1949-03-29

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1948-49

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1949, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to repeat the statement published this morning about the forthcoming meeting of commonwealth prime ministers.
A meeting of commonwealth prime ministers is to be held in London, beginning April 21. It is proposed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should represent the government of Canada at the opening meetings, and, if developments occur which make it desirable for the Prime Minister to go to London subsequently, he will endeavour to fly over at once.
Matters not fully discussed at the meetings of prime ministers held in October, 1948, involving certain constitutional questions, will be considered at a short series of private meetings which are expected to last a week.
This announcement was given to the press in Canada at the same time as Mr. Attlee made a similar announcement in the House of Commons in London.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I wish to make a short statement on air services at Gander.
The following arrangements have now been made with regard to provision of air services, after union, to and from Gander, Newfoundland.
Trans-Canada Air Lines will provide service from Gander to the Canadian mainland on both its transatlantic operations and its domestic operations. Trans-Canada Air Lines will also provide service from Gander to and from the United Kingdom on its transatlantic operations. This represents a new development, since Trans-Canada Air Lines has not previously carried traffic between Newfoundland and the United Kingdom; moreover, T.C.A. domestic connections which will link Gander with the transcontinental service are to be improved.
Temporary arrangements covering a three months' period terminating June 30, 1949, have been made, under which the foreign air lines now exercising traffic rights at Gander may continue to do so during this temporary period. Any exercise of traffic rights after June 30 will be dependent upon the reciprocal agreements which the government of Canada may make before that date with those governments in cases where Canada wishes to exercise reciprocal rights in foreign territory.
Arrangements are now in hand for formal bilateral discussions with the government of the United States, and these will take place in June.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: On Friday, March 25, the member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) questioned me with respect to a report that patients of the temporary veterans hospital at the airport at Saskatoon are to be moved to other quarters. Realizing the interest which is taken in this matter in the Saskatoon district and in the northern portion of Saskatchewan, I should like to make the following statement.
At the close of world war II quite a number of service hospitals were turned over by the Department of National Defence to the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for the immediate post-war load of that department. It was realized at that time that in the process of time our treatment load would diminish. As it diminished we declared such hospitals surplus to our requirements and concentrated our patient strength in our

Private Bills
permanent institutions, most of which are affiliated with university schools of medicine.
Another reason for vacating these hospitals was that, being of temporary construction, such hospitals represent a greater fire hazard than do our permanent institutions.
In the case of Saskatoon we are anxious to relinquish this hospital, for the reasons stated, as soon as this can reasonably be done. We had made an agreement with the university of Saskatchewan for a wing on their proposed hospital which would provide us with 150 beds. I am informed that construction on that hospital has been temporarily suspended, but I am awaiting official advice from the government of Saskatchewan in this regard. It is therefore impossible at this time to set any date at which we propose to move our patients from their present institution into other quarters.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Ada Bailen Dubman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Sarah Patricia Crowley King.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Lola Dulcenia Hill Morton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Hilda Hodgkin-son Connolly.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Norma Thompson Farrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Harold Charles Boyes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Sophie Golden-berg Kovacs Feldheim.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Eva Brolofsky Richman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Arland Farmer Webster.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Wynifred Guinevere Withrow Couch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Ogilvie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Dorothy Edith Croft Douglas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Corinne Schlein Gottlieb.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Zelma Alexander Singer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Katherine Adamakos Koussaya.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Margaret Hyams Boldovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Frederick Cecil Carratt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Anne Harris Shefler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Virginia Therese Scott Gillespie.-Mr. Winkler.
IMr. Gregg.]
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Ruth Ellen Jones Palamar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Ida Ker Davies Kinnon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Arthur Filteau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Karl Kastner. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Wilson Taylor.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Jean Martha Spiller Little.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	152,	for	the	relief	of	Violette
Blanche Heuff McKenna.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	153,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Elizabeth Amos Nicol.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of George Henry Burney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	155,	for	the	relief	of	Leonne
Dufresne Patenaude.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	156,	for	the	relief	of	Audrey
Blanche Duncan Myers.-Mr. Winkler.


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to authorize the governor in council to establish as a national forest or as a forest experimental area lands belonging to His Majesty and to exercise control and management thereof and construct works therein; to establish and maintain forest research laboratories; to assist provinces or owners of forests and to enter into agreements respecting the protection and development of forest lands. The Minister of Mines and Resources is authorized to appoint temporary officers and employees for the carrying out of the provisions of the act.
Expenditures incurred are payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
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.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Mr. George Black (Yukon):: Before the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, and I think the minister will agree with me-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but these motions are not debatable.


George Black: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, you said the motion was carried before ascertaining whether or not it was carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister or his department given further consideration to the request of the dominion command of the Canadian Legion and the provincial commands that reconsideration be given to the method of distributing the naval prize fund?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is very important.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The policy of the government has been announced. I have not had the submissions to which the member has referred, and there has been no change in government policy.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understood the minister to say that he had not received a request from the dominion command of the Legion. I should like to ask him if any other department of the government has received it, because on March 4 a brief was presented to this government.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John O. Probe (Regina City):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of continuing reports of disciplinary problems and complaints with respect to working conditions among Canadian naval personnel, will the Minister of National Defence indicate what steps he has taken to investigate all aspects of the repeated disturbances? Will he consider setting up a parliamentary or other committee from outside the service to delve fully into naval service conditions?


Brooke Claxton: The department has received wireless reports of the incidents to which the member has referred. Upon the return of the ships, those incidents and the causes of them will be the subject of a full and thorough investigation. It is not considered appropriate that the matter should be referred to a parliamentary committee, but the investigation will be conducted by a committee which will include other than naval service representation.
29, 1949	2107
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



EXEMPTION OF $500 FOR PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Baffle River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue. Will the additional $500 exemption from income tax for persons over sixty-five years of age, provided for last year, be continued in 1949?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: It is a permanent part of the law, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING RETURNS IN WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. Miller (Portage la Prairie):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. This being the minister's birthday, before I ask my question I should like to congratulate him wholeheartedly, and also to suggest to him, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that it is also the birthday of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), although they are not twins. In olden days ministers of the crown on such auspicious occasions used to hand out amnesties and so on. I am suggesting one in the form of a question. Will the minister consider extending the time for filing income tax returns in western Canada, by reason of the bad condition of roads and the delay there will be in the spring breakup?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: I thank the hon. gentleman for his good wishes. On an occasion of this kind, Mr. Speaker, gifts usually come to the one who is celebrating a particular event. In the matter of making income tax returns, I am sorry that we do not feel at the present time that there is any great necessity for extending the date beyond the statutory one of April 30.



POULTRY PRODUCERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I have recently received complaints from poultry producers to the effect that bone meal and meat meal products are difficult to obtain. Would the minister care to indicate the reasons for the apparent shortages, and indicate what the present prospects for future deliveries are?
2108	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of his question. The reply is as follows:
The supply of these products depends directly upon the demand for meat products and the supplies of livestock going to meat packing plants. At the present time supplies are about equal to demand. For some months the general situation in regard to bone meal has been that supplies have been adequate to meet demand.
In regard to meat meal, supplies in relation to demand were short about six weeks ago. Since that time supplies and demand have leveled off and weekly market reports have quoted gradually declining prices. This indicates that the supply is now just about equal to demand. While there may have been local shortages at certain times, this is the general picture across Canada. Indications for the next few weeks are that supply and demand will be approximately equal.


Mr. Pearkes:: I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell me what the situation is with regard to fish meal? I understand that a similar shortage exists in that type of meal.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall have to take the question as notice. Because of the fact that the two meals are more or less interchangeable,
I assume that the position is about the same.
I will get the correct information.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKay (Weyburn):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, a copy of which I have sent to him. What plans has the government made to mark suitably the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Brooke Claxton: This anniversary will take place on April 1. Arrangements have been made for press displays and a number of radio programs, and for that we are indebted to the co-operation of newspapers, national advertisers, and others. There will be an investiture of air force personnel at government house and in other places across the country, and at every air force station, establishment and auxiliary establishment there will be ceremonies of one type or another.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Campbell (The Bafllefords):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government made any decision as to the date on which the house may adjourn for the Easter recess, and what the length of the recess will be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has made no decision about the proposal it will submit to the house for the house's decision, but I hope to have that proposal shortly.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked if ways and means were being considered by which a veteran buying a house under any of the government plans could be protected from losing his equity in the house in the event of illness, low wages or work stoppage.
To the extent that the question applies to loans under the National Housing Act, the relationship between the veteran and the lending institution is that of mortgagor and mortgagee. In the normal course of operations, if the borrower encounters financial difficulty, every effort is made to rearrange his payments so that he may maintain the equity in his house. This is usually done through a rearrangement or deferment of payments. If, however, there is no possibility that the borrower can maintain the payments, even after rearrangement, the lending institution proceeds to realize on its security.
The same circumstances exist in the case of a sale of a wartime housing unit to a purchaser.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will he state whether he has received any request for mediation in the current asbestos strike, or any representations of a similar nature? Will he also state

whether his department has taken any action in connection with this strike?


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: My department has received no request for mediation from either side in this dispute; neither has my department received any representations. As my hon. friend well knows, this dispute with the asbestos miners in Quebec comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the government of the province of Quebec.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Has he received any request from anybody about an appeal to the privy council in England with respect to the oleomargarine question?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I understand that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has instructed counsel to apply to the privy council for leave to appeal from the decision in the margarine case.


Thomas Langton Church: Has the minister received any representations from the Attorney General of Ontario?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.



KING'S BIRTHDAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say on what date the king's birthday will be celebrated this year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will take the hon. member's question as notice. I think the date has been settled, but I shall have to verify the fact and make an answer at a later sitting.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee of supply.



OLD AGE PENSIONS-AMENDMENT, MR. KNOWLES

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to have recourse to the ancient doctrine that redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supply is made. I rise in fact to deal with a matter which is a grievance of a great many
Old Age Pensions
people both in the constituency that I represent and throughout the country. This is a matter on which I have tried in a number of ways to get some satisfactory action during the course of this session, but without any success thus far.
For example, on Friday, March 11, as recorded in Hansard at page 1384, I addressed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I called his attention to the fact that with the province of Manitoba adding a small supplement to the old age pension we had now reached the position where, in six out of the nine provinces of Canada, the federal government is paying less than 75 per cent of the total pension received by the pensioner. In his reply the Minister of National Health and Welfare objected to my mathematics and declared that the federal government is paying 75 per cent of the pension so far as the basic pension of $30 is concerned. That is true, but it evades the point I sought to make, namely, that in a number of provinces supplements are being paid, which means that that basic percentage has been upset. For example, in British Columbia, where a supplement of $10 is paid, it means that the total pension received by many pensioners is $40 a month. However, the maximum amount paid by this government is still only $22.50, or 75 per cent of the basic $30. That $22.50 is only 56 per cent of the total maximum pension available in British Columbia.
In Alberta there was a supplement of at least $7, which makes the total maximum pension $37.


Robert Fair: It is now $10.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I heard the interjection of my friends the other day, and I believe they are right; but for the purpose of my argument I was accepting the lower figure which the minister gave. If it is now $10, the percentage is the same as in British Columbia. Even when it was only a total of $37, this government's $22.50 represented only 60 per cent of the amount paid to the pensioners at the maximum.
In Saskatchewan the cash amount available to pensioners is at a maximum of $35, apart from other services. This government's $22.50 is only 64 per cent of that total.
In Manitoba there has recently been added a supplement of $5. I confess that it has certain means tests attached to it, which means that not as many get it as should; but in the case of those who do draw $35 in Manitoba it is still a fact that $22.50 is the maximum paid by this government, which is only 64 per cent of the total.

Old Age Pensions
It is difficult to give a comparable figure for Ontario, because of the extra means test which is attached to the $10 which is paid in some cases by the government of Ontario; but in the cases, few though they may be, in which the full $10 is paid, it works out that the federal government is paying only 56 per cent of the total amount received.
This picture is at variance with the whole trend in the matter of old age pensions in this country. When the act was first brought in by a Liberal government back in the middle twenties the provision was that 50 per cent was to be paid by the provinces and 50 per cent by the dominion. In the election of 1930 Mr. Bennett promised that if returned to power he would arrange for the pension to be paid 100 per cent by the federal government. When the Conservatives came into power they implemented that promise half way; they brought the federal contribution up to 75 per cent. I remind hon. members opposite, however, that when the Conservatives were implementing that promise only half way, the Liberals berated them and insisted that they implement their promise all the way and make it 100 per cent.
During the years that have passed since then, the view has been expressed by all parties, and by interested groups throughout the country, that it is toward 100 per cent contribution by the federal government that we should be moving. I feel therefore that this retreat to the percentages I have indicated is bad in theoretical terms, and is particularly bad in its effect on the old age pensioners themselves.
What has happened as a result of this inequality and uncertainty amongst the provinces is that you have not only these varying maximum rates of old age pensions throughout the country, but you have provinces holding back, refusing to make the additional grants that they are asked to make, because they feel that the federal government should at least stick to the 75-25 ratio. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I feel that most, if not all, the provinces are quite justified in their insistence that this responsibility should be borne in full at the federal level.
I have read with interest the reports of debates which have taken place on these matters in various provincial legislatures, and I note that always the provincial government spokesmen point to the fact that the responsibility should be borne here. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was premier of Manitoba, every time the issue came up there he would express sympathy with the old age pensioners of Manitoba, but would say that primary responsibility for any adequate old age pension must rest with the federal government which alone 
has the necessary financial resources. The result of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the old age pensioners themselves are denied the fuller amount of pension that they should have. They are asked to wait month in and month out, year in and year out, for an adequate pension. We all know what happens in the meantime. IVfany senior citizens of this country who dare to hope that their country will do the right thing for them pass away before an adequate pension is made available to them.
The soundness of the arguments that some of us put up when this matter was before the house two years ago has been amply demonstrated. We do not get adequate old age pensions by this government paying only a portion of it and tossing the ball to the provinces, leaving it to them to bring the amount up to an adequate level. What happens is that the provinces toss the ball back to the federal government, and the old age pensioners are left with an inadequate amount.
My particular grievance, which prompts me to rise at this time, the first occasion of a supply motion, is that despite the game of football which has been played in connection with this matter, despite the obvious need which every hon. member recognizes, there is as yet no sign of anything being done about it at this session of parliament. I have scanned everything that there is to scan. There is nothing in the speech from the throne which might indicate that there is anything coming for our old age pensioners. There is nothing in the budget which makes for any amelioration of the plight of these old people; and frankly, Mr. Speaker, some of us are very much annoyed that it is possible to make these huge savings in terms of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, and do something for a great host of people in this country-yes; as the budget did- but do nothing at all for this large group of senior citizens who surely deserve our consideration.
There is nothing in the estimates that gives any hope that anything will be done to improve the lot of our old age pensioners. The very slight increase that is there is obviously due to the increased number who will qualify this year. I have not had a chance to look at the supplementary estimates which were tabled a few moments ago, but I am quite sure that if there had been anything in these supplementary estimates to solve this problem, an announcement would have been made about it with no little fanfare.
I might say as well that a number of us in this group, and in other groups, have tried to get from the Prime Minister (Mr. St.

Laurent) or from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) some information that might give some hint as to whether or not anything is coming this session. But every question we ask is met with the stock reply that government policy will be announced in due course. Sometimes the Minister of National Health and Welfare, genial soul that he is, simply says to me, "If my answer last week was not helpful, I cannot be more helpful this week." It adds up to nothing in all cases.


Mr. Marlin:: Better word your questions differently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have lain awake nights trying to think of different ways in which to ask my old age pension questions, in the hope that the minister would give a proper answer. I have adopted the practice at times of giving him notice of my questions in the hope that he would do the generous thing; and I have tried asking him questions without warning, but the answers are always non-committal.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Did not the dominion government offer an increase which was obstructed and refused by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec at the time of the dominion-provincial conference?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is perfectly true that an offer to increase the amount paid by the federal government by making it one hundred per cent federal from age seventy up, plus a shared basis from sixty-five to sixty-nine, was made at the dominion-provincial conference of 1945 and 1946, and that the stand of two premiers forestalled-


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a further question?


An hon. Member:: Wait until he finishes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am in accord with what he says. I am asking him a question. Would the hon. member tell us who were the premiers of Ontario and Quebec at that dime?


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we ask a question like that the government replies, "Surely the hon. member must know." However I shall he more helpful and answer by saying, in [DOT]case the hon. member does not know, that the premier of Quebec at that time was the (Hon. Maurice Duplessis and the premier of Ontario at that time was the Hon. George Drew.
Old Age Pensions


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Who was the Prime Minister of Canada?


Mr. Graydon:: And the government refused to reconvene the conference. That is the answer to it.


Mr. Drew:: And still do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say that in my view those who scuttled the conference of 1945 and 1946 have a great responsibility on their shoulders. But so has the government a responsibility for using the scuttling of that conference, whoever did it, as an excuse for doing nothing in the years which have come and gone since then.


Gordon Graydon: The government scuttled the conference; do not blame us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the purposes of what I am now saying, that does not matter. The scuttling of the conference has been used and is still being used as an excuse for doing nothing. Meantime the cost of living has gone up; meantime the plight of the old age pensioner has got worse.
Not only is there no sign of any improvement for the old age pensioners in any of the ways I have indicated, but it so happens that neither is there any private member's motion on the order paper calling specifically for an amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, as it now stands. Apparently hon. members expected action by the government. There are several motions on the order paper somewhat different from that, in that they ask for something I have advanced, namely an over-all contributory plan of social insurance. But in the meantime even those of us who are advancing that realize that the old age pensioners on pension today must not be asked to wait until we have a perfect statute, and to starve in the meantime.
The one thing that can be done now is for this government to bring into the House of Commons an amendment to the present Old Age Pensions Act increasing the amount, lowering the eligible age and doing away with the means test.


Gordon Graydon: Call a conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The plea I am making today is for an amendment to the act. Before this session goes any further I ask that the government tell the house what it is prepared to lay before us, and let us vote on it. Let us vote on a bill amending the Old Age Pensions Act, a bill doing those three things- increasing the amount, lowering the eligible age and removing the means test. I need not argue those three points. The need for at least $50 a month is self-evident. Further, I believe the Minister of National Health and

Old Age Pensions s
Welfare himself will admit that there are great numbers of people in the group from sixty-five to sixty-nine who are in just as serious circumstances as those in the group over seventy, and that consideration should be given to them; Again, we all realize the unfairness of the means test as it stands in the act.
As I have said, my reason for bringing this up in the house today is that many sections of the Canadian community have had little things handed to them during the course of this session. We welcome everything that has come, even if it does seem to coincide with the eve of an election. But, Mr. Speaker, it is really disgraceful that at a time when a great many announcements are being made in the House of Commons, and when a budget is brought down which does something for a great many people, we should leave these elderly citizens, whom we all recognize as deserving, with no improvement in their impossible position.
A great many things have been announced during the course of this session which were not included in the speech from the throne. So the government need not take the position that they cannot bring it in at this time because it was not mentioned in the speech from the throne. If they will bring in an amendment now they will have our plaudits for doing so, and they will soon find the house will support them in any such proposal they may make along the lines I am suggesting.
I should like now to take a moment to cite to the government-indeed I call it to the attention of the house and members generally -that -when a change is made in the eligible age there will also have to be a change in the percentage distribution of the cost as between the federal and provincial governments. I have done considerable work with figures on this matter, all of which adds up to a huge table which I shall not read and which I shall not ask permission to place on Hansard. After all, it would take up a great deal of space.
What I have done, however, shows what it would mean to the provinces if the age limit were lowered to sixty-five and the provinces were asked to keep on paying 25 per cent of the cost of old age pensions. The fact is- and the figures I have worked out prove it- that that would be prohibitive. The amounts the provinces would have to pay if they were to pay 25 per cent of the pension between sixty-five and sixty-nine in many cases would be equal to the total amount they are now paying on old age pensions; and in at least one case it would be in excess of the total amount the province is now paying for old age pensions.

If the government accedes to our request to increase the amount and lower the age at the same time the burden of the 25 per cent share of the provinces would be so impossible that many of the provinces would not be able to accept the change.
Thus when the government brings down the proposal, which I hope it will do at this session, to increase the amount and lower the age, and to do away with the means test, at the same time they will have to make a change in the distribution of the cost. I urge that, not just because I want to protect provincial treasuries, but in the interests of the old age pensioners themselves. I know that if an amendment merely lowered the age to sixty-five and did not change the 75-25 ratio many of the provinces would say that they could not take advantage of it because the cost would be too great; so the age limit of seventy would still stand, or the increase in the amount would not be passed on.
It is not necessary to deal at greater length with this matter. However I feel it is one which the house should present to the government in the best way it can, namely in the form of an amendment which I shall propose in a moment-an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply. Before doing so, however, may I remind Your Honour that this subject, dealing as it does specifically with the question of amending the Old Age Pensions Act, which is now on the statute books, comes clearly within the provisions of citation 345 in Beauchesne's third edition. It is not any one of the matters the discussion of which that citation prohibits. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to Speakers' rulings found at pages 699 and 799 of Beauchesne's third edition, which make it clear that on a motion to go into supply wide latitude is to be allowed. One Speaker, as reported on page 799, makes the statement that any reasonable grievance could not be considered as irrelevant. There is no question about this being a reasonable grievance; it is a very serious grievance in the minds of a great many people.


Mr. Martin:: What was the ruling or
citation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The basic citation is 345 in the third edition; if the minister is looking at the second edition, it is citation 488.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How can the hon. member tell that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Speakers' rulings that I refer to are found in the third edition- they are not in the little second edition which the minister has in his hand-at pages 699 and 799.

There are on the order paper resolutions dealing with a contributory plan, but I am not proposing that at this stage, although I am strongly in favour of it. Hence those motions do not prevent me from moving this one, for its terms are distinctly different. There are also citations that make clear the right of a private member on going into supply to move amendments which do not directly involve the expenditure of money. In other words, they can be abstract motions, and in that sense they are quite acceptable. Citation 444 in the third edition makes this clear, and there are at least three Speakers' decisions, all of them in the third edition, one at page 537, one at page 519 and one at page 529, which confirm the right of a member to move a motion which, although it refers to something that might later involve the expenditure of money, is simply an expression of the opinion of the house, and does not directly involve the expenditure of money.
Therefore I have worded my amendment in keeping with all these provisions. I have worded it in keeping with the form for this occasion which is listed in Beauchesne's third edition, and I am fully satisfied that it is perfectly in order. Furthermore, I contend that this is the kind of motion that this house should have the right to vote upon. In fact I feel that a free vote should be permitted, so that the government may be informed as to what are the wishes and desires of members of all parties.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, confident that I am expressing a serious grievance; confident that I am expressing the wishes, not only of elder citizens throughout this country but of our Canadian people generally; confident that I am expressing the wishes of members of this house in all parties; confident that my motion is clearly within the rules, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That all the words alter the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house desires to record its opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the introduction of amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act with a view to making possible an increase in the amount of the pension, the lowering of the eligible age, and the elimination of the means test."


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that there are motions on the order paper which would permit a debate of this same question. I have given the hon. member an opportunity to express his grievance, but I regret that I cannot accept his amendment. I-would call the attention of the house to citation 350 in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
It is out of order to move, as an amendment to another question, a motion standing on the order paper as a notice of motion.
Old Age Pensions
Therefore I regret that I have to declare the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With deepest respect but confident that there is no motion on the order paper which is precisely in the terms of the one I have just moved, I must appeal Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member is appealing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, if you please.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that Mr. Speaker's decision be sustained? Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
. Mr. Speaker: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And some members having risen:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: , seconded by Mr. Abbott, that I do now leave the Chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. Mr. Knowles moved as an amendment, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, that all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This house desires to record its opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the introduction of amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act with a view to making possible an increase in the amount of the pension, the lowering of the eligible age, and the elimination of the means test.
As there are before the house motions relating to the same subject, I declared the amendment out of order, basing my ruling on citation 350 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:
It is out of order to move, as an amendment to another question, a motion standing on the order paper as a notice of motion.
From this ruling Mr. Knowles appeals.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City):: I was
paired, Mr. Speaker. If I had voted, I would have voted to support your ruling.



DISMISSAL OF RETURNING OFFICER IN DAVENPORT CONSTITUENCY

Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: I too
rise, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion to present a grievance; it is one felt by many people in Davenport riding, several of the most important of whom are present officers of the Liberal association of that riding. It is a protest, as strong as I can make it, against the dismissal of a splendid man, a Liberal, who for the last ten years or more has been returning officer of Davenport riding. He is a man above reproach and against whom no one can point a finger, yet he has been unceremoniously thrown out, much to his dismay. I want to protest against that dismissal both on his behalf and on behalf of the people of the riding.
There must be other ridings that have been just as much incensed over what is going on as is the riding of Davenport. A short time ago the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) had a series of questions on the order paper in reference to certain matters pertaining to the administration of the department which looks after electoral affairs. The questions were as follows:
1.	In how many electoral districts has there been a change in the returning officer since January 1, 1946?
2.	What is the name of the party (a) who held the office previously to said date; (b) who has held the office since said date?
3.	Why were the changes made?
4.	On whose recommendation?
The replies were as follows:
1. Sixty-two.
2 and 3 as follows:

2 m
And a list is given, which I will not read, of sixty-two ridings in which the returning officers were deceased, dismissed, resigned or had moved away. On looking the list over I find that, in the province of Ontario, In four ridings represented in this house by Progressive Conservatives, and in one Liberal riding, the returning officers were dismissed. In thirty other ridings the returning officer resigned; nine moved out of the riding; eight were deceased; three were removed because they were incompetent; and three were removed for other reasons-I believe for partisanship.
In the case of the honourable-and I call him honourable because he is a first-rate and honourable man-Mr. Daniel H. Reed, the returning officer for Davenport riding, what was the reason for his dismissal? I have not been able to find out, but a rumour has come to me that it was because of his age. How old he is I do not know. I do not believe the minister knows. I know of no one who can tell the minister how old he is. I myself have tried to find out, and I know of no means of doing so. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, he is physically fit. He does a day's work every day. He is one of the best carpenters we have in that part of the city of Toronto. If he was dismissed for old age, I can tell the minister this: He can dismiss at least twenty-five to forty per cent of all the returning officers in Canada. I therefore take it as an affront against the Liberals of Davenport riding and against myself that this worthy citizen, who has rendered such excellent service, has been dismissed on the trumped-up charge, I am told, of old age. That charge is not the truth, Mr. Speaker. He may be over sixty-five; I do not know. I do not know anyone who does know. But, in my judgment, that is not the truth. What is the reason that he was dismissed? The reason is that he is an honest man; that is why he was dismissed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a fact, because he is an honest man and has given fair play to all candidates. When he was appointed in 1935 he succeeded a man who had been appointed by the previous government. When he commenced to make out lists of enumerators, he followed the same practice that was followed by his predecessor, who, I might say, was always given to fair play.
After he had made his list of enumerators, in making appointments of D.R.O.'s, because the D.R.O.'s can select their own clerks, and in selecting the polling places in which the vote was to be held, I had told his predecessor to share up with the Liberals as he shared with Conservatives. We had done that during the war, and the war was not very long over;
Dismissal of Returning Officer and I felt that it was only fair play to treat everyone in a fair manner. I knew of no other way to do it which would make for harmony. I did not want to have any reference made in the press to the effect that in my riding we were not playing fair with our Liberal friends. I have always found it good policy to be fair and honest all round, Mr. Speaker. When he followed that practice, I presume he gave half or thereabouts of the appointments as D.R.O.'s to the Conservative party and maybe half or thereabouts of the polling subdivision polls to the Conservative party. For that action he was bitterly attacked by my opponent, and that attack has continued throughout the last ten years. I told the minister-no, I do not believe I told him this, but I told his predecessor. His predecessor was an excellent man, the late Mr. Norman A. McLarty. He was not bulldozed and he was not pushed backwards in being fair. The same outfit that besieged the present minister the last few days besieged his predecessor. I told his predecessor what was behind the attack and his predecessor brushed it to one side and reappointed that good Liberal citizen. My hon. friend should have done the same thing. He should not have listened to the attacks made on that just and good man.
What brought the matter to a head recently was this. A letter was sent out by the chief returning officer, who in my opinion is the best that any country has had. I have a high regard for the Canadian chief returning officer; he is always on the job and always looking ahead. Anticipating an election some time this year, some two or three months ago now, I believe, he sent out a letter to all returning officers. The returning officer in my riding received a letter from him, asking him to have the enumerators named. The returning officers in other city ridings had the same call. That was only right. I compliment the chief returning officer on being on the job and being alive to his work and getting ready to see that an election may be conducted properly at any time. I had a lot to do with the compilation of the election act. I have been here nineteen years, and I have served on several election committees. At all times I advocated fair play to each and every party. Quite a number of the improvements in this act were suggested by me, and I say that humbly.
How are returning officers appointed? In part one of the instructions we read this:
4. For every electoral district the governor in council appoints a returning officer who remains in office on a permanent basis.
That is the policy of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England. They are not kicked out or thrown out on trumped-up charges. They are on a permanent basis
2116	HOUSE OF
Dismissal oj Returning Officer in these other countries and they should be on a permanent basis here. The act says that they should be, but they are liable to be removed from office on certain conditions, as set out in subsection (3) of section 8 of the act. What does section 8 of the act say? It reads as follows:
8 (1) The offices of all returning officers appointed prior to the passing of this act shall be deemed to be vacant . . .
In order that a new returning officer may be appointed.
I am speaking about Mr. Daniel H. Reed, who up until recently was the returning officer of the Davenport riding in Toronto.
I continue:
. . . and the governor in council may appoint to such offices either the same persons as now hold them, any of such persons or any other persons. He may also thereafter appoint from time to time a returning officer for any new electoral district and a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer shall, within the meaning of the next following subsection, become vacant.
What are the reasons for the office becoming vacant? Paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 8 reads:
The governor in council may remove from office, as for cause, any returning officer who
(a)	has attained the age of sixty-five years; or
I ask the minister this question in the strongest language I can: For what cause did he, because he is the minister, remove that good, honourable, Liberal citizen of Davenport riding who has served this country well for the past two general elections? The minister cannot give me any cause. No finger can be pointed at that man. He has done a good job for the country. I continue:
(b)	ceases to reside in his electoral district; or
He still resides there and has resided there for years. I believe he is a past president or vice-president of the Liberal association of Davenport riding. He has been an honourable officer of the Liberal association of Toronto for years.
(c)	is incapable, by reason of illness, physical or mental infirmity or otherwise, of satisfactorily performing his duties under this act; or
That man is as physically fit as the minister is or as I am, and I believe I am physically fit. Anyone who walks in my footsteps knows that I am physically fit.
(d)	has failed to discharge competently his duties, or any thereof, under this act; or
If the minister asks the chief electoral officer-I cannot speak for him, but I know what he will say-he will tell him that he had no better returning officer in any of the


245 ridings in the country. I know for a fact that he is highly thought of.
(e)	has, at any time, after his appointment, been guilty of politically partisan conduct, whether or not in the course of the performance of his duties under this act.
I know that several returning officers have been discharged for partisanship, but this man has been fair to the Liberals, to my hon. friends to the left, to my hon. friends to the far left and to my party. He was also fair to the Labour-Progressive party. All of these parties had candidates in the last election. I myself ask no favours. All I want is fair play. All I want to have is a returning officer who is an honourable and honest man. I shall not pass any comment upon who may be appointed in his place-I do not know. The minister has not done me the courtesy of telling me that, although I have given nineteen years' service in this house. The man who takes his place may be of high calibre. I hope he is. I have nothing to say about him. All of these offices should be nonpolitical. The minister should at least have been courteous enough to tell me beforehand that he was going to discharge this competent and good man, and that he was going to put somebody else in his place. If he had done that I might have helped him out of this mess.
I am speaking today and warning him that from now until after the election day is over it is his duty to see that these election offices are conducted properly. Do not be spineless or permit yourself to be walked over by others who will try to push you around. Stand up as your predecessor did and say no to these people who try to push you to one side. I hope that after I speak the minister will go before cabinet council, ask for a rescinding of the order for whoever has been appointed, and return to office this good man who has been dismissed.
Some short time ago the chief returning officer asked all of the returning officers in Canada, in the city ridings in any event, to send in a list of their enumerators. I received a letter from him. My last opponent, Mr. Gunn, received a letter from him also. He was my Liberal opponent at the last election. He likely did what I did, communicated with the officials of his association. I was told over the telephone the other morning that this bitter attack has been made on the returning officer because he wrote letters to Mr. Gunn and myself-letters asking for the enumerators. That is most unfair. The act says that he has to do that. Rule (3) says:
At least five days before he proposes to appoint the persons who are to act as enumerators as aforesaid, the returning officer shall

(a) in an electoral district the urban areas of which have not been altered since the last preceding dominion election, give notice accordingly to the candidate who, at the last preceding dominion election in the electoral district, obtained the highest number of votes, . . .
That was myself.
. . . and also to the candidate representing at that election a different and opposed political interest, who received the next highest number of votes, that was Mr. Gunn.
Why a returning officer should be censured for following out this rule, I do not know. The minister does not know, but he listened to this attack which came down from certain officials. It was sent in not by very many. Before I take my seat I am going to ask that the correspondence be tabled. I may have to put a motion on the order paper asking for it. If it is not done, I am going to ask that this whole matter be sent to the committee on privileges and elections, and we shall bring before us these men or women, whoever they are, and have the minister tell us on whose advice he discharged this competent man. Then we shall find out the nigger in the woodpile. When I use that phrase I am not disparaging the coloured people. It might be a white man or a white woman; I do not know who it is that is in the woodpile. I have a warm feeling for the coloured race. I love them too much to say anything detrimental about them. Other hon. members here were also on these elections committees, and they remember my part in these committees.
I will take my hat off to no man in Canada on the study of election laws or the question of voting. I have spent thirty-five years on those matters-and perhaps later on, not now, I shall have time to talk about it. Perhaps I may speak about voting when we are discussing another motion on the order paper. No one has taken more interest in these matters than I have. I have always appeared at the elections committees when they have been called, and many of my recommendations were adopted.
However, there was one I did not get through, one which I wanted to get through. Let me take my hat off to the province of Quebec. Much has been said about that province. Well, they are ahead of us in one thing. In one election rule or practice particularly they are ahead of us; and I tried to have their practice incorporated in our elections act. The procedure I have in mind is that the government party named the deputy returning officers; and the opposition party, or that party which had the next highest number of votes, named the clerk.
Dismissal of Returning Officer
It is getting to be a nightmare, as I have no doubt the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) will say before long, when he rises to speak on his resolution-I have no doubt he will say that election expenses are getting to be a nightmare.
The Quebec act eliminates the use of scrutineers. The next election I will be compelled to have scrutineers in every poll in my riding, because I am convinced there is something sinister-I was going to say that there is some deviltry; that is the best word I can use-behind this procedure of throwing out of office an honest, gracious and Christian Liberal who fought for the minister's party for a long time.
I cannot speak of him too highly, because in two elections I have found him one hundred per cent fair and square, all the way through. I feel very warmly about this good man being thrown out. And what will be the result? I will have to appoint not less than 131 scrutineers-and you know, Mr. Speaker, what that costs-I will have to appoint more than one for each poll, probably two for each poll. I will have to have those scrutineers to see that I get fair play. I would not have had to do it if Mr. D. H. Reed had been left in office, and if I knew he was going to be in there again I would not have to do it. But I will have to know. And let me say that if there is any skulduggery behind this thing I will be on the job to watch it. You can count on that.
In Quebec, that is the law. The government names the deputy returning officers and the next party, the party running up, names the clerks in each poll. In that way candidates may eliminate scrutineers, if they wish to. If in my riding, if I named the clerk I would name a man honest enough to watch my interests in the poll, and one who would see that everything was done properly and the D.R.O. would do likewise.
In Australia and New Zealand the election; officers are really above partisanship. The ministry has nothing to do with them down, there. The same is true in England-although, of course, the ministry is head of the whole law. But in those three countries they try to eliminate election machinery, as far as they can, from political influence. Returning officers are permanent; no mention is made in the act of dismissing them for age. Because a man of sixty-five is not old. I am that old myself-and not much more, either. I know my hair is gray; but in my family, hair became gray early in life. I am glad to have this gray hair-and I have lots of it, too.


Gordon Graydon: It is a sign of wisdom rather than age.
2118	HOUSE OF
Dismissal of Returning Officer


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what it says in the inscription above the fireplace in the Senate library.
If I am here next time I will fight like a tiger to have the polls taken out of the hands of politics altogether. Why can we not adopt the English plan or the Australian or the New Zealand plan? Why cannot we remove these things far away from political temptation, as seems the case at the present time?
I have warm feelings for the minister. I knew his father, and I was sorry to see him get into this mess. Perhaps this same mess was engineered and organized by some other people, but he should have stayed out of it. He would have shown much better judgment to have stayed out of it. I have still a good opinion of him, but not as good as I did have, because he has yielded to this pressure to throw out a member of his own party who has served his country well.
I come back to the point from which I commenced. A report was handed to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). The answer to question 4 is not complete; a good deal has been left out of it. This return is dated March 21, 1949, only eight days ago. It does not mention Davenport riding at all-and others. In addition to the riding of Davenport there are others It does not mention. Why are not these others set out in this list? I should not think the minister would try to conceal it from me or from the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas. I should not think he would do that.
This is bad business; this kind of thing, I say, is bad business. Politics should be above all that. After those delightful speeches we heard yesterday in this chamber from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), from rny own leader, (Mr. Drew), from the leaders of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party, I think we must agree that politics should be above this sort of thing. Those were outstanding speeches-and it is not for me to praise one any more than another. But that is the way we should be acting around the ballot boxes. I say the ballot boxes and the voting places should be above politics.
I am going to close with this-and this is all I shall say about it now: I demand that the minister tell-or, if he has the correspondence, that he should table such correspondence-the names of those who threw this good man out. I talked this morning by telephone with a number of officers of the Liberal association in Davenport riding, and I believe that some of them wired the minister protesting about what had been done. I do know that a former president of that organization wrote a letter-I saw it myself-protesting against any change. I do
IMr. Graydon.l

know the minister has been pressed not to do this thing. Why did he do it?
I want the names of those people. I am the member for that riding. 1 was elected in it by a large majority. I have been here nineteen years. The people must know my record and my credit. I want to know the names of those people responsible for throwing out this most worthy man. You would not have done it if you had known him as I know him. And if you fail to give that information to me, I will ask in the best way I can that this be dealt with and turned over to the committee on privileges and elections, of which I am a member. I will see to it that these folks are subpoenaed, and that they are brought down here. We will find out who is responsible for all this skulduggery.


Hon. Colin Gibson (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in reply. I must say that I think this is the first time I have ever heard a Liberal administration accused of political partisanship because of the removal of a Liberal from office.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You must have had your ear-muffs on.


Colin William George Gibson: I say I have never heard the government accused of partisanship because of the removal of a Liberal from office.
A short time ago I tabled in the house a list of various returning officers who had been replaced between January 1, 1946, and March 18, 1949. On that list there were sixty-two who had been replaced. Most of these retirements had been caused either through resignation because of having reached the age limit, because of death or through having left the electoral district.
The hon. member has said that he does not know the age of this returning officer. As the hon. member knows him well, I think he must have a fairly good idea of what his age is. I found on going over the file that it was claimed as far back as 1940 that he was over-age. I want to say that there is no stigma attached to any man who is replaced because he is over-age. This was no reflection on his previous service, but is the reason why he was retired and he was only one of a great many of the same age who were retired after having passed sixty-five years of age. There was no reflection on their previous service in any case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: If the
hon. member for Fraser Valley is going to speak on the same subject covered by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) he would be in order to speak now, but the next speaker on the list is the hon. member

for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and then the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). If the hon. member wishes to follow up this matter he can speak now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I can speak on that subject as well as anything else and then I can work something else in. I do not care whom they appoint as returning officer; what I am interested in is how many vote for me. I am not worrying about the returning officer being honest, dishonest or otherwise; they are all honest in the Fraser valley. If the opposition want to appoint a returning officer, it is quite all right with me.
I am sorry there are not enough hon. members on this side of the house to challenge any ruling, but my understanding is that at this time an hon. member is entitled to bring up any grievance that may exist in his riding. Am I not correct?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: The hon.
member is quite correct, but I think we should try to follow the list that is here. If the hon. member intends to follow up the matter being discussed by the hon. member for Davenport, then I think it would be wise to bring that discussion to a conclusion; but if he wishes to bring up some other matter then I think we should follow the list.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I have to bow to the
Speaker's ruling, I will.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege. As I understand, there is no such thing as a list.


Mr. Sinclair:: That is quite right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As a matter of courtesy, is it not customary for a speaker on one side of the house to follow a speaker on the other side? I am quite willing to bow to the hon. member for Lake Centre because he is always interesting, but it is not according to the rules or according to custom.


Gordon Graydon: It is a question of whom the Speaker sees.



IRRIGATION AND POWER


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into an argument over who should be speaking, but a couple of hours ago an arrangement was made as to the order. I may say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) that I reciprocate his sentiment; I can tell him that no one listens to what he says with greater interest than I do.
South Saskatchewan River
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has placed before the house a situation that requires the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson). Having regard to the interest that the hon. member for Davenport has taken throughout the years in the development of the natural resources in western Canada, I can say that when he starts on a subject he does not terminate until he gets results if he believes that injustice or unfairness is being done. I shall speak this afternoon in regard to the development of natural resources in the prairie provinces, and in particular regarding the development in Saskatchewan of a great irrigation and electric power plan on the South Saskatchewan river.
The building of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river would permit the development of a great deal of power in the province and add to the fertility of over half a million acres in the immediate area. The subject occupied a considerable portion of the campaign in the by-election in Rosthern. It is disappointing to the people of my province that in the speech from the throne nothing was said with regard to that important matter. There was no hint of action on prairie irrigation. Forest conservation, the building of a trans-Canada highway and other such matters of national interest were referred to, but a matter of peculiar interest to Saskatchewan, namely, the necessity of making fruitful large areas in the province through a national irrigation plan and the use of facilities available on the South Saskatchewan river was entirely lost sight of.
In October last, during the by-election much was said in regard to this matter. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke of it on many occasions. To use his own words, he said that his "main task" in the House of Commons "would be to push the building of a dam as soon as possible." He pointed out that the development of irrigation and power on this river would meant industrial and agricultural development in western Canada similar to the Essen region in Germany.
The leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan referred to this project on several occasions and declared it to be the main issue in the by-election campaign. On October 20 Mr. Tucker, the leader of the Liberal party in the province, spoke at Hanley and said that support had been received from two federal cabinet ministers, both of whom had expressed their favourable attitude toward the South Saskatchewan river irrigation and power project. He went on to say:
The fact that the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, had shown a favourable attitude toward the project while he par-

South Saskatchewan River tlcipated In the by-election campaign was evidence that advocates of the project were making headway in winning converts in the east.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Growingly sympathetic.


John George Diefenbaker: South Saskatchewan River tive party as to the need for this national development. It reads:
Irrigation development is essential if we are to stabilize agriculture in Saskatchewan and the principal project proposed in the province is known as the South Saskatchewan river development. We ask your support in urging the earliest possible commencement of construction on this project. The farmers of Saskatchewan have maintained a constant struggle to overcome the uncertainties of rainfall in the area that could be served by this project.
In large parts of southern Saskatchewan there is recurrent drought. It is so recurrent that in eight of the past nine years Prairie Farm Assistance Act bonuses have been paid in several rural municipalities. There are some who will criticize me for requesting that this work be undertaken now because it will mean a large outlay by the state. I have never in this house advocated the expenditure of moneys unless the project be self-liquidating and will return national dividends. I do not believe that a member's duty is to be continuously asking the government to build this, or extend that work, in his constituency and I have never followed that policy.
In the interests of Canada, undertakings such as the recently announced Canso project, the trans-Canada highway, and this project are necessary, not from a provincial viewpoint alone but in the national interest.
I refer once more to this letter. It says:
The farmers of Saskatchewan have maintained a constant struggle to overcome the uncertainties of rainfall in the area that could be served by this project. A dam on the South Saskatchewan river near Outlook would provide water to irrigate over half a million acres. Each acre of irrigated land helps to stabilize the agriculture on 20 acres of adjoining dry land. The average size of farms in this area today is 480 acres, under irrigation the average farm is 120 acres, so the farm population would be quadrupled. Urban populations would show a corresponding increase to provide services for the farmer on the irrigated land.
The area proposed for irrigation development has required drought relief in the past 25 years of $43 million and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments in the period of 1939-47 of $14 million or the staggering total of $57 million and this does not include road building or public works relief construction.
Those figures indicate the value and the necessity of this work being undertaken in the national interest.
I proceed now to refer to another portion of the letter which reads:
It is essential that the economy of Saskatchewan be diversified. We cannot maintain a sound economy if all our farmers are to depend entirely on wheat. Fluctuations in income due to unstable climate and prices have caused depression and hardship in the past. Under irrigation we would have diversity of production such as livestock, sugar beets, peas, beans, alfalfa and coarse grains.
These are but a few of the national benefits that would proceed from this work being gone ahead with immediately.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
I will summarize the benefits that will accrue from this work not only in Saskatchewan but generally throughout the Dominion of Canada. It will provide certainty of crop production in an area where the incidence of crop failure is three years in ten. It will provide diversity of production where at present grain growing, mostly wheat, is predominant. It will provide for increased livestock production. It will provide stability for the farmer, the labourer, the merchant, the manufacturer and the transportation system. It will assure tax stability by maintaining reasonably uniform production and income. It will assure an increased population, both rural and urban, due to smaller farms and increased services demanded of the urban population in villages, towns and cities. It will provide for the development of industry to process the products of the irrigated land. It will provide power for industrial and domestic use.
In that connection I might mention that the plan as projected by the engineers will produce over 500,000 electric horsepower, over half of which would be available for industrial and rural electrification in Saskatchewan. It will provide for the continuation of the work being done in the restoration of the levels of Long lake, the Qu'Appelle lakes and also other lakes adjacent thereto. Those are a few of the benefits which will follow from this work. Above all, this work will assure national dividends by maintaining in Saskatchewan tens of thousands of people who will thereby be assured of a reasonably certain income in the years to come. It will assure a reduction in the amounts now being paid out in prairie farm assistance.
I shall not go into particulars as to the nature of the project. The cost is approximately $63 million. That cost will be saved in a few years as a result of the reduction in the amounts now being paid, in prairie farm assistance. The saving will be multiplied over the years in the increased value that these lands will acquire, for the estimate is that the lands in this area affected by this irrigation project will increase in value approximately four times. It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will agree. Our people in Saskatchewan in the face of difficulties have shown a courage that, if equalled, has never been excelled anywhere in our country. They have faced drought. They have faced the ruin that follows grasshopper infestation. They have faced three in ten years of reasonably good crops, often followed by partial failure in the other seven years. Irrigation will insure the farmer in this area against much of the present crop failures.
This project-and it is admitted it will have the results that I have referred to-must not

be used by any party as an instrument for political preferment. It should have the support of all parties to the end that it will be assured. It will be proceeded with immediately by the Progressive Conservative party when in power. Full consideration has been given to this matter. The leader of this party, having been apprised of the necessities incident to the situation not only in Saskatchewan but also in parts of Alberta and Manitoba, has given his undivided support to the plea that this work be proceeded with at the earliest date that engineering skill and capacity will permit. It should not be delayed four, seven, or ten years, but should be proceeded with now-when this country is apparently entering into a cycle of possible unemployment, and when Saskatchewan is again facing the dangers inherent in drought. Only those who have lived in that province during the trying years of drought can appreciate that this is a work that, if proceeded with now, will give new hope to the people of Saskatchewan and to the people of western Canada as a whole. It will be a national work that will permit the expansion of industrial development, the extension of productivity in the areas affected, and will pay to the nation as a whole profits that can now only be dreamed of.
This is a work which is part and parcel of the platform of the Progressive Conservative party, for we believe in the state providing opportunity for the individual. We believe in the state as a whole making available those facilities which will enable private enterprise to expand, and expand under the incentive of opportunity which will then be available to those who are prepared to work.
The people of the province of Saskatchewan are disappointed, and have reason for that disappointment, in the failure of the government to include this project among those of national importance which find their place in the speech from the throne. Without exception, there is a demand everywhere in the province for this project. Eleven years have gone by since the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) envisaged the necessity for this development.
I digress for a moment to say this. He is the type of member of parliament whom we should emulate, whose contribution is one that should characterize us all-having no geographical limitations. Viewing Canada's development as a whole, he came out eleven years ago in favour of this project. The Progressive Conservative party has consistently advocated this project, not only during but since 1940. In our belief that this work is necessary we are reinforced by conditions that have since been prevalent and which this year threaten our farmers with a disaster 29087-130
South Saskatchewan River not equalled in ten years. I ask the government not to play with this matter by dibs and dabs of expenditures of two and three million dollars annually, which will mean that the work will not be completed for thirty or forty years. The practicability of this project has been established; its availability has been assured by the investigation made by the engineers; its value has been made clear not only by the South Saskatchewan River Development Association but also by the investigation made by Mr. L. B. Thomson who is in charge of this work in the western provinces; the benefits which will accrue are apparent.
We in this party stand pledged to give support to the government if the legislation is brought in so that this project may be proceeded with, without further delay. We do not believe that this great project should in any way be utilized as a means of giving advantage to any political party. We believe that the work has to be done. The project is necessary in Saskatchewan as well as in parts of Alberta and Manitoba. There is deep resentment over the fact that in the speech from the throne this year this matter has been neglected. It is not even referred to.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is much more important to have it in the estimates, and it is in there.


John George Diefenbaker: It is included in the total estimate for the western provinces of-


James Garfield Gardiner: $7,500,000 for irrigation, $2 million of which is for this project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


John George Diefenbaker: May I finish this sentence? It is in the estimates to the extent of $7,500,000 for all the western provinces, which means that as for the South Saskatchewan project it is merely the commencement and the laying of the foundations. What we of the prairie provinces demand is not the doing of this work in a way which indicates that it is to be a lifelong project, but that it be proceeded with immediately and completed in accordance with the best energy that the engineers may devote to its completion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I am not going to pursue the subject which my hon. friend has just dropped. While listening to him I came to the conclusion that he was a bit prejudiced against the government of Saskatchewan. For some reason or other he does not like that government.

Labour Conditions


James Garfield Gardiner: Nor the Ottawa government.


Clarence Gillis: In his reference to the Saskatchewan government, as related to the projects he was discussing, the hon. member was impractical and unfair. In the beginning of his remarks he made reference to the subject raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely, the matter of old age pensions, and he wanted to know why Saskatchewan had not raised the old age pensions to $50 a month. In reality the old age pension contribution of the Saskatchewan government is 25 per cent of $50 a month at the present time. That is the arrangement. Since he lives in that province the hon. member should know that. I do not think he wanted to make statements which were unfair, and I am glad that I am now able to put him right on that.
The responsibility rests with the federal government. The Saskatchewan government is already making its contribution in accordance with the arrangements between the dominion and the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Silence does not mean consent.


Clarence Gillis: Before the house adjourns the Minister of National Health and Welfare may correct me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that silence does not mean consent.


Clarence Gillis: I think the hon. member for Lake Centre was a bit off the beam in his reference to the $100 million irrigation project. He wanted to know why the Saskatchewan government had not appropriated the money and completed that project. He knows that that province is perhaps the poorest in natural resources of any province in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no, the best.


Clarence Gillis: It has one industry dependent on the whims of nature. It is very uncertain, and all that kind of thing. Because the Saskatchewan government had the courage to go out and establish a little shoe factory, and other little industries which are just struggling along, the hon. member thought that they should have gathered in $100 million and gone ahead with the irrigation project. I agree with him that it is the responsibility of the federal government. It is a national undertaking. Until we can convince the federal government that it should do these things, they will never be done on a provincial basis. It is absolutely impractical and unfair to suggest that Saskatchewan has that kind of money. I should like to ask him to explain some time why it is that since we have had federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, in power in this country ever since it has been a country, they 
have not gone ahead and done the job that he expects Saskatchewan to do at the present time. It has not been done provincially because it cannot be done. It has not been done federally because of lack of interest on the part of federal governments. But I can assure him of this: when the C.C.F. government takes over power in this country nationally-


John Ritchie MacNicol: In another thousand years.


Clarence Gillis: -the complaints he is making at the present time will no longer be necessary. We shall develop the resources of this country. That is the only way they will ever be developed.
I suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is a capable fellow, that he go back to Saskatchewan, put his shoulder to the wheel and see if he cannot push in a C.C.F. federal government, and then he will no longer have to wave his arms in the house and air grievances which are at least seventy-five years old.
I did not rise to make these remarks, but in his remarks my hon. friend provoked me into saying it. There are a lot of members in this house from Saskatchewan and I know they are quite capable of defending what is going on out there. No doubt before this debate closes some of them will have something to say on it.
What I rose to say at this time in this. A lot of demands are being made for social security. A lot of demands are being made for public works, which means that money has to be spent by the federal government. What I am going to talk about now is production, the use of our resources, because you cannot get any more out of the pool of wealth than you put into it. Unless we get production in this country up to the maximum, and we use our resources to the full and keep our people employed, none of these things that we are asking for will ever be done.
We have a grievance in Nova Scotia, and it is one that should not exist. I am talking about the full utilization of our natural resources. I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat. For the past couple of months the mining industry of Nova Scotia, which is one of our basic industries, has been working part time, and for a short time some of the larger collieries were closed down completely. Telegrams were sent to the government and to myself wanting to know why it was that at this time that basic industry in Nova Scotia was idle or on short time because of a lack of markets for their coal.
When the war broke out in 1939 the coal production of Nova Scotia was routed into the bunker trade. Our normal markets were

disrupted because of the war. The government then began to import more and more United States coal, and they handed over the market of one million tons that we had in Ontario previous to the war and approximately two and a half million tons that we were putting into Quebec. When that development took place I pointed out to the then Minister of Reconstruction and Supply our experience in the first war. That is exactly what we did at that time and it took us twenty years to get these Ontario and Quebec markets back at a great expense to the taxpayers of this country by way of subventions and subsidies. I pointed out that we were repeating that performance in the second world war. I suggested to the minister at that time that if he was handing over to the Americans the normal markets for Nova Scotia coal, he should do it under some kind of agreement or understanding to the effect that at the close of the war those normal markets for coal produced in Nova Scotia would be returned.
That was not done. I am suggesting that we should try to protect our markets by expanding the coal industry of this country to meet our own requirements as quickly as possible. We should cut down American imports, and thus save American dollars so necessary to our economy. Our fuel industry should be expanded, because the largest single import into this country is American coal. It is one of the big drawbacks in connection with the flow of American dollars. But nothing has been done in connection with protecting our market or expanding our industry.
The fact of the matter is that the reverse is true. The Nova Scotia industry is shrinking, and I believe there is a deliberate plan to shrink it. This failure to bring in Nova Scotia coal enables the government to save a good deal of money it would have to spend on subventions to assist that fuel into central Canada. The operators in Nova Scotia are following that line. There are mines which at the present time are not producing, and have not produced for some considerable time. The men are being weeded out of them, and the mines are being closed off. Consequently nothing is being done to develop new openings in that part of the country.
In addition to that, coal operators in Nova Scotia have become importers. 1 put a question on the order paper some two years ago in which I asked the names of the importers of American coal into Canada. I did not get that information. The answer to that question u'as that it was not in the public interest, or that it was not in the interest of those who were importing coal, to make the business of
Labour Conditions
one importer known to the others. I had not asked anything about their business; I merely wished to know their names.
I wanted their names because I know the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, in addition to being the major operator in eastern Canada, and holding all the leases, thereby preventing anybody else from coming in and developing any of the coal resources, has become one of the largest importers of American coal in eastern Canada.
In 1942 I rode up on the train with the then vice-president and general manager of that corporation. At that time I talked over with him this business of losing the central markets. He said, "We are not losing them. We are importing American coal and we are supplying our customers in Ontario and Quebec with that coal. Therefore we are holding those markets." He is holding the market as an importer. I believe they are still doing that; but the result is that they are shrinking our industry in Nova Scotia.
I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that in connection with the question of marketing Nova Scotia coal, or coal generally in Canada, and the development of our coal resources, it is time the government of Canada got down to the enactment of a national fuel policy. I admit that the long rail haul both east and west in the marketing of our coal in central Canada is a big drawback. At the same time, however, I know that coal produced in Canada can be put into different parts of this country in competition with American coal. I say that is possible because of the subvention now in existence in connection with the moving of coal either from the west or from the east to central Canada.
However, nothing like this appears to be in the minds of the government or of those ministers in particular who are responsible for the development of our resources. Indeed the reverse is true. While our coal production is declining, imports from the United States are mounting from year to year.
A couple of years ago when the mine workers of Nova Scotia were asking for wage increases, the hue and cry in the House of Commons, and from operators, was that greater production must be attained in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. It was stated that the man-day production must be stepped up. About 1,500 old men were weeded out of the industry and thrown on the streets with very inadequate pensions and with no provision made for their future. An attempt is being made to mechanize these mines. Production was stepped up; but in the face of that, in the last couple of months the company refused to bank coal and keep the
212$

Labour Conditions
mines operating. It adds about a dollar a ton to the cost. So the simple thing to do [DOT]is to shut down the mines temporarily, or work them only three days a week, thus throwing the men on unemployment insurance. That is what is being done.
In the face of this complete neglect of our resources, the Minister of Finance, speaking on March 22, the occasion of the presentation of his budget, and making special reference to the improvement of our trade balance, said this:
On the other hand our 1948 imports from the United States were $170 million less than in 1947, or a reduction of about 10 per cent, and this despite some sharp increases in the cost of American goods. The reduction of $170 million is the net result of two [DOT]contrasting trends. In the case of goods enumerated in the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act, the value of imports from the United States was reduced by $300 million; but the volume of all other imports rose by $130 million. Increases in oil, coal and farm machinery alone amounted to more than $120 million.
That trend, if continued for the next ten or fifteen years, will scrap the coal industry of Nova Scotia. These mines are old; no new openings are being made. And unless a policy is entered into by the operators and the dominion government I cannot see how the industry can continue, with the old openings operated at the present time.
The government did try at the last session to do something about it, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce sponsored the setting up of a coal board. The legislation under which that board operates is broad; the board has considerable latitude. The minister said, in answer to a question of mine asked a few days ago, that the coal board was about to have sittings in Nova Scotia for the purpose of examining the whole problem. While it is all right for the board to go down there and take a look at conditions, and while it is proper for it to make recommendations, I do not think that will solve the problem. It is only within the last year or so that we had a royal commission on coal, at great cost to the country, which brought down a comprehensive report concerning the disabilities of the industry. But the commission made very few recommendations with a view to curing the disability from which the industry suffers.
After the length of time it has been functioning, I believe the coal board by this time should have determined certain facts respecting markets for coal in both the eastern and western sections of this country, particularly in view of the fact that imports from the United States are mounting from week to week and month to month. That is admitted by the Minister of Finance in the statement I just read, when he says that oil, coal and farm machinery were responsible for additional imports to a value of $120 million.
[Mr. GUlis.I
We cannot continue that trend and at the same time say that we are Canadians who are interested in the development of our natural resources. I know that while the present government is in power, or if it were replaced by my friends to my right-and that is most unlikely-that trend will continue. Of course the answer is the nationalization of the industry, which has been clearly demonstrated in Great Britain. They are making progress there. They are stepping up production and encouraging young people to come into the industry because they have brought some humanity into it.
It is no longer a matter of getting profits out of the sweat of the workers as far as the coal mines of Britain are concerned. I wish some of my hon. friends could go down into some of these mines and have a look at them and see what the miners have to contend with. During the last recess the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) visited Cape Breton and I took her down in one of these mines and out under the Atlantic ocean for about six miles. You should have seen her when she came up. But she saw that operation first-hand and she said, "Thank God, I am not a coal miner." She said, "No matter what price I have to pay in the future for coal I know that those who are exploiting the men I saw working today are making the profits. Men who go down under the earth away from the sunshine and slave as I have seen men slaving today can never be paid too much in the way of wages." I think the same would be said by every hon. member of this house if he had to work in a mine for one or two days. He would be more than pleased to get around to improving conditions in the industry.
But the thing I am concerned with today is a market for our coal. As long as the present people hold the reins of government we are going to be faced with this problem. Is it not a shame that, after fighting the last war and hearing the promises that were made about a new heaven, a new earth and a new society, nothing should be done? The Prime Minister said to the boys coming back that there would be a new scheme of things, that there would be a new heaven and a new earth for them. But we still have these old industries staggering along as they were. It is a crime to think that, with all the machinery of government we have in this country, nothing has been done. The provincial government gave ninety-nine year leases to the operators so that no one else can go in. With the findings of the royal commission the federal government has all the necessary information to enact an adequate fuel policy.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been complaining about the increase in our imports and the money that is going out of the country. We have resources in the ground in the way of coal and oil that are basic to our whole economy. Yet we are doing absolutely nothing about it. I think it is time that we got busy and did something. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was questioned as to why these mines should be idle at this time he said that there were no markets for the coal. That was said at a time when we are importing about $147 million worth of United States coal. You would think that the Minister of Finance would rise up in the cabinet and ask what they were doing to him when imports of these basic materials were increasing.
The government would be making money because they would be able to get more taxes. People would be kept at work. This should interest the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When people are working they pay taxes; when they are not working, there is a drain on the unemployment insurance funds. Unless these things are done I cannot see how you expect them to vote for you in the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not.


Clarence Gillis: Ninety per cent of the people in my end of the country work for a living. All they want is a chance to earn a decent living. At the present time we are just a dumping ground for coal from the United States. It would be so simple to change all this. If one new mine were developed in Nova Scotia it would absorb all the unemployed and production would be increased. This coal should be absorbed in the normal market.
There is one thing that I definitely want to see done at this time. Are the coal operators of eastern Canada, the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited, to be permitted to import United States coal under their own name while they shrink our own industry? That matter can be cured and cured quickly. That is a responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the dominion coal board.
I am not going to detain the house any longer. I have said what I want to say and I am sorry I have had to take the time I have.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to have the opinion of the house about the business at seven-thirty. As hon. members know, according to standing order 15 the first hour from eight to nine o'clock should be taken up with public and private bills. I would
Private Bills
direct attention to the order of precedence that is set out in the orders of the day which states that from eight o'clock private and public bills will be considered for the first hour. I believe that the spirit of the standing order would be to take private and public bills for the first hour and therefore with the consent of the house at seven-thirty I will call for private and public bills for the first hour.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


Gordon Graydon: the second reading of Bill No. 25, respecting the Globe Printing Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not the hon. member going to explain his bill?


Gordon Graydon: In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, first of all I should say the measure is very simple and, I think, neither complicated nor contentious. Hon. members will have the bill before them, which already has been considered in the other place.
This measure can perhaps be taken as some indication of the growth of the community in which the Globe Printing Company has carried on its business since it was first incorporated in 1866 by chapter 123 of the-statutes of the united provinces of upper and lower Canada. Perhaps I should point out also that one of the original incorporators of that company was none other than George-Brown, whose name has gone down in history as one of our great Canadians. The act of 1866, section 1, had to do with the value of the real estate that could be held by the corporation, and at that time the amount was not to exceed $5,000.
As the community developed and the company grew it found itself unable to keep within that maximum, and in 1892 an amending act was passed, being chapter 75 of 55-56 Victoria, assented to on May 10, 1892, by which the words "five thousand" in section 1 of the original act were struck out and the words "thirty thousand" substituted therefor. As the community has further grown and the business has further developed, now in 1949 the company again comes before parliament to seek a further increase in the amount of real estate it may hold. When I say the real estate holdings must not exceed $5,000 in the one case and $30,000 in the other, I should indicate to hon. members that this of

Private Bills
course is not the actual value of the real estate but rather what is known as the annual value. So this bill asks that this amount be increased to $100,000; and again it must be borne in mind that this is the annual value of the real estate involved.
Perhaps I should state very briefly what created the need for this legislation. After the Globe Printing Company was first incorporated it carried on business in various places in the city of Toronto, but in 1936 the Mail Printing Company was purchased by it and that latter company owned a parcel of land at the corner of York and King streets. As a matter of fact title to that land is still in the name of the Mail Printing Company. The Globe Printing Company financed the erection of a fine and important structure on that site, in which one of Canada's great national newspapers is now published; and the Globe Printing Company are anxious that their act of incorporation should give them sufficient latitude to acquire ownership of and title to the land and building in which they carry on their business. The present limitation of $30,000 is not sufficient, and the measure now before the house will permit the Globe Printing Company to purchase the land and the building so that title to both the business and the property will be in the one name. In most cases, of course, there is no restriction on the amount of land a company may hold by its ancillary powers, but in this case there was a restriction in the original incorporation. Later that was amended to a more generous figure, and now the company is anxious to acquire title as aforesaid.
As I say, so far as I know there is nothing contentious or complicated in this proposal, so I would ask that the bill be given second reading and referred to the appropriate committee of the house for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 26, respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company-Mr. Jackman.
Bill No. 28, to incorporate the Canadian Home Assurance Company-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East).

Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 30 respecting the Corporation of the City of Ottawa, Ottawa Transportation Commission and the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
[Mr. Graydon.l


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member make a statement in connection with this bill?


George James McIlraith: On May 11, 1948, the city of Ottawa agreed to purchase the undertaking of the Ottawa Electric Company. In accordance with the agreement they took over the operation of the railway company on August 12, 1948. The actual operation of the railway is carried out through a statutory agent, the Ottawa Transportation Commission.
By two of the very early statutes of Canada, the railway was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. In addition, the railway line operates between two provinces, since it operates from the city of Ottawa into the city of Hull. As a result, the dominion parliament has jurisdiction over its operations. The operation has been carried on since August 12, 1948, under the authority of section 150 of the Railway Act of Canada. That section of the Railway Act provides that where a railway company is sold it can only operate under authority of a further act of parliament. In the meantime, until the next sitting, the Minister of Transport has authority to issue an interim certificate. Such an interim certificate has been issued in this case, but that certificate can only be effective until the end of this session. It is, therefore, necessary that the act of parliament be granted or refused as the case may be.
I do not know that there is anything further I can usefully add at this stage.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not
wish to oppose the second reading of this bill, but there should be a clause in it to guard the rights of the public. I would suggest that hon. gentlemen consent to having this particular bill referred to the committee on railways so that that committee can examine it and see that the proper safeguards are put into the bill to protect the public. No doubt the public have partially voted on it, but there should be a bill of sale to the city of physical assets and all other securities.
I think the committee should have an opportunity of examining the bill in detail, and seeing that the public rights are protected. It seems that is going to mean an increase in fares. I move, seconded by the member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson), that on second reading the bill be referred to the committee on railways so that it can be examined and the public rights safeguarded.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my interest in the matter concerns the taking over of the Eastview Bus Company. I understand that, when the Ottawa

Electric Company ceased to exist and was taken over by the corporation, the corporation also took over the Eastview bus lines, apparently without compensation to the private company operating those buses. The Ottawa Transportation Commission extended its lines over the territory served by the Eastview Bus Company and the Eastview Bus Company was put out of business.
My interest in the matter is the possibility of this move establishing a precedent which would enable the Toronto Transportation Commission to extend its operations into districts in which subsidiary lines are operated. If this precedent is established, it is in my opinion a very dangerous one; especially if this Eastview bus line was taken over without being reimbursed for the loss of the franchise it apparently held. I think the hon. gentleman responsible for the bill might enlighten the house on this question, which was brought to my notice when I was in Toronto over the week end.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman is closing the debate.


Mr. Thomas Reid (New Wesiminsler):: want to say a word on this bill, Mr. Speaker, before it passes to the committee. If this bill before the house concerned an ordinary railway company, perhaps only the members living in that city might be interested in it. We have before us, however, a bill affecting the capital city in which every member of parliament is interested.
For the past ten years at least parliament has voted moneys for the development of Ottawa as a national capital. Looking to the future it is expected that at least $500 million to $1,000 million may be spent. This railway is part and parcel of the national capital. I do not know whether the members are aware of the fact, but once the bill passes this railway ceases to be under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. It then becomes subject to the laws of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec.
To my mind, there is no city which so lends itself to the lifting of the tracks completely as does the city of Ottawa.


John Ewen Sinclair: And the street cars, too.


Thomas Reid: It is well known to those of us who have been here that the city council has been one of those groups of narrowminded men-I say that without any disrespect. Anyone can look at the tracks and see they are a disgrace. Are we going to have in our national capital a transportation system that is long outmoded?
Private Bills
It was very interesting to note that one of the controllers or aldermen who ran for mayor, a gentleman named Geldert, left the city of Ottawa and went south. He wrote to the city council to say that some of the Ottawa policemen should be sent south to learn how to handle traffic. When he was in Ottawa we tried to tell him that, but he did not believe us. After he went abroad from this narrow-minded city, of course he saw the matter from a different point of view entirely. I have just as much interest in the development of the city of Ottawa as most of the residents of Ottawa have. I am interested in what is going to happen.
Already there is evidence of the highhanded manner of the railway company. The other night, while traveling on part of the antiquated system, I saw a notice to the effect that all those who have bought tickets will be compelled to turn them in before the end of the month or lose their money. As a matter of fact, the company is welching on the tickets. Since when is a ticket that you bought outdated and no good just because another company purchases the franchise? Yet you will see a notice warning the people that after the 31st of this month the tickets they have bought previously will be no good; and the people are sitting quietly by and not saying a word about it.
The council deliberated about the matter of tracks and trolley buses, and they said that buses should not be put in the city yet. But an expert from Toronto, whose name is known world-wide, says there is no city that lends itself more to the development of buses than does Ottawa; and that statement was made after he had looked the city over. Anyone who knows anything about Bank street and Sparks street will agree with him. I think it is high time that those tracks were lifted, that the streets were paved, and that a modem transportation system was put in. To members of this house who appropriate money for the beautification of Ottawa, I say that they had better give this bill a double look-over before they pass it.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member had better get a bodyguard tonight.


Thomas Reid: The bill at least brought me to my feet.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: After hearing such a one-sided speech I think it is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Ottawa East should get up on his feet and tell the people of this country, through you, that the reputation of our council, of our railways and of our transportation system is

Private Bills
as good as any that can be found in any part of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member had better come out to British Columbia and tell them that.


Jean-Thomas Richard: We do not
need to go to British Columbia to find that out.


Thomas Reid: You should.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You told us that last year about your housing.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I notice that a great number of people from other points are glad to find themselves in Ottawa, and apparently grow fat on what they seem to get in this city.


Thomas Reid: Not from riding in the street cars.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I do not intend, however, to go into such matters and to discuss this problem in the manner in which the hon. member has just discussed it. I am sorry that such remarks as "narrow-minded" have been applied to the city council, because after all those men are servants of the people, just as he is himself, and they do the best they can for their people.
As to the transportation system, I might say that it was the pioneer system in this country. The greatest man in electric transportation in Canada was Tom Ahearn, who started the Ottawa Electric Railway, and today we have the finest cars and perhaps the finest buses in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is that you have in your cheek?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Let me say this, however. This small city has had to provide a transportation system to suit the needs of a government which has been buying and buying business property which now does not pay taxes to the city. As a result, the burdened taxpayers cannot provide free a transportation system for the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask hon. members not to raise their voices above that of the hon. member who has the floor, and not to interrupt him without his permission.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I am quite happy to see that I receive such attention from my hon. friends. I say that the people of Ottawa are hard put to have to provide a transportation system out of tax moneys that

have been taken away from them by the government's expropriation of property in this city.


John Ewen Sinclair: They are moving the printing bureau to Hull.


Jean-Thomas Richard: All the members from British Columbia have divergent views. We are not speaking about the printing bureau. The hon. member-


Thomas Reid: For New Westminster.


Jean-Thomas Richard: No, I am
through with you. I am talking about the people with money now. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), I think, was misinformed as to the facts he stated a while ago. These new buses still operate. The Nepean bus line still operates. The Ottawa Transportation Commission does not run over their routes at present; and when the lines are taken over I understand that the agreement provides that the commission will have to indemnify any of the lines they take over in the suburban area. I think it was rather on account of misinformation that the hon. member made the statements he made.
I did not expect that we would have any such discussion as this, although I welcome it because 1 am always happy and proud to say, as a man who was born in this city and who is proud of the fact, that the things we have had, have now, and hope to have in the future, are the best in the world.


Mr. W. Garfield Case (Grey North):: I do
not intend to detract in any sense from the city of Ottawa, but in a few brief words I wish to say that I do not think the opportunity should pass without a protest against the fact that the hon. member for New Westminster should lay the groundwork for such a fine political speech in the hon. member's home town.


Thomas Reid: I rise to a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You have already spoken once.


Thomas Reid: This is on a point of order. I do not mind being challenged for making a political speech, because all speeches in this house are political. But if the hon. member thinks that I had any ulterior motive, or any motive other than the betterment of the city of Ottawa-


Mr. Casselman:: He did not suggest that.


Thomas Reid: -I say that he is entirely wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) will close the debate.


George James McIlraith: I am rather pleased, Mr. Speaker, to note the extreme interest tonight in this rather simple bill. It augurs well for

the future welfare of the national capital to see in the House of Commons unanimous interest in any subject related to this city.
I think perhaps I ought just to draw attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). He will have a full opportunity in committee to inquire about other bus lines operating into the city, and so on. But 1 would point out to him that he seems to have a misapprehension of the whole matter. The Eastview bus lines have not been taken over by the transportation commission, and nothing of the nature described by him in his remarks has happened. There must be some misunderstanding, and I think it could be better brought out in committee, whatever the point is.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I was merely told it over the week end; it was information which I understood emanated from the president of the Eastview bus lines.


George James McIlraith: I do not know what information the hon. member understands emanates from an officer of a company; but my information is substantially different. I did not expect the point to be raised tonight. Perhaps we could get at the facts in committee.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) made some remarks that interest me. He used some direct and strong language about the men in city council. The city council is a rather competent body in its own sphere. The members of it are the people's elected representatives dealing with civic matters. As I well know, they have certainly co-operated in any matters affecting the dominion government, and are giving the utmost co-operation at this time. He made reference to the city in somewhat similar language. Frankly, I did not like the term "narrow-minded city". Perhaps I can best answer it by pointing out that every four or five years some seven or eight hundred men and women aspire to come here for a few months each year. They can come here only by the votes of the citizens residing in their own constituencies. In reading the press I notice that a good many candidates are now seeking to come to this narrow-minded city. It cannot be so narrow-minded or so many great men and women would not seek to come here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How is the campaign for nomination getting along in your own riding?


Mr. Bentley:: It is the only place to which they can come to watch the government.


George James McIlraith: That may be so. In any event, my point is that there is no better place to come to.
Private Bills
Some question was raised about tickets and a notice in the streetcars about those tickets. The notice simply intimates that the operators cannot honour the tickets. They can be turned in at the transportation commission office and cash received for them. Therefore the money is not lost.


Thomas Reid: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Can he tell the house why it is that when the streetcars were operating under private interests fares were one price, and as soon as the municipal council took over the system the fares were raised?


George James McIlraith: In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the fares have not been raised. Whether they will have to be raised or not I do not know. That matter will have to be gone into. It is a question of modernizing equipment and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Thomas Reid: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. W. H. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the
following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Francis Thomas Joseph Cleevely.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Jack William Corber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Mildred Ida Acres Wells.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Wilhelmina Doris Guenette Parkes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Anita Phyllis Ticktin Sacks.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Sylvia Feldman Blant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Doris Arvilla Jackson Legassick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Rose Klein Levin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Thelma Wilhelmina Wintonyk Colter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Doris MacArthur Richards Arnold.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Mary Matheson Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Vivian Pauline Davies White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Helen Hawthorne Kuhn Ellis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Joseph Octave Jules Lapointe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Nena Ruthen Teitelbaum.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Annie Gwendoline Mabel Gammon Noble.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Margaret Catherine McDonald White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Howard Vincent Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Matilda Schneider Hutter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Robert William Phillips.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Ethel Rose Katz Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Edith Cecelia Cole Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Agnes Mathie-son Metsos.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Dorothy Fern Brown Lacoste.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Sylvia Barnett Shane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Louise Soltanoff Rudy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Armand Boisclair.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Mary Robertson Pangman Elder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Merilda Normand Maury.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Janet Stevenson Ivory Stein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Reba Schulman Schecter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Helen Fulton Burns Clark.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Lyford Homer George.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Joan Winnifred Lewis Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Frances Lenore Roe Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Philip Victor Thomas Rodbourn.-Mr. Timmins.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Dorothy Edith Entwistle Lorimer.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of William Christie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Priscilla Banning Peart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Margaret Nelson Smith Calvert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Shirley Pearl Claman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Lillian Helena Cross Page.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Rosario Proulx. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Micheline Lefebvre Simpson.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Catherina Koszak Tymczuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Anne Warnes Rice.-Mr. Emmerson.

Bill No. 77, for the relief of Joseph Edmond Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Grace Lambert Sturgeon.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Mary Middleton Thompson-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Gordon Aylmer Thistle Shirres.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Walter Jasper Blake.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Margaret Murray McKinnon Trenholm.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Walter Wilson McBroom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Mabel Florence Dunk Wright.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Thomas Somerville.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Leon Desrosiers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of June Lucille Odell Woolnough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Christopher Edmond Cobham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Jack Zelinsky. -Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Morna Elsa Kott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Doris Christina Meldrum Franklin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Francis Thomas Lariviere.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Maurice Abraham Rodier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Liselotte Karola Roer Goode.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Albert Labreche.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Bessie Drink-water Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Bessie Shafer Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Ludmila Mach Morawetz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Ernest Cecil George Thackway.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of May Garnet Greene Lofting.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Henry John Bobinski.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Mary Eileen Birks Moorhouse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Florence Ruby Robbins Cumby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Flookes Kerr.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Berthe Marie Madeleine Brunet Egar.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Mary Alice Eva Rivard Sharkey.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Evelyn Florence Brigden Piper.-Mr. Emmerson.

Bill No. 116, for the relief of Beatrice Violet Hudson Hineson.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Fernand Dupuis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Frances Strakosch Alexander.-Mr. Winkler. .
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Peonie Taub Joseph.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Doris Mabel Garwood Cunningham Watt.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Marion Dorothy Hill Parker Jeffryes.-Mr. Emmer-son.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I have no particular interest in divorce, but I have an interest in the proceedings which have been adopted and which are of course in conformity with the law. For a number of years we have been labouring under this problem. If hon. members will refer to pages 2710 and 2711 of Hansard of June 21, 1946, they will find there a number of questions which were addressed to the then Minister of Justice, now Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the answers which are on page 2712 of the same day. The then Minister of Justice replied at considerable length and outlined what I and many others considered a practical solution of this problem.
In fairness and with respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the minister's proposal was not intended to facilitate or to make it easier to obtain divorce. Rather it was to place the applicant in a position where his first approach would be through a court of competent jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that in one province there are no divorce courts. In that one province which is without divorce courts all the evidence would be obtained before the courts and a disposition with regard to the property, children and alimony would be settled and a bill of separation would be granted. That is a brief outline of the remarks of the then Minister of Justice.
After this proceeding, if an absolute divorce were desired, application would be made to the parliament of Canada for the passing of a bill. In my opinion, this would be a tremendous advantage. With all this in mind I recently addressed a question to the Prime Minister inquiring what progress, if any, was being made with respect to setting up a national divorce court.


Mr. Lalonde:: Would not that question have to be taken up with Mr. Duplessis of Quebec?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Perhaps the term I used, "a national divorce court", was poorly chosen. My object was to obtain information with regard
Private Bills
to the outline of the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice, and to which I have referred. I have mentioned the date and pages of Hansard pertaining thereto. I hope that the time will come when hon. members will not be expected to rubber-stamp important bills having to do with human welfare, without the advantage of having an opportunity to cross-examine all parties.
I doubt very much whether the average hon. member reads the evidence which is obtained by the divorce court in the other place. As a matter of fact, it would require much extensive reading. But having interested myself in this subject, I have spent some time reviewing many of the cases which are dealt with there. In the main I think I can say, without being misunderstood, that the evidence is more or less of a routine character. The evidence is obtained in a rather unusual way. The application is presented and the evidence dealt with. I am not in any sense derogating from the committee of the other place which deals with these matters, because I believe they are sincere in their desire to see that justice is done. I am not so much concerned with the fact that it is possible for these people to secure a bill of divorcement; I am concerned as to what disposition is made with respect to innocent children, whose future we should all have at heart. I do believe in setting up some sort of machinery which would provide the province to which I have referred, which apparently has its own ideas about divorce-and I have no quarrel with any individual province -with the means of carrying these cases to the courts of law so that a bill of separation could be granted, and the petition carried still further if an absolute divorce were required. If that were done, disposition would be made with respect to property and alimony in the civil court before it reached the Senate divorce committee. At least we would then have the advantage of knowing that under proper jurisdiction the witnesses giving evidence were properly examined and cross-examined. We would also be more secure in our final decision. I do object to the fact that in the main we are being used as rubber stamps. Therefore I make this observation at this late date in the hope that some effort will be made to improve what I think is a most unfortunate circumstance, having regard to human welfare, something which should be of concern to every hon. member.


Thomas Langton Church: For a great many years I was a member of the private bills committee when these bills were being considered. The way we proceed with this business is far from creditable to the high court of parliament. I believe we should have
iV34

Private Bills
some system in every province, including Prince Edward Island and Quebec, for the consideration of these divorce bills. The cost, as compared with the cost in coming to parliament, would not be as great. However, the costs are so great that in some of the provinces the high court judges want to have divorces referred to the county court judges.
I believe the government should lay down some policy with respect to these bills. The way we are transacting this business does not do credit to parliament. In the old country the churches have been examining into this matter for a long time, and they have held a conference in connection with it. I hear that in our procedure we are following the practice of the United States. Surely the government should adopt a concrete policy with respect to divorce bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Second readings of-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Dorion:: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you ask for the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. An. hon. Member: He said the nays have it. Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I said to call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for committee of supply.



CHIGNECTO CANAL

Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock we were dealing with the motion to go into supply, which gives private members an opportunity to bring up special grievances which affect their parts of the country, or the country generally. No portion of Canada has more grievances, or perhaps I should say has been carrying on through the years with greater disabilities, than the maritime provinces and particularly Nova Scotia.
This afternoon I was pleased to hear my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) devote most of his attention to the difficulties in connection with the operation of our coal mines. In recent years, as compared with the twenties and early thirties, these mines have had a ready market. I am in agreement with the statement of the hon. member that we are now approaching a period when there is some danger of the mines not being able to carry on continuous or profitable operations. When I had the privilege of being in the provincial government of Nova Scotia we made a special study and took particular pains to see that the coal mines of our province were put on a sound basis by having the duties increased, subsidies placed on coke, and subventions by water and rail in order to transport coal to central Canada. It is the duty of this parliament to see that the coal mines of Nova Scotia are kept on a sound basis, from the standpoint of the best interests of Nova Scotia and for the welfare of Canada. Recently we have seen statements about the enormous wealth that is accruing to Canada through the saving of money formerly expended on the importation of oil. That also applies to coal, and the reduction of that importation by the use of our own production.
However, this is not the main subject I rose to discuss. I want to deal with the Chignecto canal, which has been before our people ever since the first white settler came to this country. This is the canal that would be built across the isthmus of Chignecto on the boundary between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, a distance of only sixteen miles between the waters of the bay of Fundy and Northumberland strait, though the canal itself would be somewhat longer and additional dredging would be needed to get the required depth at the entrances.
Before white settlers came to this country that isthmus was used as a portage by the native Indians, to get from the bay of Fundy
Chignecto Canal
to Northumberland strait. It was also used by the early French Acadian settlers; and the canal was first projected by them three hundred years ago. Back in 1822 a survey was made by an engineer named Minette for the construction of a four-foot canal across the isthmus, the survey being authorized by the province of New Brunswick. In 1825 Francis Hall made another survey of an eight-foot canal at an estimated cost of $298,000. Thomas Telfer surveyed a 13-foot canal in 1826 estimated to cost $685,952. Then in 1943 an engineer named Crowley made a survey for a nine-foot canal.
In 1868 an address was presented to the Canadian parliament praying all information in hand be presented to the chief engineer, John Page. In 1870 Sir John A. Macdonald's government authorized an inquiry into and surveys concerning canals to be built in Canada, and the report was made in 1871. It listed four big canal projects: Sault Ste. Marie; construction of the Welland canal and enlargement of the St. Lawrence channel; enlargement of the Ottawa river channel and construction of the Lachine canal; and fourth on the list for all Canada was the construction of a canal across the isthmus of Chignecto. This was projected as a fifteen-foot canal, at a cost estimated at that time at $3,250,000. Different canal projects were considered during the next ten years.
In 1882 a company was organized to build a ship railway instead of a canal. The land across the isthmus of Chignecto is almost level and only a few feet above ordinary high tide. This ship railway was to cost $4,350,000. The capital cost of this enterprise was being supplied entirely by private individuals. The company was granted a supposed subsidy of $150,000 per year for twenty-five years. Before this undertaking was completed the British financial concern who were providing the funds went into liquidation owing to some misadventures in South America. This caused a delay in the construction of the canal, the charter lapsed and the subsidy was never renewed.
It is my opinion, and it was the opinion of most people at that time, that the ship canal would have been a successful undertaking with the small sized ships of that day. As the years went by the ships became larger and it became more expensive to build a canal and more difficult to build a ship railway. The tonnage of ships had increased greatly over previous years. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house that I do not believe there was a similar undertaking in all Canada in which private enterprise was treated as badly as the people who projected that canal and spent their own money. So far this project has never cost the people of Canada one

Chignecto Canal
cent. Restitution was not made to the company that expended their money and the project was abandoned.
In 1932 another survey was made by Arthur Surveyer, D. W. Robb and John F. Sowards. They reported that the building of the canal was feasible. Their proposed canals ranged from sixteen to twenty-five feet in depth, to cost from $20 million to $55,484,000. The people interested in this project and who made a study of it believed the estimated cost was greatly swollen and much more than actually required to build it. It was considered a commercial undertaking that had to pay its way; adverse reports were made and the canal was never proceeded with.
No canal in Canada has ever paid its way. On May 20, 1947, I made a speech in which I outlined the amounts expended on canals in central Canada. It is found at page 3271 of Hansard, and reads as follows:
Central Canada has had $243,752,399.78 expended on canals, and there have been accumulated deficits of $114,130,209.81, or a total of $357,882,609.59.
Although the Chignecto canal was put fourth on the list of canal projects that should be undertaken shortly after confederation, it was not undertaken and has never been proceeded with to this day. At the present time there is a committee actively engaged in studying this project. Some of the daily newspapers such as the Saint John Telegraph-Journal and the Moncton Times have been giving a lot of publicity to the project. Businessmen and the heads of municipalities as well as boards of trade have been advocating the construction of this canal. Other newspapers in Nova Scotia have given splendid support to this undertaking. I am referring specially to the Halifax Herald and the Amherst Daily News.
Private individuals, Mr. Speaker, have put their hands into their own pockets and have taken up subscriptions. They have appointed a committee and a secretary and are gathering information. Shortly, they expect to make a report on the project and make application to the federal government to have construction undertaken at once. No sum has been placed in the estimates for it; it is not referred to in the speech from the throne and no policy has been announced by the government, so far as we in the maritime provinces know. To the people of Nova Scotia the Ottawa government is a complete blank in dealing with this undertaking that has been promised to us ever since the days of confederation.
This canal is necessary as a commercial undertaking. It is very desirable as a defence undertaking. There are great possibilities for a power development there and

it is a public work that should be constructed without delay in the interests of Nova Scotia, which has contributed so much to confederation. It will be in the interests of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island as well as in the interests of Newfoundland. A great deal of the traffic of all these provinces would go through the canal. Year after year the project has been put off. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that hope deferred has made the heart grow sick, so far as many people in that part of Canada are concerned.
I have not the exact sum, but I believe approximately $65 million was expended on the Hudson Bay Railway Company. On my desk I have a report of the harbours board, and there has been expended the enormous sum of $12,902,000 on harbour facilities at the port of Churchill. If that railway is warranted, it should be made to transport cheap feed grain to the maritime provinces through the Northumberland strait and through this canal.
I do not know that there is much more I need to say at this time, but there is much that could be said. When the St. Lawrence ship canal is mentioned in this house or amongst the private members, I have never heard a man say he is opposed to the building of that canal so long as there is a quid pro quo for the other parts of Canada. The members of this house, and the government, are not averse to spending $500 million in order to build the St. Lawrence canal; but Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are given the brush-off. Coal, apples, farm products, lumber and iron ore could be shipped through this canal. Then there are the enormous developments in Labrador and Quebec to be considered. There are hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore lying unmined there that are in need of a market. This iron ore could be refined in the maritime provinces and in the New England states where there are tremendous markets for such product. By the use of the Chignecto canal there would be a saving of from two hundred to four hundred miles in transporting the products. Also, as I said a few minutes ago, it would be a necessary undertaking from the point of view of national defence if there should be another war. It would enable ships to go through the Chignecto canal and not have to pass through the dangerous and perilous waters, from the standpoint of navigation and from the standpoint of submarines and other naval menaces, along the Atlantic coast.
I am bringing this matter to the attention of the members of this house and to the attention of the government as a grievance that we have had since the days of confederation. The people in central Canada do not

seem to take our requirements in good heart. They do not seem to take them sympathetically; at least they do little about them. If mere had been no confederation, if we had had to go on our own in the maritimes, I am just as satisfied as I am of standing here that this canal would have been built long ago. If it had been located in central Canada, it would have been built for certain. I make this appeal to the members of this house individually, and to the government, to take action.
There are in central Canada some men who should be given special credit. I refer to my friend Mr. John MacNicol. He went to Nova Scotia three years ago. He walked over the isthmus. In one case he walked over an old bridge that I did not think was sufficiently strong to hold his weight, but he wanted to see all that there was to be seen. He went across that bridge, and over every bit of that isthmus. I had the pleasure of having Mr. George Drew there as well. This is not a political matter; the people in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island are in favour of this, irrespective of politics. Soon after Mr. Drew became leader of our party he had occasion to visit Mount Allison university and I took him to the strait of Canso. I did not get any commitment from him but I did receive his sympathetic interest.
Again I make this appeal to all members of this house, irrespective of politics, to see that belated justice is done to the people of the maritime provinces and to see that this Chignecto canal that we have been expecting and promised for more than one hundred years should be built without further delay. If there is a possibility of electric power being generated it should be built at once so that we in the maritime provinces will get cheap power just as the people have it in central Canada, in order that industries could be built up and restored to us. I make this appeal so that these smaller industries that we had years ago, but which dried up, were bought out or moved away to central Canada, could be restored and so that we should again have industrial prosperity in the maritime provinces as they have elsewhere in Canada.
Mr. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-
Kings): The forceful words of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), Mr. Speaker, with respect to this project leaves little that one can add on its behalf. But in view of the fact that it borders on my own constituency and that the waters of the basin of Minas are the waters which will finally flow through that canal if, as and when it is constructed, I think I would be recreant in
Chignecto Canal
my duty if I did not support the appeal made by the hon. member for Cumberland.
As he has told you, this is an ancient question. The project of this canal has risen and fallen not quite as rapidly as the two tides but with amazing regularity throughout a century or more. Ancient projects such as narrow canals and other matters pass with the times. But we are now confronted with the possibility of a deep-water ship canal and associated with that canal is a power development. I agree with what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said this afternoon, namely, that it is not the function nor the responsibility of members of parliament to urge the expenditures of money in their constituencies or in any one part of the country; they must be justified economically. As the hon. member has said, there is no doubt that the canal could be established easily. The soil and other factors are such that the work could be done at a minimum of cost. With these great developments of which we read with regard to iron resources in Labrador, and the great shipments of ore which are envisaged-and to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) possibly looks forward as a means by which we can re-establish our foreign exchange with the United States-then the saving of hundreds of miles of ocean transportation would be of great value indeed. As to power, that is a matter of survey and of investigation. We in the maritime provinces need that power. What I am asking of the responsible ministers of the government is that they see that a proper survey be made and that a proper investigation be conducted, and conducted now or within the near future, to establish whether this power development is feasible or not. It is certainly not, I think, for any lay member here to advocate that expenditure. It is a matter of scientific investigation, as an engineering problem; and proper engineering surveys and investigation should be conducted and should be completed. If the project is justified, we want that expenditure. If it is not justified, we do not want it and we are not entitled to it.
As to the canal, it is open and shut; it is there and it can be developed at any time. But certainly we need the power. The industrial development of the maritime provinces is handicapped by circumstances to which we need not refer now. We need to develop cheap power and at the moment this is apparently the only project, save that to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred this afternoon, namely, the development of power from the pit mouth, whereby large quantities of power can be produced cheaply. I therefore urge again

Chignecto Canal
that a survey be made in the near future with respect to this matter.
There are a great many phases of this tidal development to which one could refer. Just in passing, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to one, because he is sitting in his seat now. Under his department, and directly or indirectly associated with his department, large sums of money have been spent in reclamation of the marshlands in the maritimes; and I know that more is proposed to be spent. There is another investigation which should be conducted in that connection before further money is spent. On the Annapolis river, where great tides flow in and out, there are thousands and thousands of acres of marshlands, many of which have been lost owing to the washing away of the running dikes. It is proposed to restore those. It has been recommended by many organizations that instead of restoring hundreds of miles of running dikes and maintaining them indefinitely at a great cost hereafter, that by the construction of a dam across that river-a short one, more expensive of course than the dam initially but without upkeep and without maintenance costs-thousands of acres more of land could be reclaimed and operational costs greatly reduced.
I suggest to the minister that, through the appropriate authority, before further moneys are spent, a proper engineering investigation should be made. That is all we are asking for. I am not suggesting that it is feasible, but I know many responsible people who think that it is. We want an investigation by qualified engineers and a report from them. If that is done I suggest that efficiency in operation and economic administration can be achieved at the same time.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we of the mari-times suffer from various disabilities, of which I am not going to speak now. One of them is that we are usually favoured with showers of promises before an election and after the election we find there is a drought of performance. This time I trust that there will be no drought in performance. As to promises, there is only one of which I know, namely, the reference to the Canso bridge- one which in the past has featured largely in politics in the maritimes and in Nova Scotia, and which was used to win at least two elections in years gone by. I am glad that a responsible minister in the House of Commons has now made a declaration with respect to that, a declaration which I have no doubt the government intends to honour. That at least is one achievement along the road to construction of works which are so sorely needed in the maritimes.

There are other matters to which I should like to refer on this motion, matters which affect the agricultural industry in my constituency. For reasons which will appear obvious at a later date, I do not propose to deal with them now. But I do urge that this government consider the report of a committee of this house which was set up some four years ago and the recommendations which were made with respect to employment on various projects which were to be carried out. We now have the assurance at least of a promise of the Canso bridge. There was to be a shelf of employment projects. In the maritimes at the moment there is unemployment. We have the men, we have needs, and we have infinite possibilities if given support and co-operation. Therefore I urge the matter and I ask the department, before two months elapse, to give us at least support in these matters to which I have referred.



CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS

George Alexander Cruickshank: thought I was going to have the privilege of speaking this afternoon, but it was denied me because apparently I was not in order. Therefore I am going to do my very best to be in order tonight and say exactly what I intended to say this afternoon.
I do not talk politics in the house or anywhere else. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat spoke of promises. I made him a promise a few moments ago and sat down so that he could deal with the same line of thought as his predecessor did. As for promises, I do not see how this government could promise anything, because before the last Ontario provincial election every promise that could possibly be put forward was made -a university in every small town.
What I want to speak about is this. I understand that on this motion an hon. member can speak of personal and riding grievances. I have one personal grievance tonight. I did not come to the chamber at the silly hour of seven thirty. I would not have come down later had I not heard the division bell. When I came down I learned that the division was on divorce bills. I was not elected to deal with divorce bills.
The grievance which I have personally and which my riding has is that contributory old age pensions are not put into effect, increases are not paid, a lower age is not allowed and a means test is disallowed purely because two provinces do not approve or did not approve at the dominion-provincial conference. My grievance is this, Mr. Speaker, and I am in order. Why should any two provinces or any two premiers be permitted to prevent the

other seven provinces, and the people of those provinces, from getting justice in Canada? It is time that the government took a stand on it and told the two premiers, one former premier and one present premier, that they cannot dictate to the rest of Canada.



FLOOD CONTROL IN THE FRASER RIVER SYSTEM

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I want to refer to a matter of great concern to my province, namely, the question of flood control in the Fraser river system. Undoubtedly the matter is fresh in the minds of hon. members, owing to what happened last year and the great disaster which occurred throughout many parts of the province, but particularly in the lower Fraser valley, and to a very considerable extent in the interior portion of the province on both the Columbia and the Fraser river networks. There is, however, a Columbia river authority which is now looking into the matter of control of the Columbia, and it appears to be forming concrete plans to deal with that question.
In my riding, however, the tributary rivers of the Fraser, and the Fraser valley itself, are being looked into by an organization set up last year, known as the Fraser river board. The grievance which I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that not only is progress distressingly slow, but so far as we know there is no assurance that the resources of the area will be developed and the problem tackled in the way in which it should be.
Because we have no assurance, because progress is so slow, I feel called upon to mention the matter tonight and to put it forward as a grievance. I describe it as a grievance for two reasons. Firstly, because it was taken up at least two years ago-and I am referring only to my own experience with this matter -as I have occasion to know, because I put it before the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and other officials of this government by letter and by speeches in the House of Commons, pointing out that in British Columbia we had need for a program of flood control, development of power and irrigation. As early as April of 1947 I wrote to the Minister of Public Works. I also wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Fisheries suggesting that the three federal departments should co-operate in a survey of the Fraser river system; that they should co-operate between themselves and with the provincial government in the development of some integrated project along the lines of the great projects in the United States, providing for power, flood control and development of irrigation. Not much progress was made. In fact, it would be fair to say nothing was done until after the floods of last spring and summer in British Columbia.
Flood Control
The second reason why this matter is a grievance is that, although the work is being pressed forward now in the lower Fraser valley on the completion of the dikes in that area, not enough is being done now to deal with the threat of floods in the future.
In this respect I want to refer to a further letter of mine to the Minister of Public Works dated March 7 of this year, in which I set the matter before him at some length. I should like to refer to passages in this letter because they deal in detail with what I think are the requirements of the problem. In my letter to the minister I said:
As I stated in the house when speaking in the throne speech debate on March 1, the flood situation in British Columbia this year, at least in the Fraser river basin, is as serious, if not more serious, than it was last year. The ground was absolutely saturated as a result of very heavy rains last fall: lakes -even the lakes which normally dry out-were unusually full at the beginning of winter and there would appear to be very little margin of slack or low water to absorb any portion of the normal spring run-off. The consequence is that instead of the run-off taking some time to fill the intermediate lakes and rivers as normally, the first flow will almost immediately be reflected in a rising of the level of the main rivers, since there is no intermediate stage of low level water to check it.
We have had snows of more than average depth this year . . .
I find there was an error in my letter. I said that we had snows of more than average depth whereas I should have said that we had snows of average depth. The letter continues:
-and an unusually severe winter. It may well be, therefore, that we will have an unusual spring-if the run-off is at all sudden, then I would very much fear the danger of floods as serious as those of last year.
It is for this reason that I am disturbed that no progress has been made by the Fraser river board beyond apparently the stage of preliminary survey and that no construction appears to be authorized for this year. Incidentally, if you will examine the report of the Fraser river diking board, recently tabled by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, in response to a request of mine, you will see at pages 5 and 6 passages which fully support the contention which I advanced last year when discussing the floods and have, indeed, made for several years now; namely, that the proper way to control these rivers is by dams in the upper reaches on the lakes and headwaters of the river. The report states definitely that dikes alone in the lower reaches can never afford permanent security from floods.
In view of this fact and in view of the likelihood of floods, I am taking this opportunity of writing you to repeat the suggestion made in the house on March 1 and to urge that you press the work of the Fraser river board to a more rapid conclusion and, particularly, that every conceivable effort should be put forward to ensure that construction on at least some of the key projects should be begun this year. I would suggest, as examples, the Quesnel and Clearwater lakes. You will, no doubt, have noticed that the provincial government plans a power project in the Quesnel area; this immediately suggests a further possibility along the lines I previously urged- that flood control and power projects should advance

Flood Control
hand in hand, and the lakes I have referred to are splendid examples of opportunities for such development.
The minister replied to my letter on March 14 in a full and courteous way. He outlined the difficulties facing the board in dealing with the problem. But, while I appreciate the care the minister took to outline the difficulties, the point is that from his letter it emerges clearly that nothing by way of construction will be done this year; and in fact the most that can be hoped for is that in this year a report will be made. The minister's letter concludes in this way:
I can assure you the Fraser river basin board will advance its investigations as rapidly as possible and be prepared to submit some recommendations for development before another season.
In view of the facts I have outlined, as to the likelihood of a flood this year, and any year in the future, and in view of the experience we have had, I do not think the bare possibility of a report this year, in 1949, and of no action until 1950, is sufficient to satisfy my province. Particularly is it not sufficient to satisfy us in view of the repeated representations made in the past to which I have already drawn attention.
What is necessary, Mr. Speaker, is an integrated project covering the Fraser river system, providing under one head for flood control, power and irrigation works. I should like to lay before the house an editorial which appeared in one of our British Columbia papers after considerable investigation into the flood situation of the last year. After making some considerable study of the matter, the editor of the Salmon Arm Observer on June 24, 1948, put forward these suggestions:
Any measures taken must include control of the headwaters of the three big rivers.
He was referring to the three rivers of the Fraser river system.
This will entail the construction of dams at strategic points to regulate the run-off.
Linked with the dams is hydro-electric development and water for irrigation. There are thousands of acres of fertile land in the British Columbia interior that can be developed under irrigation. In Salmon Arm alone irrigation would bring into production a large area now lying idle because water is required.
Flood control measures are imperative and in view of their vast implications and the cost involved, they must be considered in the broadest possible sense. Irrigation made possible by cheap electric power supplied for that purpose through making hydro development an integral part of the undertaking could bear part of the heavy expenditure and contribute tremendously to the agricultural development of the province.
Any adequate scheme of control will prove costly, but its cost will not be out of proportion to the benefits which will accrue. Millions in damage has been done this year.

In the P.F.R.A., the federal government already has the machinery necessary to undertake a flood control program. Its provisions should be extended immediately to British Columbia.
That is exactly what we had been urging for the last three years, namely the extension of P.F.R.A. in a large way to our province, expenditures by them, and the conducting of surveys by them on a scale equal to that which they carry on in the prairie provinces.
While it is true that P.F.R.A. was the agency suggested, and it seemed to be the logical one to embark upon the work, in view of the experience they have accumulated, as I have pointed out, I made at the same time the suggestion that the departments of agriculture, public works and fisheries in the federal administration should combine with the provincial government in a joint survey of the whole project.
Unfortunately, however, all that we have in British Columbia by way of an extension of P.F.R.A. to our province has been a very limited development arising out of the statement made here by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in May of 1947, at which time it was indicated that if the provincial government put forward specific projects for the development of irrigation, and if they were approved, P.F.R.A. would be willing to assist. That obviously limits it to local schemes. There is no over-all development such as we had in mind.
The result of that was that no such steps as were necessary were instituted until after the floods of 1948 when, as I have pointed out, what is now called the Fraser river board was appointed. The fact that P.F.R.A. is not co-operating in a large way with flood control developments and irrigation projects, together with the fact, as I have shown from the minister's letter, that this board is proceeding at a snail's pace is what aggravates the grievance we have with respect to this matter.
But I do not expect the house to rely upon my word alone when I state that the steps being taken to deal with the flood situation in British Columbia are not adequate. I pointed out last year, and I remember the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) did not agree with me, that what is necessary is not dikes in the lower reaches but rather dams in the lakes and the headwaters of the river system, particularly in the lakes where, by constructing dams of a comparatively few feet in depth, because of the area of the lake involved, a tremendous amount of water is dammed back. By the construction of a comparatively low dam a tremendous flow of water is checked. On the other hand, by coming down to the river valley, where it has

reached its full course, you have either to construct a tremendous dam, which is not feasible, or build tremendous dikes which, again, are not always a sure safeguard against flooding.
There was some doubt; I remember the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) himself was not convinced last year whether the suggestion put forward by me and by others along those lines was the correct one.
I should like on this point to read to the house some extracts from the interim report of the Fraser valley diking board which was appointed after the floods of last year.
May I ask the house to bear in mind that there are now two boards. There is the diking board which was appointed to repair the dikes in the lower Fraser valley where the greater flood damage was done, and there is also the Fraser river board, which is a board appointed in conjunction with the province to survey the whole Fraser river system with a view to seeing what can be done in an over-all way to prevent floods from occurring. I am now going to read from the report of the Fraser valley diking board, which substantiates the view put forward that the proper way to deal with this matter is to prevent floods taking place by controlling the waters at their source. The passages I am going to read will be found at pages 5 and 6. After describing the nature of the Fraser river system, they say:
The facts are that the great wall of water which rushes through the canyon at Yale, some 100 miles upstream from the mouth of the river, is at the moment completely beyond human control. No one can predict when the peak of this flood will come, and no one can predict its magnitude. If the lower snows, the upper snows and the spring rains all come together, as happened in 1894 and again in 1948, then the lower Fraser valley is in grave danger.
Another passage reads:
It is obvious from the above that dike construction in the valley below Yale can at best only give relative security to the residents and never absolute security.
By careful engineering methods one can restrain the river in spots, one can nudge it here and suggest to it there, but never without fabulous expenditures can the lower Fraser river be harnessed and controlled by a system of dikes.
They conclude by saying:
The two governments involved-
The provincial and dominion.
-have recognized the uncontrolled features of the Fraser river, and have very wisely set up another authority, namely, the dominion-provincial board, Fraser river basin-
Now called the Fraser river board.
-to study the possibility of impounding and harnessing waters in the upper reaches.
The approach which is necessary is to dam the rivers at their source. I have
Bridge at Saskatchewan Landing referred to some of the rivers. There is the Fraser river; then there are the Thompson and the North Thompson rivers with their sources in the Shuswap and Adams and Clearwater lakes. Then there is the Nechako river and the whole Chilko river system having their origin in lakes. There is a whole system of other lakes such as Hobson and Quesnel lakes, and the other lakes which I have mentioned.
As set out in the report which I have just read, the great necessity is the construction of dams at these lakes and headwaters. After a proper survey to establish the proper dam sites, such a project would provide the whole province with a tremendous network of power for the building up of secondary industries and for the pumping of water for irrigation, as well as the control of our spring run-off. This would ensure a constantly steady flow instead of a sudden rush in the spring up until June, causing tremendous damage, and then low water in the fall.
That is what is necessary. My complaint is that this board, which has been founded on sound lines, is apparently not impressed with the urgency of its task; or, if it is impressed, it is not empowered to deal with it in any spirit of urgency. I repeat that the prospect of not even having a report until the end of this year and of not having any commencement of action until next year at the earliest is not a situation that will satisfy the people of my province with respect to this problem.



CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE AT SASKATCHEWAN LANDING

Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance but I shall not take very long to state it. It is similar to the grievance mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). In looking over the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I do not see a dam item in them for the South Saskatchewan river. That word is spelled "dam" and perhaps I should have put it the other way. While I was listening to the hon. member for Lake Centre the thought went through my mind that that part of the house was the last quarter from which a complaint of that kind should come. I can remember back in the years from 1930 to 1934 when there was a Tory government in Saskatchewan and in Ottawa, when hundreds of thousands of people were unemployed, but yet no suggestion of a dam came from them. Why the hon. member for Lake Centre should take the trouble to bring up a grievance of that kind is more than I can understand. I believe he was trying to embarrass the Minister of Agriculture, who is a Liberal. But

Bridge at Saskatchewan Landing he then took care to turn his guns over this way a little bit by suggesting that the Saskatchewan government has not been successful in its undertakings.
We have a pretty good history in Saskatchewan, although no doubt there have been mistakes. I mentioned one of them just a moment ago that occurred in the year 1930 to 1934. At that time when the Tory government was in power, when there was a Tory government down here, when there were lots of unemployed and plenty of work to do, all they could think of to do was to send machine guns to Estevan to stop the miners from striking and send out the police from Regina to stop the relief camp marching. This was done at a time when they could have sent out these men with spades to build the dam the hon. member has been talking about today.
There is another thing I should like to point out to the hon. member and I am going to quote a few things for his edification and in the possible hope that he will gain some knowledge about this particular matter. I should like to quote from a speech delivered by the Hon. C. M. Fines, provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, in the legislature this year. The hon. member has been talking about failures in government business and I should like him to remember a few of the words I am going to quote. I start at page 12 and continue into page 13 as follows:
Despite the claims of its critics, this government is not concerned with regimenting our economy, but rather is concerned that the affairs of private enterprise be characterized by both justice and a sustained level of prosperity.
Turning now to the entry of new capital into the province, a total of 123 new companies, with a total authorized capital of $7,424,600, were incorporated this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this a grievance?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, very definitely. It is the same kind of grievance the hon. member for Lake Centre brought up this afternoon for his own purpose. I am replying to it and then I will go on with my grievance.
Mr. Fines continues:
Further, 34 outside companies were registered in 1948, while 503 partnerships were also registered in the same period.
I should like the hon. member to listen to some more figures which I am taking from Commercial Failures in the Calendar Year 1948, published by the dominion bureau of statistics. I received this in the mail just the other day. Turning back again to the period when the Tories were in power both in Saskatchewan and in Ottawa, I should like to give details of private business failures. The Tories are the great private enterprise people. I do not know vThy they do not get

private enterprise to build a dam on the South Saskatchewan river, or a couple of dams. They are such risk capital gentlemen and there would be lots of risk there. These are the commercial failures for the years when they were in power:
1931
1933
146
91
36
Here are the figures for the period from 1945 when there has been a C.C.F. government in the province:
1946
1948
none
none
4
Let us see how the Tory government did in Ontario. In Ontario in 1945 there were 27 business failures; in 1946 there were 20; in 1947 there were 72; and in 1948 in Tory Ontario there were 116 business failures. And the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the effrontery to get up in this house and endeavour to persuade the people of this country that Saskatchewan would be better off with a Tory government. Now let us look at Quebec, which also has a species of Tory government; let us see what its record of business failures is under good old private enterprise. In Quebec in 1945 there were 225 business failures; in 1946 there were 236; in 1947 there were 422; and in 1948 there were 613 failures. What a wonderful record the hon. member has given this house to consider. Then when the hon. gentleman mentions the crown companies of Saskatchewan I want to remind him that within the last few months in the province of Ontario three woollen mills closed down, one at Meaford, another at Kitchener, and the Glen Williams mill. I believe there were quite a few more, but I have not a record of them so I cannot give any details.
To go on with my grievance, I want to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that now there is no reason why he cannot go ahead and make a start on this twelve-year old project in regard to a dam across the South Saskatchewan river. He has talked about it since 1945 as an election promise.


James Garfield Gardiner: We started on it in 1939.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, I know you started then, and I will give you credit for the fact that the war interfered with the project. But the war has been over for some years; the minister must still have a few engineers, and they should have found the proper place by now. As a matter of fact I believe they have found it; because during the Rosthern by-election

the minister, the present hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) and the former member, Mr. Tucker, went around the country telling the people what they were going to do and making wonderful statements of the benefits that were going to be obtained when this dam was built. He did not say "if and when"; he just said when the dam would be built. I think now he should get some machinery to work there, and let the people see some actual dam building in progress. This project should be started and completed at least within the twelve-year period that was mentioned.
Now I have another little grievance something along the same line. It is directed to the hon. gentleman who is sitting alongside the Minister of Agriculture now. It took a long time to get his department finally to consent to the construction of a bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing, a bridge which had been promised for thirty-three years, during most of which time the Liberal party was in power. That bridge might have been built at any time during that period if the Liberals had really meant to keep their promise. Now, however, we have a provincial government that is going to build the bridge, without having made any previous promises concerning it. But when they ask for permission it takes a long time to get it; and then three conditions are attached. The first is that the bridge must be built on piers that can be raised to take care of a high level bridge if and when the dam on the South Saskatchewan river becomes a reality and the water level is raised by something between the 14 and 53 feet that have been mentioned at various times by members of this government.
Another condition was that this bridge must not interfere with navigation. I do not know whether the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) plans on having a couple of battleships on the South Saskatchewan river after the Minister of Agriculture builds the dam; but if that is their intention, then if they are honourable gentlemen and are still in office at that time-and they act as if they expect and hope to be, and are making promises in that expectation-when they put their navy on the South Saskatchewan river after twelve or fifteen years or whatever time may be necessary to build the dam, surely they should be honest enough to see that the bridge is reconstructed to permit their navy and other ships of war and commerce to sail up and down, without putting the whole expense on the provincial government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We might use submarines there.


Thomas John Bentley: If you are going to use submarines there is no need to suggest that the
Honey Production
bridge might obstruct the river, because there is no intention of building the bridge under water.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having aired these grievances, I should like the minister to take his estimates back to his colleagues in the cabinet and see if he cannot persuade them that it is just as important to have a vote for $66 million, if that is the amount required, and to start building that dam immediately, as it is to have many other things they are contemplating at the present time. If this government wants to make a good name for itself and its party in Saskatchewan it would be a good idea to say to the minister of highways of that province, "We see your bridge is going to cost over $200,000 more than you had expected, and the federal government will be very happy to assist you at least to that extent." If they would do that I believe they would at least partially redeem themselves for the thirty-three years of promises in connection with the bridge; and if they will start on the dam they will help redeem their word which has been given for at least that length of time in connection with that project.
I do not want to conclude without a word of commendation for the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that one branch of his department, P.F.R.A., at present is co-operating very well with the government of Saskatchewan in smaller but very necessary irrigation projects. This is not a grievance I am airing now; it is a compliment to the minister, and a hope that his aspirations will expand from that point to take in the dam across the river.



HONEY PRODUCTION

Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I do not want to take very much time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to bring a grievance before the house in connection with the beekeepers of Canada. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his department are well acquainted with the situation, but for the benefit of other hon. gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches I should like to outline the position in which these people find themselves. I can speak about bees because I have been a beekeeper for a great many years, and I know the subject I am dealing with.
This year we are in the unfortunate position of having a surplus of honey. At the beginning of 1948 we had a carryover in this country of four million pounds. With the crop of forty-four million pounds produced last year we now have in Canada forty-eight million pounds of honey. In 1947 the price was from 25 to 30 cents; today it is 17 cents. I am wondering, as are the rest of the beekeepers in Canada, whether the government

Honey Production
cannot come to our assistance under the price support legislation. The price today is far below the controlled price we had during the war. Another point is that with this large crop of honey on hand we find the retailers cautious about buying. Wholesalers who used to be in the habit of buying in two or three carload lots now buy 25 or 50 cases at a time, just to take care of their trade. If the price were stabilized, it would make a great difference to the industry. Since these beekeepers are unable to sell their honey, I do not need to tell the members of this house about the financial difficulties into which they are getting. With another season at hand some beekeepers have recently been liquidating their stocks and selling their honey at ridiculously low prices, sometimes below the cost of production.
Previous to the war we were able to find in Britain a market for our surplus honey. I believe about ten to fifteen per cent of our production was sent to that market. Today the honey business is up against the same difficulty as the apple grower and other primary producers. Britain has no dollars with which to buy honey. I suppose some syrup is available and honey is a little difficult to get.
A lot of our returned men have been taking their D.V.A. credits and establishing apiaries. It would be too bad if some of them were to get into financial difficulties at the start. I hope the minister and the government will see their way clear to giving the beekeepers help at this time. The government is not taking the same risk in buying honey as in buying other things because I believe I am safe in saying honey will keep almost indefinitely if it is kept under proper conditions. There will be lean years in the future. If the government took over some of the crop, stored it and brought it out during the lean years, I do not think any of the money so advanced would be lost.
The argument has been advanced at different times that beekeeping was only a sideline to farming. A reference to government statistics reveals that fifty-six per cent of the beekeepers in Canada today carry over one hundred colonies each. Beekeepers have a tremendous amount of equipment. If a man has only from two to ten colonies he can borrow the necessary equipment for extracting the honey. Whenever a man buys an extractor, honey tanks and so forth, he runs into a great deal of expense and immediately sets himself up in the honey business. It is no longer a sideline. Equipment bought during the war has been quite expensive.
Quoting from a report by the dominion bureau of statistics, it shows that Manitoba

-I can talk better about that province than any other-in 1948 had 3,420 beekeepers who operated 75,000 colonies of bees. These colonies produced 6,525,000 pounds of honey and 97,000 pounds of beeswax. I do not want to take up any more time, and I have only raised this question while I had this opportunity for the benefit of the government benches. I wish more of them had been present. The minister knows the situation and I hope you gentlemen on the front benches will support the minister in any attempt he may make to do something about this situation.
To sum up, I would say that the surplus is evidently temporary, as many of the beekeepers are reducing their colonies or dropping out of the business. The industry responded to the wartime necessity for honey by a greater production. A sudden change in the market requirements left the beekeepers holding surplus unsold honey. Most of the commercial men are in a precarious financial condition as they enter a new season of production. Without assistance, the price will inevitably drop below the cost of production and ruin many beekeepers. This would be particularly objectionable in view of the fact the purchase of a reasonable amount of honey by the dominion government would prevent a serious price drop and would assist the beekeepers in carrying on during the present period of adjustment with some degree of security. Again, I should like to appeal to the minister and his colleagues on the front benches to try to do something for the beekeepers of Canada.



COAL AND STEEL INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Rodney Young (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the house. This evening I have listened to the member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) deliver a very interesting and, to me at least, very praiseworthy address on behalf of a canal known as the Chignecto canal down in his part of the country. I also heard the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) dwell at some length on the coal situation. I was struck by the attitude which was taken which would imply that the maritime provinces were in the nature of stepchildren of confederation. They seem to feel they receive little or no consideration in comparison with the central provinces of our country.
Coming as I do from British Columbia, I am immediately struck by the similarity of the position of British Columbia as a province to that of our unfortunate sisters on the eastern seaboard. Sometimes we too have the feeling that we are the step-daughters of confederation. As every member of this

house is aware, during January and February of this year, we have had a tremendous problem of unemployment. I call it a tremendous problem because I understand the figures show that more than half the total unemployment insurance payments being made then were being paid out through the lower mainland offices in British Columbia.
It is an interesting fact that the province of British Columbia is constantly receiving additions to its population from the other provinces in Canada. There seems to be a misconception in many minds to the effect that these additions come exclusively from the prairies. For the benefit of all members here who represent central Canada, may I say that British Columbia receives a great number of refugees from Ontario. Like anyone else coming to our province, as Canadians they expect to have the right to live in any part of their country. They do not consider that they should be shunted out of the province because they were not born there or have not lived there for twenty years. They regard such a policy as a policy of Balkanization and one of disunity on a national level.
In British Columbia, as they have in Nova Scotia, we have vast deposits of coal and iron. Investigations during recent years have revealed those deposits to be ever wider as more and more discoveries are made. We have labour in British Columbia, and recently there was a move through one of the government agencies to stimulate local capital entering the steel industry. It was suggested that the government would put up dollar for dollar with local capital if such capital could be induced to start such an industry. I would say this to all hon. members, that coal and steel are strategic to our dominion as a whole.
The coal industry is an important industry to Canada, just as it would be to any industrial or trading nation. In the event of war I would say that investment in coal and steel would rank with national defence, in the first degree. I would say that if private capital cannot be persuaded to put risk capital into the coal and steel industry proposed in British Columbia, where the raw materials are, where the labour is and where the necessity is, then it is the duty of this government to take the matter in hand.
I know this suggestion will be regarded by hon. members to my right and by hon. members across the floor as being rank socialization. I agree that such may be the case, Mr. Speaker; but the point at issue is this. Is it useful, is it practical and will it do our people and our country good? That is the only way in which it should be judged. I am not one of those who believe that the
Coal and Steel Industry pinning of labels upon things alters their essential basic structure.
I would point out to this government that the record of government in industry in other countries is not a bad one to study. I have before me documents of an official nature with regard to the British experiment, from which I propose to quote in support of this contention, and in support of the need of my province for this industry.
I should like to point out that the Dutch state mines under public ownership boosted output per man shift 101 per cent between 1913 and 1938. There is an instance outside the British commonwealth, amongst a people notable in Europe for their progressive spirit and the tremendous strides they have taken economically in those years, where they found that in a basic industry it was good not only from the social point of view but from the economic point of view-in hard dollars and cents it paid-to socialize that industry.
The record in Great Britain since the socialization of the coal mines on January 1, 1947, speaks for itself. Taking the coal fields as a whole, many collieries were taken over by the British government in first-class condition but there were many others in poor shape, and not a few were uneconomical. But in order to produce the coal which they needed, they socialized the industry. If we are to produce the coal which we need here in Canada, if we are to cease importing tremendous quantities from the central states at a loss of American dollars and an economically unbalanced budget at the end of the year, we must take the same attitude as they did. They needed the coal. It was worth while to exploit the reserves they had. Production for the year 1931 amounted to
147.746.000	tons; in 1945 it amounted to
182.770.000	tons. In 1947, when the government took over, production rose to 197,644,000 tons. Those are the figures put out by the British labour government.
The output of deep-mined coal in 1947 was just over 187 million tons, compared with 181 million tons, in 1946-
The year previous to the government's entering into the business of coal.
-an increase of 6 million tons. The output of opencast coal . . . increased by about 1,500,000 tons. So we had, in all, an increase of 7,500,000 tons in 1947 over 1946.
That is a quotation from the Right Hon. Hugh Gaitskell's report to the House of Commons on June 24, 1948.
With reference to nationalization attracting manpower to the industry, by government ownership the British were able to make the conditions of coal mining so much more attractive than they were when the mines were controlled by private capital that they

Coal and Steel Industry were able to show a considerable increase in the number of men who were willing and eager to earn a livelihood in the coal industry. In 1919, which is the earliest year of these records, the number of wage earners on the books of the coal mining industry was 1,170,000. By 1941, which you will recollect was a war period, it had been reduced to 697,600. In 1946, which was a year after the war, a year of demobilization, the figure was 696,700. But in 1947, the first year in which the government went into business and operated the coal industry in the interests of the people of Britain and in the interests of her economy, we find that the number of men engaged in the coal industry had risen to 711,400. In 1948, the latest figure, the figure had risen again to 722,500.
Under this system which is now being operated successfully and at a profit for the first time this year, the national industry has acceded to the miners' justifiable demands for a five-day week. The acceptance of this demand was, however, a major factor for breaking records of the mines. Obviously if the mines cannot be operated economically and profitably under private business, where mines are owned individually or in small groups, the obvious savings of grouping all the mines together make it possible for raising the standard of living of those who are engaged in mine work, and make it possible to make the conditions of work much lighter and much more attractive.
The output per average worker under nationalized, socialized, government-owned mining increased considerably since the government took over. In 1942, the output was 105 tons per man shift. In 1943 it had gone down to 103 tons. In 1944 it was down to 100 tons per manshift. In 1945 it was 100 tons. In 1947, when the government had been operating those mines for one year, the output had risen to 107 tons and in 1948 it had risen to 1T0 tons per manshift. Immediate increases were shown the moment the men who worked in the mines felt that they were getting a square deal from the people who were operating the mines, and thought that they were contributing to the use value of society as a whole.
Here is an argument for the sake of the government. The argument that is being continuously brought up is that the socialization of any industry is going to remove initiative; that once you remove initiative, you will not get production; and once you do not get production, our country will go bankrupt. Here is the answer to that argument. Initiative is based upon the feeling that you are doing something useful, that you are appreciated, and that you are getting your just dues for your labour. That type of initiative


means production. The British have found that out. We are always, it seems, thirty years behind the British in finding things out.
When I was in the army in the recent war I found that we were operating under rules which were by no means up to the standard of the modern British army. I found that we were operating under the rules of 1914-18. Should we have the misfortune of having another war no doubt we shall find that the rules of the British army are thirty years ahead, as they are in most other things. That is no excuse for us to continue doing as we have done in the past. If other people can be progressive, or if other people can recognize the economic facts of life, then we in Canada can recognize the economic facts of life.
We have a vast potential of natural resources out in the province of British Columbia. We have-and I say this advisedly because it was always the case out there-an annual outbreak of unemployment in British Columbia. We have there the resources and the manpower; but we have the situation of capital being unwilling or unable to come in and take advantage of those factors, and the economy of the country as a whole suffers as a consequence of these facts. I would suggest to the government that here is an excellent way in which they can get ready, before the changed circumstances in the next few years, and possibly the change in their own status. The newspapers are saying that there will be a provincial election in British Columbia in June of this year. Should the government continue to hesitate, British Columbia will have a socialist government before this government goes out of power, in which case there will be an opportunity there for the government to experiment. I am sure that a socialist government in British Columbia would be happy to co-operate in any plan that this government may have to offer to develop the coal and steel industry and to provide employment for our people in the lower mainland of British Columbia.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wonder whether I may be permitted to express the hope at this stage that today's grievances are almost exhausted, or if they are not that they could be canvassed another time. I say that in order to permit me to get interim supply through before half past ten. I did speak to the leaders of the parties yesterday and explained that I hoped to get interim supply today so that I could get the supply bill through and have it voted in ample time for the first of the year. It has taken a bit longer than usual. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but it takes ten or fifteen minutes to go through the necessary routine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not a good thing for the minister to learn that there are some grievances in the country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There will be other opportunities.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mrs. Gladys Strum (Qu'Appelle):: I want to assure the minister that I shall not take very long. If he has been waiting all day may I say that I have been waiting for two years. The highway that runs the length of my constituency is deteriorating every day winter and summer because of the government's indecision and inaction in the matter of a trans-Canada highway.
The highway which runs through part of my constituency, and was the first highway in the province to be built, will be, we believe, the Saskatchewan link in the trans-Canada highway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: From what the government has said, and from unofficial reports, that at least is the belief. Because of that, the province has not spent money on it, and rightly so. If you are going to tear up a highway there is no reason for spending a lot of money on it merely to spoil it.
In the few minutes at my disposal I want to place before this government the needs of my province in the matter of highway construction and maintenance assistance and to ask the minister to do for highways what has been done for housing. I see the government has appropriated an additional $10 million for housing in the supplementary estimates. I ask the government to do for highways what they have done for defence. The budget for defence has been greatly expanded. Because of the sparse population and tremendous distances the western provinces are not in a position to spend the money on highways that the situation calls for. For instance, Saskatchewan has almost three times as many miles of roads as Ontario, almost six times as many as Quebec, almost three times as many as Alberta and more than twice as many as her nearest competitor, Manitoba, which has only 91,000 miles, according to the Canada Year Book, 1947. In fact, when you add together the miles of road in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island the total is still 5,000 miles less than the number of miles of road which Saskatchewan maintains. When you consider that in that province we have less than one million population, and because of that a very much lower percentage of licences and a greatly diminished return in gasoline tax, it can be
Trans-Canada Highway readily seen that we have not adequate sources of revenue.
Canada should do what other federal states have done. In the United States they not only give grants for a trans-United States highway but they give grants for a number of categories. They have a federal grants-in-aid program. They assist in building state highways. They also give grants for market roads; they assist in taking a highway through urban centres. That is, they assist a place like Ottawa in maintaining a highway that goes through the city. We have had the experience of coming to a city limit and being stuck in a mudhole inside the city limit because there was no way of maintaining the road within that municipal area. I would urge the government to take seriously its responsibilities in the matter of road construction and maintenance. I remind the government that the federal government takes out tremendous resources in the way of income tax from the farmers of our province who operate on a large scale and who are the heaviest contributors to income tax of any rural part of Canada. We pay the luxury tax. We pay the sales tax, which has not been removed and which will continue to be levied. Because of the contribution which we make in Saskatchewan to the resources of the federal government, I would urge the government to make a decision and immediately to embark on a trans-Canada highway.
Australia is undertaking highways as a means of defence. A highway construction program there is part of their defence appropriations. They realize that highways are an essential part of any defence system. It would not be amiss if this government were to pay part of the highway grant on the basis of defence. Because of our tremendous distances we do need an adequate communications system, and of this highways are not the least important. My constituency will suffer until this government makes up its mind. I am speaking for my constituents, who have been mired all summer for the last two years and have been snowed in all winter.


Robert Fair: There would seem to be another occasion on which this trans-Canada highway can be discussed. At that time I intend to have something to say on the question. Tonight I was glad to hear the hon. member, who has just taken her seat, say that they have a lot of roads and very little population in her part of the country. I suggest that, when people make up their minds to put this highway through, it be put through a part of the country west of Winnipeg and on through Saskatoon and Edmonton where we shall have population,
2148

Interim Supply
shorter distances and also the means of helping out our defence program.
I think the proper system to pursue would be for this government to set up a commission to help co-ordinate the work in the different provinces. I hope that no time will be lost in having that done.
Having said that, I want to suggest again that those officials be charged with placing the highway through the central part of the western provinces where it would do more good, because the highway can be used more months of the year. There is less snowfall there, and at the same time it would help to build up our defence program.
Motion agreed to and the house went into supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it was understood that we would open two departments by calling one item in each, and the items would be allowed to stand, and then I would proceed with my interim supply.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $282,160.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
51. Departmental administration, $2,170,510.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $230,145,541, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $1,791,333.33, being one-third of the amount of certain items, the sum of $301,339.50, being one-sixth of the amount of certain items, and the sum of $2,168,752.75, being one-twelfth of the amount of certain items of the said estimates be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950.
He said: Mr. Chairman, the bill which I shall ask the house to pass a little later is in identical terms with the bill which was passed at the same stage last year. I am asking for the same supply, namely, one-sixth of all the main items, an additional one-third of two special items, namely, the freight assistance on western feed grains, in agriculture, and the item in the trade and commerce estimates for the Canadian national

trade fair, the disbursements of which have to be made within the next month or two; an additional one-sixth of certain other special items which are similar to items for which we asked the extra one-sixth last year, external affairs, Canadian representation at international conferences, item 57. And there are two legislation items, the Senate and the House of Commons. As members of the committee realize, the major portion of the expenditures for the House of Commons and the Senate comes in the early months of the year. And there is an additional one-twelfth of the six or seven items in agriculture, external affairs and mines and resources covering, speaking generally, the experimental farm service, where the heaviest payments come in the early part of the year. There are external affairs, representation abroad, where additional funds are required to finance various missions abroad in the early part of the year. And in mines and resources it refers chiefly to geological surveys, forest conservation and national parks where we have survey parties who go out early in the year. As in past years, a substantial part of the vote is made in the early part of the year.
The total amount asked as interim supply is $230,145,541, being one-sixth of the main estimates, together with the additional sums to which I have referred, namely $1,791,333.33, $301,339.50 and $2,168,752.75.
As I have said, the form of this bill is exactly the same as in previous years, and the passing of the bill does not prejudice the rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons to criticize any of the individual items in the estimates. And I give the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of passing this interim supply measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand the minister to say that he was not in any respect asking for any more than he asked at this time last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it is actually somewhat less. One or two of the items for which we are asking an additional one-sixth may be slightly different. I have not the details here; but we asked for an additional amount for freight assistance on western feed grains for the reason that the amount voted only goes to the end of the current crop year in the main estimates. Therefore we are only asking for four months. To ask for one-sixth would not be sufficient because the amount required each month is considerably more than that.
The other items are self-explanatory. They are all items where the major or greater part

of the vote is being disbursed in the early part of the year. This is done each year. The total of this additional amount is relatively small. I believe I gave it a moment ago. Altogether it amounts to only some $4 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This means that, so far as all the estimates are concerned, the government will now have sufficient money for the months of April and May.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And with respect to some votes the government will have money to the end of July.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Only in form. Three or four million dollars being asked for these special items will really be spent in the first two months owing to the fact that the disbursements for those particular items have to be made early in the year. They are not spread evenly over the year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government in any case has not more than a total of one-third-in other words four months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: The items of one-twelfth are in addition to the normal one-sixth?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: In that respect this differs from the procedure which has been followed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I have asked for exactly the same thing each year. Last time I asked for an additional one-twelfth of certain items, and an additional one-third of some and an additional one-sixth of some others. That is the procedure I am following today, and the request I now make is on all fours with the request I made last year at the same time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $230,145,541 being one-sixth of the amount of each of the items as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, and
29087-136i
Exchequer Court Act
2.	The additional sum of $1,791,333.33 being one-third of the amount of certain items, the sum of $301,339.50 being one-sixth of the amount of certain items, and the sum of $2,168,752.75 being one-twelfth of the amount of certain items of the said estimates, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 174, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 87 (from the Senate) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, because I do not want to be regarded as making a speech at this time, I think an explanation from the minister with regard to this bill would be appreciated.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This bill is a simple one consisting in the main of procedural amendments. Section 1 provides a new and simplified statement of the exclusive original jurisdiction of the court. It reads:
The exchequer court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in which the land, goods or money of the subject are in the possession of the crown, or in which the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the crown.
Section 2 provides a new and simplified procedure of appeal. The only two new items are one providing for an appeal from an interlocutory judgment, and one extending from thirty to sixty days the time within which an appeal may be lodged.
Section 3 provides that when an appeal is made on behalf of the crown no deposit of $50 shall be necessary, as is the case when an appeal is made on behalf of the subject.
Section 4 empowers the judges of the court to make general rules and orders for regulating the practice and procedure of and in the exchequer court, as formerly, and adding two new subsections to provide first for rules dealing with the examinations for discovery, in a proceeding to which the crown is a party, of a departmental or other officer of the crown and, second, for rules providing for the medical examination of a person in respect of whose injury a claim is made.
I am informed that the judges of the court have already made rules of this sort but

Exchequer Court Act
there has been some question as to their right to do so. The purpose of the present amendment is to remove any doubt in that regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this bill raises not only the question of the jurisdiction of the exchequer court but the nature of proceedings taken against the crown. It affords hon. members an opportunity to discuss whether in the interests of Canadians as a whole the idea based upon the principle that the king can do no wrong, and therefore the necessity of a petition of right in any proceedings taken against the crown, should not now be voided and entirely done away with. Section 1 provides for exclusive jurisdiction in all cases in which the land, goods or money of the subject are in the possession of the crown, or in which the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the crown. On previous occasions the question has been raised whether the time has not come in this country to do away with the archaic procedure of petition of
right. It has been done away with in the United Kingdom by legislation introduced in 1946 with the result that today a citizen of the United Kingdom may at any time take proceedings against the crown in the same manner as he would take proceedings against another individual.
Another question that arises in connection with this bill is whether some provision should not be made whereby the individual who is wronged as a result of the application of administrative principles and law should have the right of appeal to the exchequer court.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow will be private members' day.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.

Wednesday, March 30, 1949