. I think this committee should not deny him that pleasure.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: The bill is very short, as everyone can see.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, 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 chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that His Honour the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
An Act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
An Act to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944.
An Act respecting the provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
An Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
An Act to amend the Dominion Water Power Act.
An Act to amend the Vocational Training Coordination Act, 1942.
An Act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
An Act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
An Act to amend the National Parks Act.
An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
An Act respecting emergency payments to assist in meeting increased cost of production of gold.
An Act to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.
An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1949.
An Act to provide for the winding-up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and to repeal the Penny Bank Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege to ask that a certain bill on the order paper may, with unanimous consent, be considered first. It is Bill No. 281, to incorporate the Canadian Legion, and I believe it is completely non-controversial so far as the second reading is concerned. Discussion might be necessary on some of the clauses in committee. The convention of the legion is to be held in a Very few days and it is desired to have this incorporation effective by that time; in fact, it is practically a necessity that that be so. The miscellaneous private bills committee has been called for Monday with a view to dealing with this bill. I would therefore ask for the unanimous consent of the house to call this bill ahead of the others.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Mr. MAYBANK (for Mr. Mutch) moved the second reading of Bill No. 281, to incorporate the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.	[DOT]
On section 1-Interpretation.
Mr. LENNARD:: Will somebody explain the bill?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have just one observation to make about the bill. It concerns the spirit that exists in the legion, concerning its members. I have been very much surprised that the legion has banned all the men who have not signed for active service overseas. Many men who have abided by the law and the regulations and have obeyed the orders given to them by their commanding officers are thrown aside by the

legion. The only heroes accepted by the legion are those who have signed for overseas service, even if they have not gone overseas. But there are some men who have not signed for overseas service but have gone overseas according to the orders they received. I remember such cases, and one in particular, of a man who had not signed for overseas service but was sent overseas and did his duty, and when he came back he was not even given the preference granted to military men by the civil service commission. I had to write about the matter to have that wrong redressed. I find that the spirit of the legion is wrong in banning those who have abided by the law. The legion calls these men zombies and does not treat them as good Canadian citizens. There should be a warning given to the legion that it is most unfair to those who have done their duty and abided by the law on every occasion.


Thomas Langton Church: The incorporators, whose names are all set out in the bill, are all very good people. There never was a time since the two wars closed when an organization like the Canadian Legion was needed as much as it is today. For years the veteran and his family got no recognition in the matter of housing, the high cost of living and many other matters. An organization like this, when it is incorporated under the laws of Canada and made to work for the general advantage of Canada, will be able to do a great deal of good in bringing to the attention of parliament the needs of the veterans and the necessity of bringing our veterans legislation up to date. I referred to this on March 8, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs introduced his bill. I am glad to see that progress has been made. I think this bill is in the public interest.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member who is piloting this bill through the house has not made any explanation of it. Personally I should like to have an explanation. The legion got along very well for a long time without legislation of this kind. They were incorporated under the companies acts of the various provinces.


William Henry Golding: Order. We are on clause 1, the interpretation clause defining "dominion convention", "dominion command", "provincial command", and "branch".


Clarence Gillis: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but that does not tell us why the legion wants to be incorporated under federal law. There are some sections of this bill which I do not like; section 9, for instance.
Private Bills


William Henry Golding: We can deal with section 9 when we come to it.


Clarence Gillis: Before this bill is discussed at all, I think we should have an explanation from the hon. member who is piloting it through the house. Why is this legislation necessary at this time for an organization which has functioned successfully for the last twenty-two or twenty-three years without federal incorporation? What is the hurry for it? Apparently the hon. member who is piloting it through the committee asked for unanimous consent to have it moved up tonight. If there is a need for it, if there is a rush to get it, if there is urgency for it I should like the hon. member to explain that to the committee. If that is done hon. members will be in a position more intelligently to consider the clauses as we go along.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman, I consider that not only what the hon. member has said, and the questions that he has asked are quite in order, but he would not have been speaking if he were not in order-


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Ralph Maybank: He will agree with that himself. The reason I gave no explanation at the time of second reading being moved was that I felt in asking for unanimous consent I had already said about all that it was necessary to say in explaining the reasons for the desire.
It is undoubtedly true that the Canadian Legion has got along well over a great many years under the kind of organization which it enjoys at the present time; but it is also true, I am informed by the officers of the legion, that the present form of organization leaves much to be desired; and in particular, they are organized under letters patent in the company's office followed by certain supplementary letters patent.
The general legislation which permits the issuance of such kinds of charters is not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State's department, appropriate for this kind of an organization. For some time there has been a fear existing that there would be a responsibility, a legal responsibility and liability, upon the central body by reason of some act of a branch. Perhaps there was some fear of some responsibility upon the branch by reason of actions of somebody at the centre. At any rate, after long consideration the members of the Canadian Legion concluded, as many organizations do from time to time, that it was desirable they should operate hereafter under a dominion charter.
Generally speaking. I think it is fair to say that with reference to private bills, unless
there is something objectionable from the point of view of public policy, the house has granted the incorporation substantially in the manner in which it was asked unless, of course, there would be something contrary to public policy about it. We have incorporated large numbers of fraternal societies and co-operative bodies, commercial companies, both profit and non-profit, and we have generally taken the position-and I submit it is a sound one to take-that an organization of this kind knows its own business best, and knows what is best in regard to the sort of incorporation it ought to have.
That takes care of what I might call a general explanation as to why the bill comes forward. For the benefit of the hon. member, and perhaps some others who were not present at the time I asked for unanimous consent, I might repeat what I said then. At that time I asked for the unanimous consent of the house to proceed for two reasons. These reasons were, the convention of the legion itself is to be held in a few days. They wish to effect the change-over from the organization under the form in which it is at the present to an organization in this new form. The other reason was that, in the event of the bill being referred to the private bills committee, this could be effected. On that representation the house granted, and I thank hon. members for it, the opportunity to go ahead at this time.
The hon. member made reference to certain sections, and I pointed out at the time that these sections would perhaps require discussion in committee. I can understand that the hon. member would need an explanation with regard to them, and were I-if I might paraphrase the Minister of Labour-sitting where the hon. member sits, or were I sitting where I usually sit, I would want an explanation in regard to these sections. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that they can come up in a few minutes if we pass the sections leading up to them.


Clarence Gillis: I want to assure the committee that I have no intention of holding up this legislation. The thing that strikes me as peculiar is this. I have been a member of the legion since its inception; I still am. I have never had a request from any branch in the province of Nova Scotia or anywhere else in Canada for this kind of legislation. I am always suspicious of legislation that emanates from the top. If there were a widespread demand for this from the rank and file members of the legion I could understand it; but when a bill comes before us sponsored by the executive council, asking for a change in the
Private Bills

form of organization, without consultation with the rank and file end of it, then, as far as I am concerned, I think it is my duty and the duty of hon. members, to make absolutely certain that the changes asked for are in the best interests of the organization and of the membership in general.
I am prepared to go ahead with the bill, but there are some explanations I want. I always dislike to see the control of any organization slipping from the hands of the rank and file membership to the executive body. I do not think it is good business, and that is what I see in this particular case. I may be wrong. I do not think, under the old set-up, the dominion command or the provincial command could be taken to task for any of the failings of the member branches. Constitutional provisions and safeguards are set up to take care of that through the medium of their own councils. I do not like the idea of incorporating bodies such as the legion, a labour organization, or matters of that kind. I think their separate councils can legislate for themselves through their conventions and through their constitutions. They have ample safeguards there. However, the executive heads of the legion are sponsoring this bill. If they want it, I want assurance that none of the rights now vested in the branches and provinces are being usurped by the dominion charter which is being sought by this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Purposes and objects.
Frank Exton Lennard: I wish to ask a question on this section to avoid any confusion. I thought I heard mentioned this evening those who were or were not permitted to become members of the Canadian Legion. It is my understanding that the membership classifications are very broad. It includes anyone who served in His Majesty's navy, army or air force, whether they served overseas or not. It is not a question of whether a man served outside Canada. I .do not think there is any restriction so long as he served in one of the armed forces or auxiliary forces.


Ralph Maybank: I think that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Governing body.
Mr. ADAMSON:: I should like to ask a question in regard to incorporation. The names of the incorporators are given, headed by General Price. Nothing is said about the method of replacing officers by meeting or by

annual convention of the legion. I do not see any section of the bill mentioning that.


Ralph Maybank: Yes, I think the matter of a convention is dealt with in section 6, which will come up a little later.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of thing I was arguing about a moment ago. Clause 5 reads:
The governing body of the legion shall be the dominion convention, and when it is not in session the dominion executive council, and the governing body shall have supreme jurisdiction in all matters consistent with the purposes and objects of the legion, and its decisions on policy and as to the course of action to be taken in respect thereof shall be authoritative and binding upon all commands, councils and branches.
That is the kind of thing to which I am opposed. There is another section according to which conventions will be obligatory every two or three years. This clause 5 makes the executive council of the legion, between conventions, supreme in all matters of policy over any other body, consistent with what in their opinion may be the proper course to follow.
I do not like that and I do not think that, by law, this parliament should give to any small group of people at the top, in any organization, the right to determine and define policy for two years between conventions, in all matters pertaining to the welfare of a national organization like the Canadian Legion.
This organization ramifies through the social structure of our society and from time to time there are shifts in policy. What is good policy today may not have been good policy yesterday. In addition to that, from province to province and from section to section through the community there will be a completely different picture. Matters that would be good policy in Ontario may be bad policy in Quebec, and similarly in the east and in the west. This takes the right from commands provincially and branches locally to determine matters in pursuance of their own set-up in their own communities. I think it is too much power to vest in the executive council of the legion. If they had said at least in consultation with-


Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Is the hon. member taking into consideration the fact that the executive council was appointed by the same people to whom he is referring? If anything arises to indicate that they are not doing what is proper these same people could do something about it.

Private Bills


Clarence Gillis: I am aware of that. I sat on these councils for some time and I know how they work. You may have a chance to change them at the next convention, but if you adopt this bill it will be two or three years by law. That is a part of the bill. In the meantime they have the right to run the show. That is not good legislation. If the executive council dominion command desires to have that authority it should at least in the interim between conventions be obliged to consult with the provincial executives of the different provinces on matters pertaining to policy and so forth. I am not prepared to vest this authority in the executive council of any organization.


William Henry Golding: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Clarence Gillis: On division.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Chairman-


Ralph Maybank: It may be that I can clear up a point that will satisfy the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon.. gentleman who is rising to support him. In the first place, the power set forth in section 5 is the power which the council has been exercising all along under the laws of the legion. The bylaw dealing with it is practically word for word section 5 of this bill. The power has been granted to the council and I presume it has been exercised by the council for a great many years. Under the bylaw, and again under section 5, reference is made to what is called the governing body, and it is said that the governing body is the convention when it is sitting and, when the convention is not sitting, the governing body is the council. Of course the bylaws go on to state how the council shall be made up. Its make-up is in the hands of the membership at large through their delegates.


Clarence Gillis: They do not determine policy, though.


Ralph Maybank: The bylaw is the same with reference to policy and with reference to everything. The council is the supreme body at the present time. The wording is almost exactly the same as in section 5; but the difference, I think, between what will exist after this law has been passed and what has existed hitherto might be put in this way, that that power which the membership gave to its council is now given to the council by a law. That power which the membership gave to its council it could revoke at one of its conventions, whereas now, if it
wanted to revoke the power, it would have to instruct that there be a variation in this law.
I am free to confess that if it were not for the peculiar circumstances in which the legion finds itself I would prefer to ' see this section left in such a way that this power could be obtained by the council, as hitherto, direct from the membership from time to time. But we must give some weight to the fact that the membership, year in and year out, has given that power to its council, and should there be occasion for the power to be revoked, all that we are doing now is imposing upon the membership, at their request, one extra step for them to take in order to get the power back away from their council. Consequently, I submit, we ought now to agree to the considered opinion of those who have asked for the legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: Some hon. members are calling "carried." This is rather important. You cannot rush through bills that will affect the lives of a great many people in the country. There are a great many legion members in Canada who have a right to be heard from, and this is a responsible house. I have not the constitution here, but I have been a member of the legion for a long time, and I believe that a great deal of the wording here is word for word that of the constitution at the present time. The fact remains, however, .that there are members of this house who feel that there is a doubt. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has just mentioned that the circumstances in which the legion finds itself make it necessary to hurry the bill through the house, and offhand that sounds like a good argument. But they had quite a long time since the first of this year, and a longer time since their last convention, for the present executive to come to the conclusion that they needed, this. If it were so apparent that there might be need of this during that time, then something of this kind could have been submitted earlier this session or even a year ago.
I do not suppose it is in order for me to move it, but I suggest that, in view of the fact that there is a doubt in the minds of some hon. members as to the exact meaning of and the exact power which is granted in this bill to *a few people at the top level of the legion, this bill should be submitted to the veterans affairs committee where a complete examination could be made of the implications of every section, and the legion could just as well wait for another two years, if they could not get it through in time for this convention, as they waited for two years since the last one.
Private Bills

I make that suggestion earnestly and sincerely because certainly, while I would not on this particular section of the bill raise any special objection, when we come to deal with other sections further on I shall have some definite objections to some features of the bill. It is possible that all these objections could be resolved by some person who knew exactly what was wanted and could explain it in terms which we could understand. But I do not believe there is anybody sitting in the house at the present time who can do that job for us. I believe it should go to a committee and be examined there.


Jean-François Pouliot: This bill denies the human rights of the rank and file. It is imbued with the worst totalitarian spirit, and it is a fascist bill.


Mr. HAZEN:: I cannot agree with anything the last speaker has said. I think what he has said is absolutely incorrect. I rise to ask the sponsor of this bill a question, if I may. Was this legislation proposed by the dominion convention at its last meeting, or was the legislation proposed by the dominion council? If it was proposed by the latter, were the various provincial branches consulted?


Ralph Maybank: The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is that according to my information-and it is credible information, of course -it came direct from the convention. Then, of course, it was worked into its present form by the council, and the constitutional committee went over it carefully. It was referred to all the provincial commands and they are all unanimous about it. It has been scrutinized by a great many of the accredited representatives of the legion.


Douglas King Hazen: Then I do not see what objection we can take to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-By-laws.
Clarence Gillis: The same thing applies to section 6. In section 6 you are handing over the powers for maybe two or three years, depending on the length of time that elapses before the date for their convention. You are handing over in section 6, subsection 1, paragraph (a), the power to define the terms and conditions of membership; the rights, duties and privileges of all classes of membership; the assessment and collection of taxes, expulsion and so forth. I do not think this house has any right to hand over to any executive council the right to determine membership in the kind of organization the Canadian Legion is. It is all right for some of these members in the house tonight who took

very little interest in this organization, to take the stand they do. But I am one of the people who tramped all around this country organizing this body, and there was not any pay in it at all. I am much concerned about retaining the rights and privileges of the men who built this organization. As the hon. member for Swift Current suggested, this bill should have gone to the veterans affairs committee.
Someone here tonight said that it has been approved by every district command and branch in the country, the constitutional committee of the last convention and so forth. If it has been, they have fallen down on the job. There are 100 members in this house who are ex-service personnel, and a great many are members of the legion. As far as I am concerned, I am still an active member of the legion; and I have never had a word from any one in the section of the country from which I come, that legislation of this kind is desired.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: You are too busy.


Clarence Gillis: They are not too busy.


John Ewen Sinclair: You are too busy.


Clarence Gillis: No, I am not too busy. Any time that anyone in that part of the country from which I come has something he is interested in and it has something to do with this House of Commons, I generally hear from him. I never heard a word about this bill until I saw it in this house.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: That is the right place. There is no complaint about that.


Clarence Gillis: I do not intend to stand here and say that I will hand over to any executive body in this country the right to expel members of the organization if it does not like their political complexion and so forth; and you can get around to that, do not make any mistake about it.


An hon. MEMBER:: An exception can be made in the case of the C.C.F.


Clarence Gillis: I do not make any exceptions for any organization.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take off a few Liberals


Clarence Gillis: The legion is one organization we have endeavoured to keep politics out of,


An hon. MEMBER:: You made a poor job.


Clarence Gillis: That is one reason I am so greatly concerned now. I wonder what some of the fellows here who are members of the barristers' association, or members of the medi-

Private Bills
cal profession, or members of the trade union organization in this country would say-


Park Manross: Do not drop the legion down to the lawyers' level.


Clarence Gillis: -if you brought a bill into this house that was in effect writing the constitution of your organization that was to govern you the next three years. That is what you are doing here. This legislation will govern the constitution of the Canadian Legion. Is there any trade union organization in Canada that would stand for a bill going through this house that would tell the officers of that corporation that they had the right, without consultation, to run the whole organization to suit themselves and fix the time of convention for two or three years? The rules of the medical society of Canada are analogous to this. The members themselves write the rules. They would not want a bill going through this house telling them exactly what their society was to do between conventions and delegating the right to half a dozen men at the top to run the show and do it legally by virtue of a bill passed by this house. The same thing applies to your barristers' associations.


Mr. HACKETT:: There is so much the hon. member does not know about that, he would do better to keep to the bill. He knows nothing about the barristers' associations.


Clarence Gillis: I know too much about them.
Mr. HACIvETT: That is one of his sad mistakes.


Clarence Gillis: I know so much about them that I never hired one in my life; because if you hire one, you do not know whom he is working for. I am talking about associations. I am not casting any reflection on any of the professions that I mentioned. I merely mention the fact that these associations have the right to run their own show, and they insist on it. I think the organization we are legislating for here tonight in this bill has the right to write its own constitution.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is what they are asking for.


Clarence Gillis: That is not what they are asking for.


John Ewen Sinclair: They asked for this bill.


Clarence Gillis: They did not. The executive members of the Canadian Legion may have asked for it; but I am saying that, so far as I am concerned, I have never had a representation from one branch in this country asking for this kind of legislation. If there is any member in this house who has had any representation from any branch, I should like him to get up and say so.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member was out fishing.


William Henry Golding: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas John Bentley: No, it is not carried.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sabotage.


Thomas John Bentley: No, it is not sabotage. I am as good a member of the legion as anyone in this house-Tory, Liberal, or anyone else. I am just as much interested in this matter and I am just as honest as anyone over on the other side. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has just said. If there is any member in this house who has had one letter from any branch that he knows of in Canada-that is, any bona fide branch-asking that this legislation be supported in the house, I should like to see it right now. Is there anyone who has one?


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Chairman


Thomas John Bentley: Have you one?


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word, if the hon. member will give me a chance to do so.


William Henry Golding: Yes.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I say we have confidence in the officials we appoint. We have confidence that they will look after our interests and we feel that we do not have to keep hold of their coat-tails all the time.


Thomas John Bentley: I have a great deal of confidence in the personal integrity of each individual member of the government, Mr. Chairman.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: So have I.


Thomas John Bentley: But I do not want to go the length of giving the government of Canada that power from now until two years hence; because, no matter how honest, able and sincere they are, they could make a mistake. I think they have made one or two already.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas John Bentley: What I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is this. In the interest of my fellow members in the Canadian Legion with whom I have to associate, I do not feel like helping to pass this kind of legislation without further representations from them. I am only asking that someone who knows the rules well enough, and how to do it, find a way to have this bill referred to a committee so that we can have it thoroughly explained and have
Private Bills

witnesses there who are competent to do the explaining. That is all I am asking. That should not be too much.


William Henry Golding: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Carried.


Ralph Maybank: Despite the fact that the committee is willing to pass this section, I think this remark should be made. The powers to which the members who have spoken last have adverted to again are powers that have been given to the council by the membership all through the years. I commend to my hon. friends also the suggestion that perhaps one reason no representations were made to hon. members to support this legislation is that the organization depends upon its officers, in whom it has trust, to attend to the business they have been directed to do. I should think that would be a reasonable explanation for the fact that no contact has been made with the two hon. members who have spoken. In any event, these are the powers the council has always been exercising by direct vote of the membership.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member has just said that these are the powers they have always had. Granted; but with these powers they have had responsibility, which they are trying to get out from under now.


Ralph Maybank: They have to go to the convention also.


Thomas John Bentley: It is the purpose of this bill to make each legion branch an autonomous organization that can sue or be sued in its own right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Thomas John Bentley: I am not arguing against that, if the hon. member will keep quiet. 1 say that change is being made in the bill. If, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, they are only trying to retain the power they have always had, I say that is true; they are trying to retain the same power and at the same time to divest themselves of some responsibility.


Ralph Maybank: I think that is quite right.


Thomas John Bentley: If you are going to divest yourself of responsibility you should not assume the wide disciplinary powers contained in this bill. I am not a lawyer, but I think that is a sound proposition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

On section 9-Rights of commands and branches.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: No, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas John Bentley: My hon. friends are having a great deal of amusement out of this. Let me remind them-


An hon. MEMBER:: Aren't you?


Thomas John Bentley: No, I am not getting any amusement out of it. I do not get amusement out of the troubles of other people. Many legion members do not care for this kind of thing.


John Ewen Sinclair: They can vote them out.


Thomas John Bentley: Two years from now they can vote them out, but in two years a great many things can be done by a small group of men who have executive power.


John Ewen Sinclair: They can do it next week at Saskatoon.


Thomas John Bentley: This bill will not be in the hands of enough of the rank and file of the legion for those at Saskatoon next week to be able to decide what they want to do about it. The hon. member knows that as well as I do; he is too bright to fail to understand that.


John Ewen Sinclair: I believe the people of Vancouver North know what this is all about, so I can vote intelligently.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member is taking a great deal of credit for the intelligence of the people of his own constituency. I am sure there must be many intelligent people there; but there must be many who are not, or the hon. member would not be here. Under subsections 6 and 7 the president of the dominion executive council, after inquiry and for cause clearly stated, may suspend the charter or powers of any command. In other words, a whole provincial command can be suspended by the arbitrary decision of the dominion executive, because the convention meets for only three or four days every two years. They can suspend the charter of a branch or an auxiliary, or any officers thereof.
Mr. MANROSri: It is appealable.


Thomas John Bentley: Of course it is, but many things are appealable and quite often the appeals do not succeed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sometimes they do.
Mr. BENTLEYN That is quite right; nevertheless if they fail only once or twice I should
Private Bills
say that was an argument for not granting these wide powers. If these people do not want to take the responsibility that has hitherto been theirs for the financial obligations of their branches, they should not ask for the disciplinary powers over them they are requesting at the present time, and I object to these subsections of section 9.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska) moved the second reading of Bill No. 137, to incorporate Rinker Finance Corporation.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill to tell us something about it.


Mr. DECHENE:: I cannot add much to what is in the bill. It is the result of a
petition by several businessmen, asking for incorporation under the laws of this country. They are not asking for a single right or privilege outside the laws already enacted by this dominion. Section 5 reads:
The company is incorporated pursuant to part two of the Small Loans Act, 1939, and to it all the provisions of that act shall extend and apply.
It is an ordinary petition by businessmen, asking for the right to transact business. They are not asking any special privileges of any kind. The bill simply gives the names of the incorporators and the capital stock of the company.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not see why they want this act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: To do business.


John Horne Blackmore: I might tell some hon. members across the floor that if they want this bill held up until nine o'clock that can be done very easily. I am asking a perfectly reasonable question.
5849-251J


Joseph Miville Dechene: I thought I had given the explanation.	..


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.	[DOT]*


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member has not explained it to my satisfaction.	'
'	f


Joseph Miville Dechene: It is very simple. I am sorry the hon. member feels that I am: attempting to slight him by . not giving more, information, but we have incorporated companies in this way at every session of parliament for many years past. I do not think we have any right to refuse incorporation to people who are abiding by the law. This bill was presented to the senate of Canada. It was studied there and submitted to the appropriate committee of the senate. It was recommended by the insurance department and the officials of the government as being a proper bill. It was passed by the senate and has been sent to this house to be finally adopted.
The bill is to give the power to these gentlemen to organize so that they can carry on business under the laws enacted for that purpose.


An hon. MEMBER:: What kind of business?


Joseph Miville Dechene: Small loans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. I felt fairly certain when the motion was made after second reading to refer the bill to the committee of the whole that the house was not following the established procedure. I know the rule book fairly well but I was not able to find the appropriate order quickly enough to rise at that moment. I now call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to standing order 104. I ask you 'to note that it is not a mere citation or record of what we usually do; it is a standing order of this house. It reads:
Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows:	Bills relating to banks, insurance,
trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the committee on banking and commerce, bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; the bills not coming under these classes to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.
I wish to make it clear that I am not questioning the substance of the bill at all. I think the house made a mistage, and as chairman you should find some way by which we could follow the standing order and refer this bill to one of the standing committees.
Private Bills


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is raising his point too late. The house agreed to go into committee of the whole and his objection is too late.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The house usually votes to go into committee of the whole on these [DOT]bills, but the bill is never referred to the committee of the whole until after it has gone to the other committee. It is almost automatic, once it comes back to the house, that it is on the order paper and the house goes into committee. The mistake was not made by the members of the house; it was made by the Speaker and the Clerk.


William Henry Golding: In this case the house agreed to go into committee of the whole on this bill. My hon. friend knows that in most cases after second reading the motion is moved that the bill be referred to a special or standing committee, but that did not happen in this case. This bill is now before the committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Further, on the point of order, I call your attention to standing order 105 which reads:
No committee on any private bill originating in this house is to consider the same until after one week's notice of the sitting of such committee has been first affixed in the lobby; nor, in the case of any such bill originating in the senate, until after twenty-four hours' like notice.
I do not think we can so lightly disregard the rules of this house. I am sure that the hon. member who is piloting this bill was most surprised when Mr. Speaker said that the motion was to refer it to the committee of the whole; I am sure he expected it to go to the committee on banking and commerce. Knowing the hon. member as I do, I am sure he would rather see it done in the proper way.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member's objection should have been raised when the Speaker was in the chair. That was not done; the bill was referred to the committee of the whole and we are now in committee on the bill.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member. I would be perfectly willing if at this stage-


Clarence Gillis: Get it out of the hole.


Joseph Miville Dechene: I hope my hon. friend has not made up his mind to stop everybody in this country from carrying on business.


Clarence Gillis: I said it was in a hole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe time would be saved if it were moved that the committee rise, report progress and that the bill be referred to the proper committee.
TMr. Knowles.]


Mr. NICHOLSON:: In view of the fact that this is a corporation asking for legislation-


William Henry Golding: Is the hon. member dealing with clause 1?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No. I was suggesting that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


William Henry Golding: I have given my ruling on the point of order. We are dealing with clause 1.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I do not think you have satisfied the committee that we are in order.


An hon. MEMBER:: He certainly has.


John Horne Blackmore: According to the standing order which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has read, the Speaker would hardly have the right to ask that this bill should be taken up in this committee without having been referred to the other committee.


William Henry Golding: I would
remind the hon. member that I have given my ruling and we are dealing with clause 1.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Henry Golding: Shall the
clause carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Henry Golding: Clause 2.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on clause 1; I wonder if the hon. member-


An hon. MEMBER:: It is carried.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -who is sponsoring this bill would tell us the qualifications of Roy Joseph Rinker, agent; Louis Walter Kern, agent; Joseph Rothwell English, barrister; Harold Walpole Pope, barrister; all of the city of Moose Jaw, in the province of Saskatchewan, and John Nichol Wilcox, inspector, of the city of Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, together with such other persons as become shareholders in the company are incorporated under the name of Rinker Finance Corporation, hereinafter called "the company." Would the hon. member tell us the qualifications of the gentlemen whose names are mentioned there?


Mr. BOUCHER:: They were all born and baptized.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have asked a question which I think deserves some comment by the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill.
Postal Service


William Henry Golding: Order. It being nine o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford
City) in the chair.
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Supplemental Payments Act to provide that no supplemental payments shall be authorized under the act after the thirty-first day of March, 1949.
Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was explaining the resolution, which is very simple. Its purpose is to extend for one year more the measure we passed last year to pay supplementaries to the rural mail contractors. There is only one line to the bill, extending the date to March 31, 1949.


Mr. McLURE:: Mr. Chairman, last year, on February 12, the hon. Postmaster General moved a similar resolution, reading:
That it is expedient to present a bill to authorize the payment of moneys under a mail contract, supplemental to the amount agreed to be paid under the contract, and for the continuance of the payment of bonuses in respect of mail contracts, presently authorized by order in council, as supplemental payments under the proposed act.
On that resolution there was considerable discussion in the house with reference to mail contracts and the obligations of mail couriers, in which a great number of members, representing almost every constituency in Canada, took part. There was a general request at that time that a special committee be set up to look into the problems of the rural mail couriers throughout Canada. Not only one but several members urged upon the Postmaster General the setting up of a special committee for that purpose, and the Postmaster General said, at page 360 of Hansard:
I have no objection to having a committee consider this matter in an effort to improve the service.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that at that time the Postmaster General was rather in favour of a special committee being set up. One year passed, and then on February 10, 1948, I directed this question to the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister. It will be found at page 1039 of Hansard of February 10, 1948:
Is it the intention of the government to set up a special committee of the house to study
the problems of the rural mail couriers in order to give these most faithful servants a living wage ?
The Postmaster General replied:
It is not the intention of the government to establish a committee, but as I said before, a bill will be brought in to give authority to make further supplementary payments.
I am at a loss to understand the reluctance of the Postmaster General to having a special committee set up in the best interests of his own department. It is difficult to understand why such a committee should not have been set up to study this serious problem this session. Otherwise how are the rural mail couriers to know where they stand with reference to their contracts? They have no security whatsoever once their contract expires. Very few officials of the government stand in that position and I think it is time that we gave consideration to these faithful mail couriers. If we give them no support at this time, once their contract is expired, we can say of them, "The last state of that man is worse than the first." That is the position we are leaving our mail contractors in today.
The mail couriers are not looking for large remuneration. All they are looking for under present-day conditions is a living wage. But they would like to have a little security after their long years of service, so that under the present obnoxious tender system they would not find themselves, at the end of their contract, dispensed with for the sake of a $5 bill on a four-year contract. That is the position they are in today. I suggest to the Postmaster General that we get rid of this obnoxious tender system and that a new and better system be set up which will give the mail couriers a certain amount of security as well as a living wage.
Suppose, for instance, we start with a mileage basis of $50 per mile for the carrying and distributing of mail on an improved highway. If it is an ordinary dirt road the mail courier should be allowed something extra per mile for travelling at a disadvantage over an unimproved road. In addition to this basis of $50 per mile, there should also be taken into account the number of boxes served and the number of post offices. Consideration should also be given to the time required for .the delivery of the mail. If consideration were given to these three factors I am sure that our mail couriers would be 100 per cent satisfied, and the cost to the country would be very small. Let us not forget that these men are the most faithful servants of any department in the government of our country. Why should we ask them to put in twenty-five years' service, and a few of them have longer service than that, or it may be twenty years' service,
Postal Service

or fifteen, and then at the end of their contract period because someone tenders to do the work for five dollars, or it may be one dollar less, they are out. They have no security under the present tender system, and they are .poorly paid.
The cost of their equipment should also be taken into account. True, on a good highway they can use an automobile during the summer months, but that is an expensive article today. Even if they buy second-hand ones, the repairs and so forth are expensive. We as a committee should urge upon the department the necessity of taking into consideration the extra cost to which these couriers are put at this time, and they should be reimbursed for it.
We might look at another side of the question. In my own constituency there are several couriers-one in particular-with a thirty or thirty-one mile route. Last winter was a very hard one, and there was no opportunity whatsoever to use a car, even if they had one. Under those conditions the courier I have in mind was forced to use two horses to continue his work. He did his work faithfully and well. Have hon. members ever considered what it takes to feed two horses at the present time? It costs 100 per cent more than it did a few years ago. When this man was finished at the end of the month and took his expenses into consideration I doubt whether he would have fifty cents left for himself. Hon. members may say that that was because of a very hard winter in the east, but that is apt to occur at any time. We should do something for these men, and do it now.
If the resolution which is before us goes into effect tonight, what will it do? It will assure the mail courier that he will have his little bonus extended to him as before, but it gives him no security whatsoever at the end of his contract. I have already said, and I repeat that he loses his position after probably fifteen or twenty years' service because of a somewhat smaller tender, or a tender $5 or $10 less than his.
For a moment I should like to refer to the great discrepancies that exist between the mail contracts in the constituency of Queen's. I hold in my hand a list of rural mail contracts in my constituency, and I want to bring it to the attention of the Postmaster General. These mail routes are of the same length, and possibly the same number of boxes are served; yet there is this great difference. On an eight-mile route the average price paid is from $300 to $400. On a nine-mile route the average price paid is from $400 to $450. On a ten-mile route the average is from $372 to $400. On a fourteen-mile route the average

is from $564 to $700. On a sixteen-mile route the average is from $638.97 to $1,000. On a nineteen-mile route the average is from $668.31 to $925. On a twenty-six mile route the average is from $902.50 to $1,450. They are all different. On a twenty-eight mile route the average is from $1,100 to $1,470. On a thirty-mile route the average is from $1,218 to $1,440. The difference shows up clearly, and is hardly fair to men covering the same distance under the same conditions. One is paid $100, $200 or $300 more per annum than the other.
I should like to cite just one or two instances. Take the sixteen-mile route. I think this will occur in many constituencies other than my own. The mail courier gets $1,000 for the sixteen-mile route, but at the same time the courier on a twenty-six mile route gets only $902.50. The man with the longer distance to travel is penalized to the tune of $97.50 because he has to deliver the mail ten miles farther than the other man. These things are unfair, and the couriers realize it. They expect the department to look into the matter at this time.
I want to cite one other instance, but the same discrepancies occur in a great number of cases. One mail courier with a seventeen-mile route to travel gets only $1,200. I know the route very well. He is not too highly paid at $1,200. But another man serving a twenty-eight mile route gets $1,100, $100 less because he has to travel thirteen miles farther every day. I ask the Postmaster General if this is fair. These things should be taken into consideration at this time; and, instead of tenders being called, the courier should have the right to renew if he has been satisfactory. Men of that type should have consideration. In fact, through all these mail contracts these discrepancies occur. I am not going to labour the point any further in favour of the mail courier.
Last year quite a number of hon. members spoke on this question, and with one accord they were all of the opinion that the mail couriers were the most faithful servants of any of the departments of government; yet they were the most poorly paid of all men, and no security was granted to them beyond the renewal of their contracts. These are things that I hope the Postmaster General will give consideration to at this session.


Mr. SHAW:: It is not my purpose to detain the committee for more than just a few moments. However I feel there are certain observations that I should offer. I agree with practically everything said by the hon. member for Queens. I doubt whether anyone who is familiar with the difficulties which have
Postal Service
been encountered by our mail couriers, difficulties which in the main they are still encountering, could do other than beseech the minister and his department to give immediate consideration to more adequate compensation for our mail couriers. I believe it was in 1941 that the government first recognized the necessity of making additional payments to certain mail couriers, largely because of the increased costs incurred owing to certain factors. Many of these contracts had been let prior to the outbreak of the war. Costs mounted rapidly during the first two years of the war, resulting in the five per cent bonus paid to certain couriers who ap-* plied, and under certain circumstances. I believe it was by order in council that that action was taken. Later on, further provision was made. I believe that three orders in council were passed, 2311, 5833 and 4960, authorizing additional payments to mail contractors who were operating under contracts which, from their point of view, were not equitable in view of changed conditions. My firm conviction is that the bonuses which have been paid are inadequate when one stops to consider for a moment the fact that the cost of living has increased by more than 50 per cent, or at least that the cost of living index has gone up to 151.
The resolution we have before us, if I interpret it correctly, authorizes the continuation of supplemental payments until March 31, 1949. I hope, even though it states that no such payment shall be made after that date, that nothing will stand in the way of the government taking whatever action may be considered appropriate prior to that time in order that supplemental payments be continued, or possibly I should say unless the government is prepared to take steps prior to that time to bring about a complete readjustment, quite apart from the bonus payments, in the method utilized in compensating mail carriers.
Speaking in the House of Commons on February 12, 1947, the Postmaster General made this observation with respect to tenders which were secured after tenders had been called for in connection with mail carriers:
It must be admitted that very often we have to refuse even the lowest tenders because they are too large. The tenderers do not know how their contract costs are going to run, where they will begin or where they will end, and they do not take any chances. Of course, when we succeed in obtaining a contract at what we consider a reasonable amount we grant it.
The information I desire in that connection is this. Upon what basis does the Post Office Department determine the reasonableness or otherwise of any given tender? I wonder if
they take into consideration the fact that over a given period the contract let, in, let us say, 1938 or 1939 was a certain amount but since that time the cost of living has gone up by a certain number of points. Have they taken that into consideration, or are they still thinking-


Ernest Bertrand: We have considered that and many other things.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -in terms of the 1938 or 1939 level? I am going to underline that question, hoping that the minister will not forget it, because this is what is occurring in certain parts of the west at least. The post office is calling for tenders and it is concluding in certain instances that the tenders are too high, or it takes the lowest of all, and says to the people of that area, "O.K. You have been enjoying mail delivery three times a week over that route, but since our costs are so high now we shall have to reduce your services to two days a week or one day a week".
I do not know whether the minister shook his head, but here is some correspondence relevant thereto with respect to one case in my own constituency where actually, in the interests of so-called economy, that is to say a few dollars, they have reduced the mail service to people in an old established community in that area. That case, as I am reminded by the hon. member for Bow River, was brought to the attention of the minister and the explanation was this: Well, sometime later-[DOT] the last correspondence is dated March 9- we will again call for tenders on this contract, and provided that someone will take it cheaply enough, we will restore the type of service which you enjoyed, let us say, ten years ago.
There is not a department of government that is able to show a more handsome profit on operations than the post office. In fact I believe the officials of that department speak with much pride of the profits which they obtain as a result of the operation of that service. In the light of that, it is extremely difficult for me to understand why, to use the common parlance of the west, they do so much chiseling when it comes to the mail delivery service or the postal service. It is something I cannot understand at all.
The district officers throughout Canada are endeavouring to provide the finest type of service which they can under the regulations, but they seem to be constantly haunted by the feeling that Ottawa has applied great pressure for economy.
I believe the Post Office Department and the minister himself have always prided themselves upon the type of service they offer. By and large they are quite justified in doing so,
Postal Service

but in many communities, just because an operation will not pay, as they say, it does not seem to matter at all whether the people have been living in the community for forty or fifty years, the department either refuse to give adequate service or deprive those people of certain existing services.
My argument, advanced on previous occasions and advanced here again tonight, is this. Certain operations cannot pay; but there is no reason, as long as the Post Office Department is piling up millions in the 'way of profits annually, why certain communities-and there cannot be many of them-should not be provided with at least a minimum service, even though that specific operation may not pay.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would remind the committee that we are not on the estimates of the Post Office Department. The committee is considering a resolution that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Supplemental Payments Act to provide that no supplemental payments shall be authorized under the act after the 31st day of March, 1949. I would remind hon. members that in committee all remarks must be directly relevant to the resolution under consideration, and accordingly I would ask hon. members to discuss the resolution and not to deal with the post office services in general.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I rather thought my observations were right in line with the resolution before us. I was talking of service which was being extended or not being extended into certain communities as a consequence of government policy with respect to the delivery of mail into certain communities. However, there is a possibility that I may have strayed a little afield and therefore I will not pursue that course further. I will ask the minister * the question I previously put. What basis is used to determine the reasonableness of a tender for mail delivery in any specific area served by a rural route?
If we could have something definite in that regard it would greatly help. We are in favour of the continuation of the payment of bonuses to mail carriers. We rather fancied that consideration might well have been given to increasing these bonuses because, after all, we must not forget that these men today are paying approximately twice as much for the automobile or truck they use as they paid ten years ago. Parts, gas and all their equipment have gone up tremendously in price during the last ten years; and no five per cent or ten per cent bonus will compensate them for this additional cost. Moreover, I can visualize

that the minister may encounter, if he has not already done so, considerable difficulty in securing bids in certain areas unless these rates are increased, with consequent reduction in the service that is rendered to certain of these communities. Possibly the minister might comment on my question,


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I know that the Postmaster General is just as much interested in this resolution as any of the rest of us. I should like to say that, after the full-dress debate we had a year ago, there is probably no necessity of having a repetition in 1948. However, there are a few words I should like to say in connection with two matters. The first one is with regard to competitive bidding for a civil service job, and probably one of the most important ones in our establishment. The second is bearing more on the resolution than anything else, and is with relation to the bonus. I am not putting my finger on any person in particular, but I am saying that it is something which could be misused. There are people who say that you will play politics; that you will do this, that or the other thing to get votes. I am not saying this will be used for that purpose; but at the same time it could be used. The Postmaster General should take those two matters into consideration. I think he should do away with competitive bidding for a most essential job, and should also do away with that subsidy on individual routes.


Angus MacInnis: There is not much I want to say on this, Mr. Chairman, and I shall try to keep within the terms of the resolution. The supplemental payments were made because with the rise in prices and the rise in cost of living, the payments made under the contracts were not meeting the costs that many of the couriers were put to in fulfilling their contracts. The resolution provides that these supplemental payments shall be discontinued as of March, 1949; that is, in a little less than another year. I agree with the hon. member for Bruce who spoke a moment ago.


Ernest Bertrand: It applies to one year; it is from March 31, 1948, to 1949.


Angus MacInnis: Yes. The contract system in this matter has never worked satisfactorily. Couriers tendering for these routes tender for them, in many instances, at prices which could not pay them for the time and energy expended and the costs to which they were put.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Poor old private enterprise.

Postal Service
Mr. MaeINNIS: Yes, private enterprise; I agree with my hon. friend. While contracts in other businesses under private enterprise are quite proper and quite the thing to do, in these circumstances where the individual does not take into consideration all his costs and says that this is something he will take on the side, it does not work out satisfactorily and the service suffers.
What I was going to suggest to the minister is that, before the term of these supplements ends-and he has still some time before it does-he try to work out some policy for the payment of couriers that will eliminate the unsatisfactory nature of the tender system. Personally I do not think it can ever be made to work. Even now persons contracting tor routes cannot say wrhether the prices at which they contract will be satisfactory six months from now. The same situation will prevail at almost any time, although perhaps it will not be as bad as it is at the present time when prices are rising constantly. I would suggest to the minister that, during the time he has left, he with the staff in his department try to bring some scheme before parliament that would meet the situation better than the one now in effect.


Ernest Bertrand: I thank hon. members who have spoken. I want them to understand that I realize the difficulties of the department in granting these contracts. This government and the government before it took the attitude that the contractors were men and had the right to tender. They know what they are tendering for and they tender. I suppose they are all reasonable men. We have to take this into consideration. We cannot admit for one minute that these contractors are minors or children and that they must be protected. Otherwise where should we stop? Are we to stop at mail contracts, or must we do the same thing with regard to every employee and every thing that is being done in any of the departments?
I admit that there are so many factors to be taken into consideration that it is absolutely impossible to fix a rate, and I could give a great many examples. There might be ten, fifteen or twenty contracts in Canada that are alike. But the country is so large, the seasons vary so greatly and the ground is so different that if we were fixing a norm for contracts, we would have to fix one from one end of Canada to the other, which would be worse than the freight rates. It would be something which would require lawyers who were well qualified and who had made those rates a life-long study, in order to be explained properly.
This has been considered many times by the Post Office Department and by governments before the present one; and it was found that, after all, it was better to continue with the tender system. In 1941 or 1943, during the war, costs of gasoline, for example, were raised; and we gave a bonus to take care of that rise and the rise in various things such as oil, gas, and even automobiles. Later on we gave another bonus, by order in council, again in order to help them, because prices were going up. Labour was in short supply and it was difficult to keep on with these contracts.
After the war, all these orders in council had to cease after a certain time when peace was proclaimed legally by order in council. Then we passed this law last year because business conditions had not changed. They were sometimes even worse than during the war. We passed this law last year in order to help the contractors.
One hon. member was asking what were the norms that we were taking in order to grant contracts. In this, of course, we have to use discretion, because a man with a contract to carry mail on the north shore of the St. Lawrence must be paid more than a man who has a contract in the Niagara district, for example, where he can use an automobile all year.
There are many other things we may not know. A man may be of a certain age and have very little to do. He will tender at a price that suits him. He already has an automobile or a horse and buggy. He puts in a low tender. Sometimes he is doing something else as well. In most of these cases they carry merchandise or people when they deliver their mail. All this has to be taken into consideration ; and even if we were fixing rates, taking into consideration everything we could think of, I do not believe we would arrive at a better price than that quoted by the man who says, "I am prepared to take this contract at this figure". They do not make very many mistakes.
In this house we are sometimes liable to talk rather as a lawyer in court. We take one particular case and generalize on it, then draw conclusions; but I think we make a mistake in doing so. My department and I would like very much to be able to establish a rate in advance at so much a mile in this district and so much a mile in that district, but to do that one would have to take this part of the service and either put it under the civil service commission or fix the rates according to our discretion. Today anyone can submit a tender. It does not matter whether he is a Conserva-
Postal Service

tive, a C.C.F.'er or a Liberal; if he submits the lowest tender and has the machinery to enable him to fulfil his contract we give it to him. I know the difficulties that are created at times. Occasionally there are protests which I have to put aside, because we give the contract to the man with the necessary machinery to carry it out.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: To get back to what the minister said a moment ago about a chap tendering and getting a contract, is there anything to prevent that man from obtaining a bonus after having obtained the contract?


Ernest Bertrand: If the hon. gentleman reads the act we passed last year he will see the circumstances under which this gentleman may have a bonus. He must serve one year before he can ask for a bonus; and we must be satisfied that conditions have changed.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Then do I understand that after the expiration of a year he is eligible for a bonus?


Ernest Bertrand: He may ask for a bonus, and we will examine his case. He has to prove that he cannot fulfil the contract with a reasonable profit which will permit him to live; and under those conditions we grant him a bonus. I was explaining that if we were to get rid of the tender system the government in power would be able to take only its friends to fulfil these contracts. We know that could be done very easily, and we do not want that.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I should like to ask another theoretical question. Let us say a certain man is given a contract because his was the lowest tender. After serving for a year, he applies for a bonus which, when granted, brings his salary above the figure of the next highest tender. What action would be taken in that case?


Ernest Bertrand: He carries on for one year and then proves that his contract figure is too low, that conditions have changed, or that he made a mistake. If his reasons are good, we give him a supplement. In a few moments I am going to give figures to show that we do not make very many mistakes.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I do not think my question has been answered. Let us say the next tender was less than the total of the first tender plus the bonus. What action would be taken in that case?


Ernest Bertrand: I said we would give that gentleman a supplement. The

man whose tender the year before was perhaps $50 higher has been eliminated; the other gentleman has taken the contract. He has served for one year, has bought his automobile or his horse, and we give him the supplement. I do not think we could do otherwise.
As I was about to say, if we did away with the tender system we would have a great many more employees who would be civil servants. I suppose they would have to be within the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five, and we would have to superannuate them after a certain number of years. We would like to do all that, but it must be remembered that in some cases contracts are given to men who are over sixty-five years of age. It is not a difficult job to go to the station, pick up the bags and carry them five or six or ten or fifteen miles and then go home. It may be just the sort of job an older man needs, and he knows what he should ask for carrying out that contract.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In referring to my question a moment ago, the minister said no one should know better than the tenderer what it is worth to carry mail over a specific route. Theoretically that may be all right, but in practice and in fact that is not the case. We have had instances in which five men have tendered, and the spread between their tenders has not been more than $100; yet the department has said all the tenders were too high. So I want to ask this question. When the officials go over a specific route and set a rate, or when they say a bid is too high, just how do they go about the matter? Do they set an arbitrary figure, or what factors do they take into consideration?


Ernest Bertrand: The officials of the Post Office Department are men of wide knowledge. The man in charge of this department, for example, has had twenty or twenty-five years of service, and he knows. We have to protect the taxpayer as much as possible. We think of that sometimes in the post office. If tenders are much too high we certainly have the right to say so, and to ask for new tenders. This we do. Sometimes we arrive at a settlement with a man whose tender was too high, but who is ready to reduce it to a reasonable amount.
As hon. members know, all these laws are temporary. Perhaps .1 have spoken a little more than I should, due to all these questions which have been asked, but I might tell the committee that we have revenue postmasters, who are paid according to the amount taken in by their office. Today we are changing that and substituting civil servants who will be

Postal Service
paid a fixed rate. Many of them after serving for thirty-five or forty years withdrew from the service without any superannuation. We want to provide superannuation for these people. The department will then be able to sec that the place where a post office is installed in any village or town is a proper place.
We will pay for the premises instead of the postmaster paying as he does today under the revenue system. In addition the government will pay whatever employees are necessary to carry on the work. We do not want to continue in the haphazard way it was before.
We have thought of the mail contractors, but I must confess that we cannot find a better method than the one we have today. The cost of rural mail delivery is not going up any more. It went up between 1941 and 1947 but now it has reached the peak. I have some figures from April 1. 1947, to January 31, 1948-I have not the figures to March 31- so that lion, members can see what we have done.
A total of 2.297 contracts were granted with supplements, the total amount being $391,327. The contract rate before the supplement was granted last September was $1,704,248. The supplements that were granted prior to April 1, 1947, before the last supplements were granted by virtue of the law passed last year, were $279,300, so that the total cost, including all supplements, for those 2.297 contracts was $2,374,916.
The supplements granted between April 1, 1947, and January 31, 1948, increased the cost of service 19-73 per cent, while the supplements granted prior to April 1, 1947, by virtue of the orders in council of 1941 and 1943, increased the cost 16-39 per cent. The total increase in cost due to supplements was 39-38 per cent.
Certain contracts have had to be let by tender because the contractors did not want to carry on, because the contractor had died or for some other reason. When there is no contractor handling the mail we must call for tenders under the law. We called for tenders in 1,032 cases during the same period from April 1, 1947, to January 31, 1948. The former contracts, not including supplements, were for $671,495. The lowest tenders amounted to $924,550, so that there was an increase of $253,055, or 37-68 per cent, as compared with the other increase of 39-38 per cent where supplements were granted.
We want to abandon this sytem and go back to tenders. We had given notice to all mail contractors, but it was decided in council 5849-252J
that this should be extended for one year' more to meet the requests of hon. members from all sides of the house. I do not know what will be done in 1949, but we are asking for this extension at the request of hon. members.	*


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I want to assure the minister that we are not opposed to extending the bonuses, but I should like to know how the government handles certain of these cases. The minister pointed out a while ago the difficulties in carrying out certain routes, and I want to call to his attention the case mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Red Deer.
In this particular case apparently there was no question about tenders because only one man tendered. For reasons best known to themselves, the government decided that the. amount they would have to pay for this mail route was too high and that the only alternative was to cut the service. It seems tq me it is not logical for the minister to say that in some cases they must pay a bonus because the contract is too low and then in other cases cut the service because the contract is too high.
I happen to know this district exceptionally well. The sideroads are extremely bad, being heavy gumbo. That is probably why the minister never has more than the one tender. A service of three times a week has been given for a number of years. The man who had the contract renewed it. It may have been at a higher rate; I am not sure about that. The people in the district were much put out because the government, instead of giving this man a bonus to carry on the service, as was done in other cases, reduced the service. They paid the same rate but they reduced the service. I should like to know in how many instances the services have been cut instead of an increased amount being paid.


Ernest Bertrand: I could not give the hon. member the exact number, although I would have that information when we are on my estimates. I admit that we make mistakes, but if we attempted to establish in advance a rate for all these routes the mistakes would be more numerous. In distant districts the mail must be carried in whatever way it is possible to deliver it. We deliver by dog sleigh, by plane, by courier' on horseback and in every way possible, for our motto is to deliver the mail everywhere, and not, as an hon. member said the other day, that the postman always knocks twice.
Sometimes the tender price is absolutely too high and we are not justified in awarding
Postal Service

a contract at that price. In one district in Quebec province which is represented by one of my closest friends here there is a route of twenty-five or twenty-six miles with quite a number -of boxes on the route, and the gentleman who had the contract was performing it for $770 a year. We called for tenders and that gentleman came in with a tender of $1,800 for the same service. I thought it would be practically stealing the taxpayers' money to grant the contract at $1,800, which was the lowest tender. So we called for new tenders, and this same gentleman put in another tender for $1,800. He was the only tenderer, so we had to cut the service because it was unreasonable to award a contract at that high price. We know, of course, the price at which. contracts in the surrounding district are being performed. It may be at $58, $60 or $65 per mile, and if we get a tender for $80 or $85 per mile in the same district, that seems too high and we have to protect the taxpayer. Sometimes we got the people on the route to agree to a service two or three times a week, instead of six days a week. We have to use our discretion.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will not pursue this case any further on this occasion but will go into it more fully when the minister's estimates come before, the house. I will give him the name of the route so that he can be prepared to discuss it. It is Ghost Pine Creek, R.R. No. 1, Alberta. We are not asking that the rate be reduced or that the compensation be lowered or even that a route be established. This is not one of those outlying districts to which the minister referred but one of the oldest and best settled parts of the country.


Ernest Bertrand: I shall be prepared to go into the case when my estimates come up.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope the minister will qome prepared to go into it fully.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 313, to amend the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
	.
On section 1-Extension of authority.
Mr. CHARLTON:: We have not the bill.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
JrGS. Departmental administration, $690,676.
Mr. MaoNICOL: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is familiar with the matter I am going to bring to his attention and I bring it up to encourage him to take up with his departmental engineers the necessity of eliminating a vicious bottleneck in one of our internal transportation routes, the removal of which would be of great assistance and of material help to transportation between Montreal and New York City.
The Richelieu river route, leading from the great St. Lawrence river, was the first route to be opened up in the history of this country by the great Champlain, in 1609, and yet it is one of the most neglected transportation routes in our country. So far as I can understand it, there is no excuse for that whatever. I have been up and down the river nearly every year, because it is not only a very scenic route, but also a historic route. It was first opened to ship traffic about 1831, and on the whole there has been very little improvement in it since it was first opened up.
As one leaves Montreal and goes down the river to Sorel, a distance of forty-six miles, the draft is thirty-five feet. Of course, it would be out of the question to have a 35-foot draft from Sorel to New York city. After one leaves Sorel and goes up the river to St. Ours, a distance of fourteen miles, the draft is 12 feet. The minister's predecessor was a man for whom I had a very warm regard. I thought a great deal of him, and on several different occasions he brought up the question of improving the Richelieu river transportation to a draft of twelve feet from Sorel to Lake Champlain. I saw him shortly before he died. I told him that I would bring the matter up in the house until his hopes regarding the Richelieu would be fulfilled. If one leaves Sorel, as I said a moment ago, and sails up the river fourteen miles he comes to St. Ours where the draft immediately changes from twelve to six and a half feet. Notwithstanding the fact the river is a fine broad river from St. Ours, and a
Supply-Transport
fairly good draft in many places, the draft that regulates the course is six and a half feet.
The distance from St. Ours to Chambly is, I believe, thirty-two miles. At Chambly a very much worse bottleneck is met with. One then enters the old Richelieu river canal, and for a distance of twelve miles from Chambly to St. Johns the draft of the canal is still six and a half feet. That is the third change from Montreal. First is the 35-foot draft, Montreal to Sorel. The Richelieu river itself is twelve feet from Sorel to St. Ours; then from St. Ours to Chambly, six and a half feet, and then from Chambly to St. Johns, six and a half feet.
But the minister's predecessor did have in view having that river placed in proper condition. At St. Ours he built a lock. I remember supporting it. One of the first things I did when I came to the house was to support the building of a new lock at St. Ours. I believe the minister's predecessor built it standard size, 329 feet in length by 45 feet in width, with a draft of twelve feet. That beautiful lock stands there today with little traffic through it excepting small boats which go down or up the Richelieu canal from St. Johns to St. Ours.
In the canal from Chambly to St. Johns there are eight locks. They are all little ones, about 120 feet long and about twenty-three feet seven inches wide, with a draft of six and a half feet. The minister's predecessor had commenced to make quite an improvement in the river north and south of St. Johns. About five miles south of Chambly he built what is called Fryer's dam. I helped that through the house because I agreed with his argument that by building the Fryer's island dam we could have a 12-foot draft from Fryer's island right up to lake Champlain, and then it would need only five miles of canal to get down to Chambly.
I do not want to detain the committee for any length of time. I hope the minister will take this under advisement and do his best to carry out the program of his predecessor to have at least a 12-foot draft from Sorel up to Rouses Point, the international boundary, because from that point on, right on to the end of the Champlain canal at Whitehall, a distance of about 125 to 140 miles, there is a very good canal with a 12-foot draft. I have often gone down there to watch the traffic on that canal. It would do anyone good to go down to Burlington, Vermont, and on down to Whitehall, and down as far as Albany, to see the amount of traffic on this
Champlain canal. There is no reason why we could not have the same amount of traffic on the Canadian side. I hope the minister will direct his department to try to complete the canalization of the Richelieu river from Rouses Point to Sorel, which ls a fine city with a good elevator.
With the locks the same size as the St. Ours lock all the way up and down, I am quite satisfied that it would mean a great thing for the province of Quebec. It would mean more, traffic up and down the St. Lawrence river, particularly from the paper mills at Three Rivers, which would have an outlet right down to New York city. That should increase their export of paper to New York to perhaps a million tons a year. Today it is just a trickle. In addition to paper, the canal could be used for a thousand and one other commodities. It would be a real route from Montreal city to New York, a total distance of 452 miles, and all that distance would have a 12-foot draft at least. It would ensure a through, sound and safe 12-foot route from Montreal right down to New York city.
Once you get into the Hudson river, of course the draft is deeper. Not only that but they would have through the Erie canal, from where the Mohawk river and canal flow into the Hudson river near Albany, a 12-foot draft all the way to Buffalo. I am as sure as I am standing here it would mean a great thing to traffic in inland waters. Had it been there, it would have been of gigantic service during the war for the shipment of bauxite. It would have meant a safe inland route up the canal and all down to that beautiful town represented by an lion, member who is not in his-seat at the moment, Bagotville at the head? of Ha! Ha! bay, and they would use it today if the canal were there to be used. I cannot help saying to myself that it is not fair to that beautiful route which is a gorgeous scenic route; it is not fair to that part of the province of Quebec; it is not fair to all the territory of Quebec which would benefit from the deepening of that canal to 12 feet.
I do not want to go into the matter any further tonight because I am sure the minister wants to get some of his estimates through. I leave the matter with him and hope that he will take it up with his department. If he brings in next year an estimate to go on as far as Fryer's Island dam on the Richelieu river I shall support him. I should like to see him, as the successor to the man who introduced and promoted the real canalization of the Richelieu river, bring in a program for the completion of the Richelieu river canalization.
Supply-Transport
Lionel Chevrier: I feel I should say one word in reply to what the hon. member for Davenport has just said. I want to commend him on his advocacy of the Richelieu route which, as he says, was inaugurated, in so far as certain expenditures are concerned, by the former member for Richelieu-Vercheres, who was also one of my predecessors in the Department of Transport.
There is no doubt that that route should be given careful consideration. As the hon. gentleman has said, it is an historic route; it is also one that would be far shorter than the one which we use via the St. Lawrence at the moment, and great benefit could be derived from it. But I have to draw this to his attention-I think I did it when he brought up the matter during my estimates last year; if it was not last year it was the year previous to that-that when the international joint commission gave consideration to the Richelieu project-and they gave it very careful study- they came to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to deepen the route until such time as the St. Lawrence-great lakes waterways project had been completed.
There is a lengthy report on it to which I had to give some study when I was interviewed by a group of gentlemen representing the chamber of commerce from Sorel. As I recollect, the report was worded in such a way that, until such time as the greater project on the St. Lawrence waterway was completed, it would not be economic for the government to undertake the deepening of the route from Richelieu to the head of lake Champlain. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the matter is constantly before us, because representations are coming in from time to time. I am glad to see that he is taking such an interest in it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suggest to the minister that if he is wise he will not pay too much attention to the international joint commission in that particular. They did give consent when they allowed his predecessor to build the Fryer's island dam which would have meant a 12-foot route from Fryer's island to lake Champlain, with a little dredging near St. Johns. They gave consent, and it has not a solitary thing to do with the St. Lawrence seaway canal. It has no connection whatever with it. It is only a 12-foot route, whereas from the sea to Montreal it is a 35-foot route, and west of that it is to be twenty-seven feet. I do not think the St. Lawrence seaway has a single, solitary thing to do with the completion of the canalization of the Richelieu river. I hope the minister will give that full consideration and fight

against the argument that the canal cannot be completed. A 12-foot canal is one thing; a 27-foot canal is another thing, and a 35-foot route is something else. They would not put anything like that over on me. I read all the papers on the subject and I went to Burlington to listen to the discussions when the international joint commission sat. I cannot see how the two things ai'e connected. I am convinced of that, because they did allow the building of Fryer's dam. The Fryer's island dam was built but it is not in operation.


John Thomas Hackett: Was not the route practically abandoned when the export of hay ceased to be the principal item of commerce along the Richelieu?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the route is used at the present time for certain products that are shipped through it.


John Thomas Hackett: There is a certain amount of live fish and some oil. Eels going into the market are taken alive in boats.


Lionel Chevrier: And paper products from Donnacona as well.


John Thomas Hackett: Has the minister the
revenue?


Lionel Chevrier: 1 will have it in a moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is no revenue because nothing much bigger than a rowboat can go up and down the canal today.


Lionel Chevrier: The amount of traffic that went down the canal in 1947 was 61,086
tons, and 538 vessels used the route.


Thomas Langton Church: There are one or two matters I should like to bring before the minister. I hope he will give some consideration, in the $60,000,000 estimates in his department, to the province of Ontario. One of the items in that $60,000,000 relates to the administration of the Transport Act. The administration of that act represents a large portion of the work of the transport department. I would point out that under the administration of the act the board of transport commissioners spend a large sum of money. The board, by the act, are required of their own volition to investigate complaints.
Is there any reason why the Toronto district should not have a steam suburban service? There is one in connection with the island of Montreal. It has been under the vote for almost thirty years. Montreal island has had an elaborate suburban service. On the other hand, it is in Ontario that the Canadian National Railways, through the old Grand
Supply-Transport
Trunk, made most of its money, and still we cannot get anything. I have had a great deal of correspondence with the board in this connection but we have not succeeded in getting anything. There is only one train a day that stops at Port Union. There is no reason why we should not have a service similar to that provided in the Montreal district. I am not complaining about the Montreal district, because it needs the service which it gets. That service has contributed to the solution of the housing problem in that magnificent city.
My complaint, however, is that the act is not being properly enforced. It is a dead letter for a similar service for the Toronto district. I do not wish to take up much time tonight because I know there are other speakers who are anxious to have the floor.
I must say, however, it is unfortunate that in an important department like this we have been given no opportunity so far this session to go into the work that is handled.
I should like to say a word now about the grade crossing fund. In our city we have spent several million dollars-$13,000,000 or $14,000,000-on grade separation through the Toronto viaduct straight along the waterfront. The city had no liability in that connection, because the railways came subsequently through the municipal highway, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company obtained a right of way all down the line from Leaside for $600 a year.
In connection with the harbour a great amount of money is also spent. The federal government has had two representatives on a board of five, and yet all the money that the government spends is spent through the Minister of Public Works. As I have pointed out before, we are the main taxpaying city in Canada, not only in the matter of income tax, customs and sales tax, but in other indirect taxes as well. In the Ontario cabinet we have five ministers representing our district, one being Premier Drew, and still we have had nothing but a goose egg since this government has been in power. We have had no representation from Toronto since 1935 in the federal cabinet.
My hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) came to our city the other day and we were indeed pleased to see him, but I must say that, while a large amount of money has been spent in his constituency and province, and in others as well, we have had nothing at all.
I must cover these points as quickly as I can, Mr. Chairman, and next I would point out that there are practically no lifesaving stations on the great lakes. Lifesaving stations
come under the marine section of the estimates, and while there may be a light here and a light there, there is really no protection, so that when some disaster overtakes us in the late fall from storms on the upper lakes the consequences are directly attributable to this lack of service. We have had three or four disasters on the great lakes, on lake Superior and lake Huron, but there are no lifesaving stations along that entire magnificent chain of great lakes. What have we to compare with the service provided on the United States side? Ten years ago there was a disaster on lake Superior and several sailors from Owen Sound and other lake towns died, and all they could do, before they perished, was to sound their sirens in the hope that some American ''fesaving station would come to their help. Several men belonging to Owen Sound, Col-lingwood and other ports were lost on these doomed ships.
There should be an investigation into the Hamilton accident at Burlington bay, and that investigation should start immediately, when a lift-lock bridge was raised for a ship and an automobile fell into the narrows there. Years ago there was a steamer known as the Corona. There was only about three and a half feet clearance for the boat on both sides of the ship in the old narrows there. The result was that the boat bumped into it and there were large sums of money spent afterwards there for retaining walls at Burlington beach at the entrance to Hamilton bay. It is a wonder to me that there was not a disaster there years ago.
There is no sum of money in the whole estimates here for lifesaving and all that kind of thing on the great lakes. There is no lifesaving station there, except the one at Toronto, which is paid for by the city taxpayers. When you consider the volume of traffic in the Welland canal today, in the Soo canal and the tonnage that is coming down from the lakes advancing the grain to the seaboard along the magnificent system of the great lakes, with no modern lifesaving stations, the department seems to be asleep. I am not blaming the present minister. Far from it, because we did not get a great deal of help from our own friends when they were sitting across on the other side of the house for a few years. In our city we depend on taxation on real estate to provide $65,000 a year for a lifesaving station. There should be such stations on lake Simcoe, Georgian bay, all over the Peterborough district as well as all the upper lakes and every place where a person has been drowned. The time has come when there
Supply-Transport

should be a regulated system of lifesaving on the great lakes through this department.
The minister represents an Ontario constituency. We seem to get nothing at all in Ontario because the Ontario members seem to me to be the same on all sides of the house. They are not like those from British Columbia, the prairies and the maritimes and the important industrial province of Quebec, who stand up here and assert their rights and privileges. I am not criticising any member for it, but I believe that we should have some fair treatment and should have equality of treatment. Since I have been a member of the house, I have never been one of those who objected to other people getting something. I believe in the principle of confederation, that what is for the good of one province is for the good of all; each for all and all for each. But with the tonnage of shipipng wre have on the great lakes, I think something should be done.
We hear talk about nationalism. When the storms were on in October, November and December, a few years ago, we had an example of the real kind of nationalism we have in this country. A Canadian ship, with Canadian sailors on it, sounds its siren hoping that a United States life saving station will hear it and save them from disaster. That is not fair to the shipping industry. It is not fair treatment to the men on the ship, many of whom are returned soldiers, to have a thing like this happen. I am pleading with the government to wake up and do something about the matter. We are not living in the last century; we are living in 1948. This coming fall, if the storms on the lakes are as severe as they were a few years ago, the ships on them are likely to suffer disaster.
Another thing I want to mention is this. My friend the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, obtained a 86,000,000 car ferry. I am glad to see him get it. He seems to be popular in the house. He has been asking and the minister has been answering questions on the orders of the day sometimes two or three times a week. I will not be surprised a bit if the hon. gentleman gets another $6,000,000 car ferry before this parliament closes. If he does get one, I will be glad of it.
Another thing I want to point out is that the old ship, the Northumberland, was brought up and put on the Port Dalhousie route thirty years ago. I would not travel on that ship to go to St. Catharines or Port Dalhousie. I was afraid it would go to the bottom of lake Ontario. Yet my friend the hon. member for Davenport went on it once. He had a Davenport picnic over there, but he did not take a 
chance by going on another picnic; otherwise he might have gone down to the bottom of the sea like McGinty. But I would say this. We need a car ferry in that district. A car ferry in that district has still greater possibilities because of the fact that a number of trains have been taken off by the Canadian National Railways. My former leader, Sir Adam Beck, said he wanted to electrify the whole Niagara district, and it would have been a blessing if that had been done. Electric trains would have been magnificent. We want a car ferry in that district running from Toronto to Port Dalhousie. One is badly needed at the present time.
There are just one or two other matters that I might mention. One is with regard to steamboat inspection. I would just call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that one of the minister's predecessors told me we were to get a new boat on the Port Dalhousie route, but we have not got it yet and they are fitting out the old boat again for 1948. The hon. member for Davenport is coming in now, and I will call his attention to the chance he took of losing his life when he travelled in that ship on his picnic to Port Dalhousie. We ask for fair treatment..
With regard to the St. Lawrence, and power and navigation matters, may I say this. I think, in view of what has been said, some statement ought to be made by the minister either next week or the week after regarding power and navigation and regarding what is going on in the St. Lawrence. Today, under a vote here, we find that the minister has appointed another commission of investigation on the St. Lawrence in the Lachine section. We should have some statement from the minister before the house closes.
I do not want to take up too much time because the hour is now getting late. But I ask that we should have some consideration in the province of Ontario in these various expenditures. I think the railway commission should go out on its own volition and investigate these steam suburban matters.
There are many other things that might be referred to. One is the signal service and all that kind of thing, and the other provisions which have been made regarding icebreakers. One is badly needed in the province of Ontario, on lake Erie and lake Ontario, at the present time. When I visit the United States ports on lake Erie, or Buffalo, Geneva, Erie, Ashtabula, Cleveland, and all those coal places and see what we could have if we had ships, I am impressed. When I see some of the ships in dock on the United

States side of lake Erie, I think what a magnificent thing we would have if we had a fleet in lake Erie and right along in the lake ports in the province of Ontario, on lake Erie and navigation from Ontario to United States ports on lake Erie. I ask that some reasonable consideration be given to our province in these various votes, and especially to our city that gets nothing at all in these estimates. There are no votes for our city in the estimates of the Minister of Public Works or in the estimates of the Minister of Transport. I find no provision in the estimates for anything for our city, notwithstanding the taxes that they pay.
There is a vote in Ontario coming on now. We had reference made to it this afternoon. When the house opened today, reference was made by the leaders to our province and the other sister province. It seems to me that there is in the house at the present time too much politics and too little attention given to our own functions, privileges and powers with regard to the estimates. This is the eighty-fourth day of the session and we have spent only seven or eight hours of the whole eighty-four days on these various estimates of $2 billion. Yesterday the house was voting interim supply. By that you have taxation without representation. The House of Commons might as well close up if you are going to pass all these estimates in the antiquated way you have been doing so far. I ask for some reasonable allowance for our province from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: There is just one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I want to say in reply to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. It is that when he states that the province of Ontario gets nothing from the estimates of this department, he is entirely mistaken in that statement; and I am sorry he has seen fit to make it because it is wholly inaccurate. The province of Ontario gets a fair share. In some respects it gets far more than any other province does. I should like to take up briefly the matters he referred to, particularly with regard to the grade crossing fund. I should like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact-
Mi-. CHURCH: There are no lifesaving stations there.


Lionel Chevrier: -that Ontario is far better treated than is any other province. I refer to the amount paid out of the grade crossing fund since it has been in existence. It amounts to $11,837,000. Out of that Ontario received $5,901,000, or 20-38 per cent. There
Sup-ply-Transport
was paid by the railways in respect to grade crossing projects, since the inception of this scheme, some $16,431,000. Ontario has received $13,704,000, so of the total Ontario has received 47-33 per cent. With respect of railwa}- services, the Canadian National spends far more money in the central region than in the other regions. That is necessary because of the traffic and because of the services which have to be maintained there. For 1948 the budget calls for an expenditure in the central region of $9,916,000 out of a total of $25,000,000. I could also give figures with reference to marine services, which I have not at my fingertips at the moment. So when the hon. gentleman says the province of Ontario does not receive a fair share of these estimates, he is wholly inaccurate.	.


Mr. KNIGHT:: On this general item I thought it might be appropriate to remind the minister that the people of our part of the country are beginning to feel their annual anxiety about the Hudson Bay route, as to which no doubt the minister expected to hear something from me. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding in regard to the increase in freight rates, if any, on the Hudson Bay road. I do not know -whether the minister will care to answer questions tonight; probably he will remind me that I should ask them and that he will answer them on the appropriate items. It has occurred to me that it may be some time before those items come up, and that I should make a few general remarks on my own account, whether or not the minister cares to answer them.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to answer them if I can.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: First I would say many people do not have it well established in their minds as to whether the freight rates on goods other than grain have been changed at all on the Hudson Bay road. If the rates have been increased they are wondering upon what authority that was done, because apparently the Hudson Bay road is outside the system which applied for an increase in freight rates. If the rates on items other than grain have been increased in our part of the country we would be interested to know by how much and in what respects they have been so increased.
Again, there is a misunderstanding on the question of ocean rates from Churchill to British ports. About three weeks ago there was a report in the press congratulating the people in the Churchill vicinity on the fact that ocean rates had been equalized as between British ports on the one hand and Churchill and Montreal on the other. There was some
S upply- T tans port

rejoicing in the western press; as a matter of fact, one or two newspapers wrote self-congratulatory editorials on the matter. Certain correspondence was undertaken between the timber board of Saskatchewan and some British importers, however, and the board was informed that there was a difference of $11 per thousand in ocean rates on lumber as between Halifax and Churchill.
The minister is well aware that the Churchill trade lasts for only a certain number of weeks, I was going to say, or perhaps for only a certain number of days in the year. If we are to be ready for it preparations must be made in advance. Lumber is a commodity which has to be prepared, whether it is two-inch, three-inch or whatever it may be. Preparations must be made well in advance, and shipping space has to be arranged for such lumber. The port of Churchill was very successful in a small way last year. Unfortunately, because of the tremendous demand for grain, there was not, at the particular time it was necessary, enough grain in position to be shipped through Churchill, so I think only something like five million bushels were shipped through that port. We have always claimed that Churchill has never had a fair trial, and we believe it would be a good thing for the taxpayers of this country, as well as for the western farmers, if for once that port could be used to full capacity.


Lionel Chevrier: It did pretty well last year.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, and if sixteen million bushels had been put through Churchill it *would have done a great deal better.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I could make a speech on this matter, though I am not going to. We are anxious that we should have sympathetic understanding on the part of the minister and his officials, and that is what we are hoping to get.


Lionel Chevrier: You certainly had it last year.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are other agencies at work which are anxious about this port, anxious in particular about reciprocal trade between western Canada and British ports. I am informed on good authority that the government of Saskatchewan-and surely in a matter of this kind, which is a national matter, we should not prejudice the issue if we mention the name of a government whose ideology is somewhat different from that of this government ; surely we do not have to face that sort of thing-is taking particular pains to talk

with various agencies in the old country about reciprocal trade between Britain and Saskatchewan. and they are anxious that some of that trade should be carried through the port of Churchill. I am told, for instance, that the government of Saskatchewan has on order now a good number of trucks and automobiles they want to bring to western Canada this year. Many other items could come through the port of Churchill, and we cannot see why they do not.
We realize, of course, that Churchill is better equipped for export, that is the export of grain, than for the import of goods. It lacks certain shed facilities and other things which I am not going into now. If this import trade does materialize and does increase I hope facilities will be provided at Churchill to handle that trade better than it has been handled in the past, as well as the purely export trade in grain. The other day someone told me that some repair work was going on at Churchill this year. I believe last year I suggested that certain repairs and additional work were necessary, and I am hoping some of it is now being undertaken.
The hour is late, and I do not know whether I can expect the minister, on a general item, to answer the questions I have raised. Incidentally, before coming to the chamber this evening I had not the faintest idea that this discussion would be coming up. I had prepared one or two questions to place on the order paper embodying at least some of the things I have asked this evening, particularly the question with respect to freight rates on the Hudson Bay road, and the rumour that ocean freight rates to Churchill had been lessened. I should be pleased, and I know it would set. at rest the minds of those in Saskatoon and Regina who are interested in this matter, if the minister could give some definite answer to the questions I have raised.


Mr. BAKER:: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do' from a section of Nova Scotia where the swift moving tides of the bay of Fundy merge with the mighty waters of the north Atlantic, where we are subject to fog, sleet and ice as well as all the normal dangers of navigation, I feel that I must say a few words regarding matters of marine. First of all, I wish to say I appreciate very much the co-operation I have always received from the minister.
Then, I want to suggest to the minister that an agency or sub-agency be established on the Nova Scotia side of the bay of Fundy. There is one operating in Saint John, but I think we need one on the Nova Scotia side to look after all the lighthouses and aids to navigation between Cape Sable and Point
Supply-Transport
Prim. A central area would probably be at Yarmouth, but I am not going to suggest what place. I think such a service is needed.
Then I consider we need additional icebreaking equipment. As the minister knows, we need additional buoy maintenance and lighthouse service ships. A large type of ship is needed, and I would suggest that these ships be constructed so strongly in the bows that they could be used for the dual purpose of ice-breaker and buoy and lighthouse tender. This is a very much needed service and probably the minister has it under consideration. I hope so.
I want to commend the minister for placing in his estimates an amount to cover the construction of a new lightship to take the place of lightship 14 which has been the guardian to the entrance to the bay of Fundy for over forty years. This is one of the few ships with an iron hull that is still in operation. I can assure the minister that this will be much appreciated by all of us who know the dangers of the Lurcher shoals. If the minister will take these few thoughts under consideration I am sure the people in my part of the country will greatly appreciate it.
I should like to say one further word with regard to a coastguard service. I do not suggest that any great capital expenditure be made over and above what is actually needed, but I suggest that we utilize all the available equipment we have in the air-sea rescue branch, the Department of Transport ships and the Department of Fisheries ships and then provide what additional equipment may be needed. We could have central offices or stations through which these services could be correlated so that relief could be sent at the shortest notice to any ship in distress. They would know just where to look for it.
As I say, I am not urging a tremendous increase in capital expenditure; I am simply asking that sufficient money be provided to maintain an adequate service at this time. Perhaps eventually this service will grow into something larger, but I think it is something that could be handled from a few offices to which the ships from the various departments could report and then be detailed to wherever rescue operations were needed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I believe the minister was willing to answer my questions, but he did not have an opportunity to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I could not do so in the time that is left.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps we might call it eleven o'clock, because the subject matter I should like to take up would take
more than the two or three minutes that are available.


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to address some questions to the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I would rather have the opportunity of answering the hon. member for Saskatoon City.


Angus MacInnis: I was going to say something on the coastguard service which perhaps could be said in the two or three minutes left before eleven o'clock.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for St. John-Albert wanted to ask some questions.


Douglas King Hazen: My questions will take only a minute.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what the hon. member for Saskatoon City said.


Douglas King Hazen: I have them written down, so I can make them brief.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope they are not on the Portland freight rates?


Douglas King Hazen: They are, but I do not expect the minister to answer them now. These are questions which I asked before the railway committee but did not get an answer. What were the operating expenses of the Canadian National Railway lines to Portland in 1947, and how much of that amount was paid in United States funds? Has there been an additional operating expenditure, or has there been an operational saving over the Canadian National lines to Portland since the reduction in freight rates became effective on November 17, 1947? I was told in the committee that I would be furnished with that information, but I have not received it.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall try to get answers to the questions for the hon. gentleman, but after listening to the second question I am afraid that it will not be possible to get that information. I should not like to say that I cannot get it until I have communicated with the officers of the Canadian National Railways.


Douglas King Hazen: I was told in the committee that the information could be furnished.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would appreciate if the minister would make a comment on my questions.


Lionel Chevrier: I can do that if the committee will give me ten minutes, but I am not going to attempt to answer the hon. gentleman in one minute.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Business oj the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we would like to move that the house go into committee of supply in order to call three new departments; probably public works, national defence and veterans affairs. After that., we shall continue with Bill No. 313, to amend the Supplemental Payments Act; next, the second reading of Bill No. 300, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. Then we *would move to revert to committee of supply to take up the estimates of transport, justice, post office and public works, although I do not know in what order we would proceed after transport.


Angus MacInnis: Are we to go into supply first thing on Monday afternoon?


Alphonse Fournier: It is the understanding that that will be the first order of business.
An lion. MEMBER: Public works?


Alphonse Fournier: It will be called, but it is the last on the list.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the housing bill. be up on Monday?


Alphonse Fournier: Not on Monday.


John Bracken: With respect to the proposal to ask that three more departments be moved into supply on Monday, I wish to say that there will be no objection from this side of the house at any time to putting in as many departments as the government chooses; provided that each week the government will move to go into supply so that any grievances that hon. members may have can be spoken to. Our fear is that when you get so many departments into supply the time may come when you do not need to move to go into supply and we would be denied that privilege.
So far as we are concerned, put in as many departments as you like as early as you w'ant to in the session so long as you provide one opportunity in each week for hon. members to raise any questions that they may choose to raise.


Lionel Chevrier: There are only five or six departments in now'.


John Bracken: There would be one exception next week when the budget will be down. Since we shall be discussing the budget, it will not be necessary to ask for that, but I think this would be a reasonable arrangement and I urge the minister to accept it.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can give that assurance, because there w'ill be six more departments to be brought in. When the budget debate is concluded, each week we shall make the formal motion to go into supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are there not eight more departments?


Alphonse Fournier: I did not look over the list, but I am under the impression that there are six or seven more.


John Bracken: You may put so many departments in that some weeks no motion to go into supply may be made at all.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes, I will give the assurance that once a week, on one of the first three days of the week, we shall move to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 17, 1948