1949-12-10

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? Has the government an adequate shelf of public works ready, which may be used to relieve increasing unemployment in certain parts of Canada this winter? If so, will the minister give the house a statement regarding preparations made for the undertaking of a necessary works program?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. As I informed the house on Wednesday, and more specifically as recorded in Hansard at pages 2843 and 2846 in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and in the report of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply for the year ended March 31, 1949, the government has a program of public investment which is being and will be used from time to time as conditions may warrant.
The answer to the hon. member's second question will be found largely in the reference sited in reply to the second question asked oy the hon. member for Greenwood. Contracts are being placed in accordance with jsual government practice.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General or the Minister of finance. Is there a regulation of the Post Office Department prohibiting the sale of the lew issues of stamps to stamp collectors, or ioes the foreign exchange control board irohibit the sale?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the second part of the question s that the foreign exchange control board ake no action in the matter. I shall bring he first part of the hon. member's question o the attention of the Postmaster General.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
31.	Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,500,000.
Mr. Boucher:: Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said on this very important subject concerning the large project on the South Saskatchewan river, I believe I should make a few observations at this time. Irrespective of what has been said by some hon. members opposite, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is doing all that can be done to have this great project under way as soon as possible. In saying this I know I express the feelings of the people in Rosthern constituency. During the last election campaign I told the people in that constituency about the amount of money that had been placed in the estimates for this year, and the fact they have re-elected me with an increased majority proves that they are satisfied with what is being done
This is a very important project, one that will mean much not only to Saskatchewan but to all of Canada. I am sure the minister is anxious to have this important undertaking proceeded with without delay. It surprises me to find some hon. members from my own province criticizing the minister -and I think it will be agreed that when I say "criticizing" I am putting it mildly. I believe it is the duty of each one of them to back the minister to the hilt in his efforts in connection with this project. It is such a big thing and so important that I feel it should be above party politics. I appeal to all members to support the minister in his efforts to assist Canadian farmers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
32.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. $500,000.
Mr. Charlton:: Do the provinces make a contribution toward the payments made under this act?


Mr. Gardiner:: The provincial governments as such contribute nothing toward the payments made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The taxpayers of Canada pay what is required over and above the one per cent charge on grain delivered to the elevators.

Supply-Agriculture


Major James William Coldwell: The levy on the farmer is the core of the fund, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the core of the fund is taken out of the treasury.


Major James William Coldwell: What are the figures on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: About $2 is taken out of the treasury for every $1 paid in by the farmers. Those are the percentages over a period of years; but some years it is three to one and there have been years when it was four to one.


Mr. Hatfield:: Why should not the provinces in which these payments are made contribute to this fund?


James Garfield Gardiner: We feel that in handling it as we do the federal government is paying at least its share. If anything beyond what we are doing has to be done, then the provinces ought to pay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
33.	To provide for assistance to encourage the Improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,700,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister give us the amount of cheese now in storage and the amount that was shipped this year to Great Britain under the contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount shipped to Great Britain was 50 million pounds and the amount in store is about 17 million pounds. We do not consider that to be in the nature of a surplus, as surpluses have been discussed from time to time. It will be remembered that in 1948 it was asked whether we intended to requisition cheese, and the answer I gave was that we hoped that we would not be required to do so, that we would get the necessary deliveries of cheese without requisitioning. But we did not. There was little if any cheese delivered to us before July 21, 1948. We requisitioned cheese from that date onward, and any cheese we did obtain for the British contract was obtained through requisitions. But that did not nearly fill the British contract. I doubt very much if we would have been able to fill the British contract even though we had requisitioned right from the beginning, because at that time surplus milk was going into cans rather than into cheese.
In the spring of 1949 we were asked for permission to ship cured cheese to the United States to be sold at a higher price, but we took the position that cured cheese could be sold quite readily on this market, thus releasing more of the fresh cheese for the British market. The result was that that cured cheese was sold on this market with the result indicated. Our contract called for 50 million pounds. The British refused to take any more, and as a result there are some 17 million

pounds on our hands at present. We do not consider that a surplus, as we hope to have another contract at the beginning of the year under which we can go on delivering.


John Alpheus Charlton: What are the production figures to date as compared with last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures, but they are considerably higher.


Mr. Cardiff:: Just how is this money used to assist cheese and cheese factories?


James Garfield Gardiner: The assistance given to cheese producers is of two kinds. First, we pay fifty per cent of the cost of putting in storage facilities for the ageing of cheese. As most hon. members know, cheese must be kept for ninety days before being put on the market, and special storage must be provided in order to keep it properly. In an effort to encourage plants to put in the best type of storage and thus produce a better product, we have agreed to pay fifty per cent of the cost. Then we have a program of premiums of one cent on 93 score cheese and two cents on 94 score cheese.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That goes to the producer?


James Garfield Gardiner: That goes to the producer, and also the other in an indirect way.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the British take all they agreed to take?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the dominion government taking part in the province of Ontario scheme for the building of storage for cheese? I think $1 million is being spent this year in that way.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is the type of storage provided for under this item, our assistance would be given. If it is the type of storage provided for under the Cold Storage Act, organizations of a certain type would be able to get assistance. I am not so sure that we give assistance directly to the provincial governments, but we do give it to cooperatives, individuals or companies that are establishing cold storage facilities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
34.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
Heber Harold Hatfield: Where is this money being spent, and what is the explanation for the increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: Around 1936 or 1937 the United States threatened to prevent the entry of our maple products into that country because some form of lead poisoning had been discovered. Investigations showed that

this was the result of the sap being allowed to sit in buckets which had a lead coating to prevent rust. As a result all maple products going from Canada to the United States were for some time limited in use to the manufacture of tobacco for cigarettes.
In order to overcome this difficulty, and also the possibility of lead poisoning in maple products on the Canadian market, the government agreed to a three-way plan to remove all the old equipment from the maple products industry of Quebec where most of this difficulty had been experienced. We agreed to pay one-third of the cost, the provincial government agreed to pay one-third and the producer was to accept one-third. Over the years there has been a shifting from that type of equipment to some other type, and this has not been completed.


Heber Harold Hatfield: That has been going on for how many years?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were some expenditures in 1940-41, and these dropped in 1941-42 because of the war and our inability to obtain equipment. The expenditures were as follows:
1940-	41	
$106,0001941-	42	
12,0001945-	46	
87,0001946- 47	,	
194,0001947- 48	'	
203,0001948-	49	
360,000

That is our third of the cost. The others have put in an equal amount, and this vote is to cover our share for this year.


Mr. Lennard:: When is this going to end? I understood a few years ago, when this item was first introduced, that over a period of years the situation would clear up. If it keeps on for many more years we shall be replacing replacements.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not replace replacements. One old type of equipment-perhaps I should say it was a new type-is taken out, and of course there is no further replacement of the equipment. The equipment that is being put there does not have a lead covering. Aluminum is going in in its place, and lead solder is not used. This will not be mistaken for the other. In answer to the other part of the question, it was thought when we started that we would finish this in about three years. If you will take a look at the figures I have given, you will find the amount of $300,000 for three years might have been sufficient under the circumstances. We could not get the equipment at all during the war, and therefore we could not go on with it. Now we are
Supply-Agriculture
taking up the slack and trying to finish it. The amount will be about the same, except that it is increased by the increase in the cost of the material.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is production going up or down?


James Garfield Gardiner: Production is on the increase.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the total amount of money that has been spent over the past number of years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I just read the figures. The amount spent by us up to date is $964,474.64.


John Alpheus Charlton: That means that pratically $3 million has been spent in sap buckets alone.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not buckets alone; it is vats, boilers and everything of that kind. They had the same kind of covering.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has any of that money been spent in eastern Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know they do not have the same problem. The difficulty was in an area of Quebec.


John Alpheus Charlton: Surely they are not using one type of sap buckets in Quebec and another type in Ontario. Surely this situation is not going to go on and on.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no application from Ontario. They are eligible if they want to apply for it. So far as I know, it is not a problem there. My memory of the sap buckets in Ontario is that they are pretty badly rusted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $60,000.
Mr. Quelch:: Section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act expires on March 31 of next year. Has the governor in council the power to continue the act in force without the passing of the resolution that is on the order paper?


James Garfield Gardiner: Without the passage of the resolution on the order paper it remains as it was, which means that the government makes the decision from time to time as to what the date is.


Victor Quelch: Then all the resolution actually does is to set a cut-off date; in other words, the act expires at the end of the life of the present parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: The resolution does not do anything, because the minister in charge of the business of the house announced the other day that we were not putting the resolution through, so there will be no bill based upon it.

Supply-Agriculture


Heber Harold Hatfield: How much money has been spent under this act in the last year, and for what commodities?


James Garfield Gardiner: I wonder if my friend will wait until we reach item 42, which provides the funds. This item is just administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
36.	To reclaim and to prevent the flooding of valuable agricultural lands in the valley of the Lillooet river, near Pemberton, B.C., $312,000.
Mr. Fulton:: Will the minister make a brief statement about the progress of the work to date and what it is intended to do next year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our expectation is we will be finished with it before the end of this financial year. There is always the possibility there will be some hang-over on it, but it will not be very much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By March 31 next?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. As a matter of fact, I think it is practically completed now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The lake has been lowered, but I understand there is still considerable ditching and diking to do in the upper areas. With winter now on, my impression is it will not be completed this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that is in the project which is partly financed by the provinces, partly by ourselves, and partly by the individuals concerned. I am speaking from memory on that. My hon. friend probably knows the local circumstances better than I.
When we started on this project we undertook to do certain work at the expense of the federal treasury. When we had, as we thought, pretty well completed it, the province agreed to assist in the plan from there on to the extent of about one-third, generally speaking. The persons who are on the land are also bearing some of the expenditures. I believe most of that work is ditching and the other work to which reference has been made. In any case I will check it and make sure what the position is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
38. Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister explain where the new lands are being brought into production?


James Garfield Gardiner: If one reads the vote carefully, it will be seen it is not entirely confined to new lands. The first part is land protection and reclamation. Then there is a semicolon, and from there on it is another item dealing with new land. It may be used for

either purpose. It was the intention that we would be prepared to support-I think the first vote was $200,000-applications from any province where the province was prepared to pay a certain amount, and probably the individuals concerned would be charged with a certain amount. During the first two years we had no applications from anybody which conformed to the terms of the vote. This matter was discussed every year and suggestions were made that we ought to make expenditures. Last year I said if we had no applications from anyone I would not put the item in again. The result of that suggestion was that we received an application from Manitoba, and we are spending some money this year in co-operation with the government of that province. They actually take charge of the doing of the work, and we are paying dollar for dollar towards work in the Dauphin area. The Manitoba government is carrying on the operation. That is the only work that has really taken place under this provision up to the moment.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Before the item carries, I should like to ask the minister what the total expenditure has been for protection of farm lands in the Fraser valley because of damage caused by floods. From a return brought down I find that expenditures have been made by the departments of transport, public works, trade and commerce, and agriculture. The amount estimated as being required runs to more than $11 million. Will the minister make a statement as to how much money has been expended by all departments, and what further estimate is necessary to complete the work?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say with regard to it is that none of the work is done under the Department of Agriculture. I presume it was done by the Department of Public Works, and some of the others. None of it was done under the Department of Agriculture, and I have no information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and necessary surveys in connection therewith, $400,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like a report from the minister as to marshland reclamation. The marsh owners are grateful to the department for what they have undertaken, but there is considerable criticism about the delay. A large amount of surveying has been done. A new superintendent, connected with prairie farm rehabilitation, has been assigned to that work. I think his name is J. S. Parker. While he was a stranger to the marshowners, and there were some misgivings as to his experience and

ability to deal with this very special work, I think he has been well received and that his plans will work out reasonably well; at least that is the hope of the marsh owners. I should like a statement from the minister as to how much money has been expended on the protection works up to the present, and I should like also a statement as to the report and representations sent in by Mr. Parker.


James Garfield Gardiner: The gross expenditure on the dikelands in the province of Nova Scotia covering the period from April 1, 1948, to March 31,	1949, totalled $101,616.73.
Administration costs were $3,026.33, making a total of $104,643.06. Total actual expenditures in New Brunswick were $49,823.93 and administration costs $2,132.20, making a total of $51,956.13. If the hon. member desires these details on record I imagine the committee will agree.


The Chairman:: Is that the pleasure of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The details are as follows:
Statement of expenditure on dikelands in province of Nova Scotia
Covering period from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1949
Project	Gross
No. Name of body	expenditure
17 Belleisle, Annapolis Co	 $ 39,168.36
57	Grand Pre, Kings Co	
5,239.0959	Goose bay, Yarmouth Co	
111.7567	Minudie big marsh, CumberlandCo	
396.3572	Barronsfield new marsh, Cumb.Co	
653.0074	Allan river, Annapolis Co	613.5581	D. Harrison, Cumberland Co____	3,731.0182	Windermere, Annapolis Co	536.7083	Beckwith, Kings Co	
8,107.9284	Elderkia, Kings Co	
11,099.0688	Delaney, Annapolis Co	
2,922.4789	Gilbert Sanford, Hants Co	1,195.6890	Frank Kralick, Cumberland Co.	107.8391	Ryerson, Annapolis Co	
1,917.5792	Dugau, Annapolis Co	
602.3193	Queen Ann, Annapolis Co	3,122.9695	Spicer, Cumberland Co	
776.4996	Cleveland Field, Cumberland Co.	499.9097	Advocate, Cumberland Co	2,450.4698	Moschelle, Annapolis Co	
603.2599	Jubilee, Colchester Co	
1,895.20100	Town of Annapolis, AnnapolisCo	
817.58101	Crowell, Hants Co	
779.50102	Anthony, Cumberland Co	
600.75103	Fulton. Cumberland Co	
326.00104	Rickerson, Annapolis Co	
368.25105	Bird and Lawrence, Cumberland Co	
322.50106	Bird, Ripley and Reid, Cumberland Co	
472.50107	Forest Aboiteau, CumberlandCo	
442.24108	King's and Colonel's, Colchester Co	
3,511.36109	Oakland, Hants Co	
284.70110	Morse, Annapolis Co	
553.49
Supply-Agriculture
Statement of expenditure on dikelands in province of Nova Scotia
Covering period from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1949
Project	Gross
No.	Name of body	expenditure111	New Marsh and Ox Bow, Colchester Co	
235.03112	Rector, Cumberland Co	
1,781.21113	Rosette, Annapolis Co	
211.12114	Falmouth village, Hants Co. ...	5,109.59115	Trenholm, Cumberland	Co....	50.00Total	
$101,616.73
The administration expenditure at head office. Nappan, was $3,026.33 or 2-978 per cent.
Gross expenditure	 $101,616.73
Administration cost	 3,026.33
Total	 $104,643.06
Certified correct, April 16, 1949.
Statement of expenditure on dikelands in the province of New Brunswick Covering the period from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1949
Project	Gross
No. Name of body	expenditure
31 Lower Coverdale, Albert Co	$	888.1947	Log lake (dike), West. Co	298.1350	Great marsh, West. Co	
1,069.9151	West marsh, West. Co	
127.5055	Upper dike body, Albert Co. ..	4,449.4156	Gautreau village. West. Co	3,352.7258	Germantown body, Albert Co..	7,007.8359	George & Hicks, West. Co	920.3260	Chartersville, West. Co	
1,454.2763	Harry Lirette, West. Co	
568.7564	Great dike (Hopewell hill),Albert Co	
4,949.5065	Tingley, (W. W.), West. Co	117.0066	Carter & Maxwell, West. Co...	1,614.2667	Westmorland (Baie Verte), WestCo	
195.5568	Chester Upham, West. Co	273.2569	Edward Leger, West. Co	
295.0070	Log lake (canal), West. Co	2,872.2371	Bear island. West. Co	
2,344.6072	Earl Trenholm, West. Co	234.0073	Coyle (Gayton Sta.), West. Co.	599.8574	Westcock, West. Co	
584.4375	Body No. 1 and No. 5, West. Co.	112.3076	Commons canal, West. Co	1,521.7277	Forks, West. Co	
56.4578	West marsh, No. 3, West. Co...	1,208.6079	East Cole's island, West. Co...	168.8080	East Cole's island (Vent) WestCo	
52.1081	South-east, No. 3 (Aulac), West.Co	
416.4483	Fox creek, Dist. No. 3, West. Co.	11,245.8082	Aulac No. 1, West. Co.,	
825.02

Head office, Nappan, administration cost, percentage cost of gross expenditure, 4-2795 per cent.
Gross expenditure	 $49,823.93
Administration	 2,132.20
Total	 $51,956.13
Certified correct, April 16, 1949.


Percy Chapman Black: Could the minister tell the committee what recommendations have been made by Mr. Parker for 1950 and succeeding years?

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The total expenditure recommended by Mr. Parker for the coming year is around a million dollars. That recommendation has not yet been considered or passed upon. Would the hon. member desire the locations?


Percy Chapman Black: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then I would ask permission to place these on Hansard also.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The list to date is as follows, and others will be submitted when the engineering reports are completed:
Nova Scotia Falmouth marsh Truro dikeland park marsh Victoria Diamond Jubilee marsh Grand Pre marsh Saulnierville marsh Dentiballis marsh Queen Anne marsh Dugau marsh
New Brunswick Westcock marsh Dixon Island marsh Lower Coverdale marsh Allison marsh Middle Coverdale marsh Belliveau village marsh Beaumont marsh Pre d'en Haut marsh
Prince Edward Island Johnson River marsh


Percy Chapman Black: While the marsh-owners and general public are very appreciative of what has been done, they are somewhat critical of the delay. Some of these aboiteaux and outlets that not long ago were perhaps four feet wide and two or three feet deep in some places are now fifty feet wide and twenty-five feet deep, and the cost of repairing those breaks and protecting the land is a hundred times more than it would have been if the work could have been done when the recommendations were first made; and it is getting worse all the time. That is just in one area a few miles from the town of Amherst, where thousands of acres have been flooded.
Photographs have been forwarded to me showing storage barns with the tide about halfway up between the sills and the eaves, with the entire area flooded. That shows how urgent it is that this work be proceeded with. In that area we have the most valuable marshland in the maritime provinces, and the farmers are getting discouraged. Recently they had a meeting; they are prepared to cooperate with the department, but they want action now so that this damage will be repaired and the marshlands protected and made available to them for agricultural purposes.
IMr. Black (Cumberland).]
I would ask the minister if any decision has been arrived at with respect to the experimental station taking over certain areas of this unreclaimed land and building it up for grazing land and the production of hay. It is quite generally felt that this should be done as an example or model for the whole countryside.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the hon. member knows, ten acres at the farm are being utilized for that purpose now. We have not contemplated taking any more land; we figured the work could be done on the ten acres, and are operating in that way.
As to the other matter, I am pleased to learn that our engineer has proved acceptable to the people and that they believe he is doing a good job. The hon. member will recall that when I was down in Nova Scotia last year there was considerable discussion as to the possibility of putting in aboiteaux as the old-timers had done perhaps a hundred years ago. They took me out to see one of these aboiteaux which I believe was put in under the direction of one of the old-timers who knew how it had been done in earlier years. He was too old himself to work on it, but he directed the operation.	They
fallowed that old method until they reached a height which they thought was above a water level that would do any damage; and when they reached that height they began to use modern equipment and methods and bulldozed the earth in.
When I was there, however, it was evident that this work was going to go out. That was an experience we had to pay for, and it was thought we should proceed more slowly until we obtained more knowledge as to how best to proceed, particularly if we are to use this modern equipment to put in these structures. In addition I understand the tide this year was the highest in the past seventy-five years, and that has been responsible for some of the damage. I quite agree, however, that if we are to avoid further damage of that kind in high tide years we must get along with the work as rapidly as possible.
As to the latter part of the question, our policy has been to take responsibility for putting in the main dike that keeps out the sea, and to that extent we have maintained certain areas as to which perhaps a definite decision has not been made with respect to how those living behind the dikes are going to handle the land, or how it will be handled by the provincial government. We figure our main job is to keep out the sea, however, and we hope to get along with that work as rapidly as possible.


Percy Chapman Black: If I may offer one other suggestion it would be that the department, through Mr. Parker, take steps to devise and build special machinery to excavate these small ditches the farmers used to dig by hand. It is impracticable now to get labourers to do this work; it must be done by machinery. I feel that quite large sums could be made available as an incentive to practical men, who have been accustomed to working this marshland, to devise machinery that might be useful in this work. These small ditches cannot be dug by hand at today's costs; they have to be dug by machines. So far as I know, no such equipment has been developed which is acceptable. I believe most of the owners of marshland feel that machines of this kind can be developed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that New
Brunswick has a machine which is fairly satisfactory. At the experimental farm we are working on machines which we hope will prove to be satisfactory. This development may reach a satisfactory conclusion with the support of the provincial people. I know the hon. member is acquainted with the fact that we have already purchased some machines for the larger works, such as putting in dikes. Those machines might be available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
41.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under regulations to be approved by the governor in council, $100,000.
Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister what portion of this $100,000 has been spent in the last few years on the construction of warehouses, and whether any applications for assistance have been received from the provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe I am correct in saying that up to the moment no money has actually been spent. There was an arrangement with the province of Prince Edward Island under which we were to spend dollar for dollar with the province. The arrangement was that when that money was spent, the warehouse was to be available to the producers in the area. The province has been suggesting that its portion of the money be collected and repaid. We have not accepted that suggestion up to the moment. We have taken the position that our donation, and the provincial donation, ought to be dealt with in the same way, whichever way that is.
When the dominion put through the legislation in the first instance, there was no intention of collecting the money and returning it to the treasury. We have not asked this house for the right to collect it, and, as 45781-195
Supply-Agriculture
a result, no payments have been made in Prince Edward Island. No agreement has been reached. There are applications for assistance from New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan, in connection with the building of warehouses for the storage of potatoes. These applications are being considered.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Some warehouses have been built under the arrangement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some warehouses have been built, but we have not paid out any money to Prince Edward Island. We may have paid some in New Brunswick.


Heber Harold Hatfield: All the warehouses have been built in Prince Edward Island.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been built, but presumably they were built under directions of the provincial government. Up to the moment, we have considered that the provincial government has not carried out what we thought was the arrangement. We have not paid any money, therefore, but the warehouses are built.


Heber Harold Hatfield: From whom have the applications from New Brunswick come?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the communications from New Brunswick are still in the form of requests for information about the plan. No actual application has been received as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
42.	Agricultural Products Act-to provide for losses incurred in respect of the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products under the Agricultural Products Act, including authority for the Minister of Finance, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, from time to time, to pay amounts in the aggregate not exceeding $40 million out of any unappropriated money in the consolidated revenue fund as recoverable advances, $100,000.
Major James William Coldwell: I believe this is the appropriate item under which to ask the question I have in mind, since it deals with the export of agricultural products. It makes provision for the amount the Minister of Agriculture may call upon the Minister of Finance to supply. I believe the house should have some knowledge of the startling charge made by the Minister of Agriculture, in his reference to the export of our farm produce and other products to the United Kingdom. I have not the report from the Globe and Mail, to which the minister objected but I have the report which appeared in the Citizen and which he accepted. The headline stretched across the paper-''Startling charge by Gardiner about U.K.". It goes on to say that he addressed a board of trade dinner at Brantford, and I quote:
-he recalled that prior to the second world war, Canada was Britain's chief source of wheat and

Supply-Agriculture
apples, and also supplied considerable quantities of pork, cheese, beef and other foods. During the war Canada became Britain's chief supplier of pork, eggs and cheese, and also shipped large amounts of beef and milk.
This is the important paragraph:
"During the last two years," he said, "a very decided official effort has been made to drive every one of these products excepting wheat off the British market. And now that the four-year wheat contract is drawing to a close an effort is being made to drive off a considerable part of our wheat as well."
It seems to me that this is a serious charge. It is alleged there is an official move in Great Britain to drive Canadian products off the British market.
My understanding, from what the Prime Minister said yesterday in his discussion of the $3 million bonus for shipping losses, was that the restriction of trade between the two countries was due to the dollar shortage, and that it was our problem as much as a problem of the United Kingdom. In other words, they will have to supply us with goods in order that we may sell our farm produce overseas. I should like to remind the minister that on July 1 of this year a budgetary provision came into effect which greatly restricted the export to Canada of such things as piece goods. A few days ago I was introduced to a gentleman by one of the supporters of my hon. friend, and he told me he was the export director of a large shoe company in Great Britain. He told me that if I wanted to buy a pair of British shoes, and lived in Windsor, I could buy them cheaper in Detroit because the Canadian tariff was four times as high as the United States tariff on his product-shoes.
A short time ago I asked the minister whether the British took as much cheese as they had contracted to take, and the answer was yes. We have now lost the British market in other respects. It is true the British are looking more to the sterling areas for goods, because they have the sterling with which to buy those goods. That is not the whole story, however. Over the last two or three years I have followed this trade matter rather carefully.
Take, for example, the position as to bacon. The minister has often said that we supplied Britain with vast quantities of bacon during and since the war. He has said that Canada has fulfilled the understanding we had with Great Britain with regard to the supplying of bacon. I have some figures before me concerning this aspect of the matter. In 1946 Britain expected to receive 450 million pounds of bacon from Canada, and we sent 286 million pounds. In 1947 the British expected 350 million pounds, and we sent 232 million pounds. In 1948 the British expected 195

million pounds, but we failed to deliver anything like that amount. I believe the contract this year is for 160 million pounds, and according to a return that was tabled in the house, we sent only 14 million pounds in the first three months of the year.
I looked up the trade statistics of the Department of Trade and Commerce issued by the bureau of statistics yesterday. On page 3 of their report, dealing with trade up to the end of September, I found that we had exported to Great Britain about 28 million pounds of bacon. It seems to me that unless the minister can tell the house what the official action of which he complains is, a statement of this kind is something to which objection should be taken by all members of this House of Commons. It certainly does not make for good relationships. The minister will recollect that in 1948 we agreed to send 195 million pounds of bacon. We also agreed to send a quantity of beef. The American market was good for beef; we had available more bacon than we expected in the earlier part of that year, and the British agreed at our request to take 29 million additional pounds of bacon in lieu of beef, making 224 million pounds altogether. What did we ship that year? We shipped 176 million pounds. The minister complains that there is in Britain an official attitude to drive our products off the market. I presume that the British, who want to maintain their meat ration, are looking for a constant supply. We have been unable to maintain that constant supply or live up to the understandings-I use the word "understandings" because I am not sure whether they were agreements or not; but they were understandings. These figures I have used have been gathered carefully, and I know they are correct-I think the minister's own figures will verify them-as to the understandings and the amount that was sent.
We are losing the United Kingdom market, and we are losing it for two reasons.


An hon. Member:: We have lost it.


Major James William Coldwell: All right; that is the hon. member's opinion. I will not go that far. I think we are losing it for two reasons. One is our failure to fulfil understandings of such importance to the British people. The second, of course, is the maintenance of a relatively high tariff. When the Geneva agreements were made two years ago some of us in the house urged the government to use one of the escape clauses in the agreement so that we would not have to put into effect immediately the non-discrimination clauses in the treaty. As hon. members will recall, we had a year's grace; and if the exchange situation was bad, we could ask for a further

extension of time. But the government put the whole treaty or agreement into effect immediately; and may I say that while that agreement has been on the order paper it has never been ratified by the House of Commons.
The committee should have a knowledge of the facts on which the minister based this statement. If there is an official attitude to drive Canadian products off the British market, he should take the committee into his confidence. This is a serious matter. It is particularly serious because of the manner in which Canada went to the assistance of the overseas countries during the war, and because of the manner in which we changed our economy in many respects during the war to meet the overseas needs. I think the people of Canada should know on what the minister's statement is based.
If, on the other hand-and this appears to me to be so from all that I can read- this stems purely, or mainly, from a dollar shortage, then I think that Canada should endeavour to co-operate with the sterling and other areas and should endeavour, through international organization, to set up a plan whereby we might bring about the convertibility of our various currencies, or even go to the extent of finding an international currency that would enable us to trade with one another. After all, the world is short of food-it is always short of food- and Canada is a great potential provider of food. If we lose the only markets we have, and there is no possibility of finding sufficient new markets, what will be the condition in this country within a few years?
I greatly regretted that Canada did not support the proposal made recently at the United Nations for dealing with surplus foods. I notice that the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. H. Hannam, was of much the same opinion. He said recently:
Farmers want some assurance of stability in markets projected ahead a few years to enable them to plan their production with confidence. With this view, we found the farmers of all countries in complete agreement.
He went on further to say:
Our Canadian federation put a proposal for moving embarrassing surpluses into consumption before the international federation of agricultural producers at Guelph and it was unanimously endorsed. It proposed the setting up of an international agency and fund to take surpluses, arrange for their sale to needy people at special prices, and have the loss shared between the fund and the supplying country.
That may not apply to our trade relationships with Great Britain, but it does apply to dealing with potential surpluses of foodstuffs in this country in the next two years.
45781-195J
Supply-Agriculture
I was disturbed when I saw the minister's statement headlined in the Citizen the other evening; because, after all, trading relationships to some extent stem from good relationships in other ways. You can trade with people with whom you are not on friendly terms, but you can trade better if you are on friendly terms. I think this statement of the minister was most unfortunate, and I believe it was without any basis in fact with respect to the statement that there is an official resistance to Canadian products on the British market, except in so far as that resistance stems from the shortage of dollars with which to pay for Canadian goods.


James Garfield Gardiner: in the first place, Mr. Chairman, there was no reason why anyone should have been surprised at the statement, because it has been repeated on the floor of the House of Commons; and I think those who pride themselves upon sitting in the house more days than other members do ought to be more familiar than anyone else with what is said in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: It has never been said in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: In addition, it was said before the chamber of commerce in London a year ago, and had publicity in every newspaper in Britain and in every newspaper in this country. I have a file-and it is so long that if I brought it into the committee and attempted to read it, we certainly would not get through tonight-of clippings from newspapers saying exactly the same thing, repeating what I said a year ago, not just within this last few days. The only thing I objected to at any time was a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail, in the copy which apparently most hon. members did not have, headed "United Kingdom wheat market threatened". In the article that followed, nothing is said with regard to the other foods which I discussed at Brantford, but everything I said with regard to other products was made to apply to wheat. It is that article that I objected to. I understand that the news staff of the Globe and Mail themselves found out it was wrong and got another report on the speech, before they published their second edition,-


Major James William Coldwell: I had not seen that.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and they published it correctly. The first is the only report I made any reference to whatsoever. The gentleman who arranged for me to meet the Canadian Press is in the chamber, and he can correct me if I am wrong. We were meeting in a room in Brantford, and the Canadian Press phoned and asked if they could see me. I was communicated with through another. I said,

Supply-Agriculture
"Certainly," and their representative came right up to the room. I had written in my own hand the report which was given to him; if it had been fully published, it would have been a correct report of what I endeavoured to state. However, no Canadian Press reporter wrote it. Everything that is quoted in the Canadian Press report is quoted from a report which I handed to them. There was no reason why there should have been a wrong report in any paper, but I have yet to find a paper which published it all. The hon. member who is here, and who was there on that occasion, will agree with me that I took the report out of my pocket-it was in my own handwriting-handed it to him and said: "That in effect is what I will be saying." I said: "It is not my whole speech. It is a very short summary. I have a copy of it here in my own handwriting. In view of the discussion there has been about it, and the fact that it is short, perhaps I had better read it into the record. This is what I was trying to say, and what I think I did say-and I think I said it so that those who were there at least understood what I was talking about:
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to discuss rural relations in Brantford. The city of Brantford is perhaps better known on the farms of Canada than any other city. The reason is that there is scarcely a farm in Canada that has not a farm implement or machine on it made in Brantford-
And I said, when I was speaking-"having the name of Brantford upon it."
No city has done more to supply up-to-the-minute farm equipment to the farmers than Brantford.
I went on to say that I thought Brantford a proper place to discuss rural relations with industrial cities.
It is estimated that well over $200 million is being invested by farmers in farm implements and machinery this year. Much of this is being purchased in the United States, and some people are advocating buying from the United Kingdom.
Prior to the second world war Canada was the chief supplier to the United Kingdom of apples and wheat and an important supplier of pork, cheese, beef and other commodities. During the war Canada became the chief supplier of pork, eggs and cheese, and a very considerable supplier of beef, milk, beans and other foods.
Until the fall of 1947 we had every reason to believe that our efforts to supply the British at low cost to them had been appreciated. We believe the British people still appreciate both our service and our foods.
During the past two years a very decided official effort has been made to drive every one of these products, excepting wheat, off the British market.
That statement appeared in some of the papers, and in some it did not.
Now that the four-year contract is drawing to a close, an effort is being made to drive off a considerable part of our wheat as well.
fMr. Gardiner.]	.
In the report I have here it says "a major part". They had no reason for changing the word "considerable" to "major".
The farmers of Canada have been able to stand up against this deliberate onslaught-
I repeat the words "deliberate onslaught".
-only through the increased purchasing power provided in centres such as Brantford, a city producing farm implements.
I am a free trader and advocate the freest possible exchange of farm products for the necessities required on the farm. But when one is convinced that the other party to the trade has made up his mind he is not going to buy anything from us that he can avoid buying, free exchange is impossible.
If Canada's agriculture is to be threatened further in the "cold war" over exchange, even free trade farmers will have to advise all farmers to buy where they can sell. The only place where he can sell freely for the time being seems to be Canada.
That is the statement as it was handed to them.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister upon what evidence he bases that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall give it. I have given it a dozen times, but I shall repeat it. I do not know why my hon. friend does not have it in his mind.
I have here a statement which appeared in the press of December 7, under the heading, "Coldwell claims session proving promises false". It says:
"There are others," he added. "For instance, a couple of weeks ago our Minister of Agriculture, Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, opposed the United Nations proposal for feeding the world's hungry with food surpluses . . ."
That is the kind of statement, of course, which one might expect politically, but it ought to be based upon the facts. The facts as they have been given to this house over and over again, and over and over again to the country, and as every paper in Canada that I have been reading has published them, are that up until 1947 every representative of the British government who came here was bent upon securing all the food they could from Canada, and entered into contracts with us, which were fully understood by them, and fully understood by us, and fully reported to the house on every occasion.
I stated as early as 1939, and every session after that, that until the time the war started, the British did not believe we could produce in Canada enough foods of the types they required. Certainly they did not believe that we could produce bacon for the British people in any greater quantity than about 160 million pounds. We maintained that we could produce more than that, as the Conservatives before us had maintained that we could.

Mr. Bennett secured under the Ottawa agreements of 1932-written into those agreements -a figure of 280 million pounds of bacon. There was no way in which Canada could contract to deliver it, because under our federal system of government we have no authority to compel delivery to us.
So there was no opportunity for the government to make use of what other countries are able to make use of, namely, making a direct contract with the British government, and then compelling delivery to carry it out. We were not able to do that. But when the war came along we were able to do it. We compelled delivery under the War Measures Act.
Before the Canadian government entered into contract with the British government we stated over and over again at food conferences that we were going to prove conclusively to the British people that we could produce any possible amount they could take from us. I recall we produced over 700 million pounds in one year, when we had been told before that they were not going to expect more than 160 million, the quota insisted upon in 1936 under the Ottawa agreement. But when we battled under the preceding government and battled under this government we induced them to put the figure up to 280 million. By the time the war started we had almost reached 280 million pounds. After the war did start, by signing contracts with the British for 50 million pounds a year more than our officials estimated the farmers could produce, and more than the British expected to get from us, in every year we exceeded the contract. We exceeded it by more than 50 million pounds, until we got up to over 700 million pounds shipped over there within one twelve-months period.
When we got to that point the British government sent a man to this country, Mr. Scott Watson. He appeared before the farm associations, sometimes behind closed doors. I was present at the first meeting in Regina, when he made a speech behind closed doors. In that speech he told us clearly that when the war was over we were not going to be able to sell this amount of bacon in Great Britain. I think the words he used were, in effect, that when the war was over it would be necessary to trade bicycles for bacon in Denmark.


Major James William Coldwell: What official status did he have?


James Garfield Gardiner: Representative of the ministry of agriculture in the government of Great Britain, and he still is an important official in connection with that same department.
Supply-Agriculture


Major James William Coldwell: Isn't he also a professor at Oxford?


James Garfield Gardiner: He might be, but he was here as a representative of the ministry of agriculture. He had offices in Washington, and made speeches when I was present in Chicago and Regina.


Major James William Coldwell: But was he speaking as an official of the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he was speaking for the government and giving us information for the government.


Major James William Coldwell: Or as a professor?


James Garfield Gardiner: He was speaking for the government; and I discussed his remarks too with farmers at Regina following his speech. But his statement was made officially to farmers right across this country. That was discussed for days at the meeting of the wheat pool delegates in Regina, and behind closed doors. I spoke myself immediately following Scott Watson, and I indicated to him just what I said at Brantford and elsewhere, namely, that if the British were to follow that policy they would experience difficulties in the long run.
The next step which concerned us was one which was widely and lengthily discussed in this house: whether we should get out of the production of meat and into the production of grain in order to save people from starvation. I am sure that there is no hon. member who was in the house at that time who does not recall that there was no opposition to the policy of getting right out of everything else and into wheat in order to save people from starvation-except from the government. We took the position that that was not a good policy to be followed here, in view of some things that were happening and were bound to happen in different parts of the world.
The result of that was that certain things happened at the FAO conference which I shall refer to in a moment; but first I should like to complete the record. When Lord Woolton was minister of food in Great Britain, when Sir Ben Smith was minister of food in Great Britain, when Mr. Hugh Dalton was chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain-all those men met us in the spirit that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said we ought to be met with in Great Britain. Their effort was to take all the food that we had in surplus. As a matter of fact while Sir Ben Smith was minister of food we were told in London that they would take all the beef we could produce in Canada and pay the United States price for it. We

Supply-Agriculture
told them that we hesitated to believe that that policy could be followed sufficiently long to be a solution for any of our problems in the marketing of beef. We said we thought that certain price levels should be set, and certain price levels were set upon beef which did not necessitate any increase in the cost of living in this country. It was on that basis that we contracted to sell beef to Great Britain during that year.
Up until two years ago it is correct to say that all those who were in a position to direct policy in Great Britain were in favour of trying in every way possible to take the farm products of this country that we had been supplying during the war, and to finance them. I think most of them thought that they could find a way of financing these purchases. However, in the fall of 1947 that policy was changed. I am not going to attempt to say who changed it; hon. members can come to just as reliable a conclusion on that as I can, because they know what changes were made at that time. One of the outstanding changes was that we were told that there was great difficulty in finding dollars with which to pay for our food.


Major James William Coldwell: Was not that true?


James Garfield Gardiner: It may have been true, but it did not give a basis for the statement that has been made that we have not been squeezed out of the British market. The delegation that came here in the fall of 1947 stated, in so many words, that they did not want any food products except wheat at any price, and that they wanted wheat at the price they were paying under the contract. We naturally said, and it has been reported to this house although not in as definite terms as I am stating it now-I think it is time it should be stated definitely-that if there was going to be no contract, there was going to be none. That meant that all our foods would have to be sold at the world market price. From that time on an effort was made to take more of our foods; but no matter how much discussion we had about it, it finally came down to the fact that they were prepared to take only cheese, bacon and eggs and in the quantities which we were certain we could send forward in spite of anything that might happen elsewhere.
We sat down as a result of that understanding and tried to figure the quantities but not as we had done earlier in the war. We could not go out to the farmers, as we had gone then, and tell them how much to produce to the limit for a market which existed. We figured it down to the last pound which we thought we had to get rid of in order to make it possible for our farmers to go on marketing at all in this

country, even at reasonable price levels. I think everyone will realize that if you put back on this market 86 million dozen eggs; if you threw back on this market even the quantity of bacon we did send to Great Britain, or if you threw back on this market any of those other farm products, you would have lower prices, which might be beneficial to some people but would not be beneficial to the farming population.
We decided that the furthest we could go was to get rid of what we might feel was going to be a surplus. We agreed with the British-it was not put into writing-that we would cut that down as low as we could throughout the whole twelve months. In other words, we would sell all the products we could somewhere else, on the Canadian market or the United States market or somewhere else, provided that we could get at least as good a price for them as we had written into the contracts. We would go ahead and sell them, and if we sold them all we would not deliver anything to Great Britain. That is as they wanted it. I have no hesitation in saying that, no matter what anyone anywhere else may say. That is as they wanted it. They wanted those quantities reduced in the year 1948 down to nothing at all. There was no way of going out to the farmers of this country and telling them to produce more for the British market or more for the United States market; we had to be careful about what we said.
When we got along to the next year the British came and said: "We will take wheat and cheese, but we do not want anything else." There is no doubt about what they said. This matter has been reported both overseas and here and discussed quite fully. They said that they could not finance these purchases. Probably I am going a little too far in saying that they said they did not want them. Of course the British would like to have more food of certain types. They said they could not finance it, and for economic reasons they did not want it. They said that they did not want any. There is no doubt about how much it was; it was none at all.
We then said to them: "We can sell our cheese in the United States for more than what is proposed; why should you want to take only cheese." I am not going to suggest that that was the reason; nevertheless we were told that they could find dollars with which to buy cheese without depending upon ECA, but they could not find dollars with which to buy anything else without depending upon ECA. They could not buy other food products in addition to all the other things they were buying from Canada. They told us that if their desires were met, we would cut out eggs and bacon.

We kept up negotiations until they agreed finally to take 160 million pounds of bacon, which was exactly the figure they wished to :ake before the war. Under great pressure they finally agreed to make a contract for some 46 million dozen eggs, none of it in fresh shelled egg form. The price of shelled eggs in Poland, Denmark or any other country compared with ours does not mean anything. They did not agree to take any of our fresh shelled eggs at any price, and we have had to market them as best we could in the United States and Canada. I might say that up to now we have done a fairly good job of getting them marketed.
These are the facts. They do not want them. We are negotiating with them now and they do not want them. They do not want our eggs, and they do not want our bacon. They do not want any of them.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it because they do not want them, or because they have not the dollars to pay for them?


James Garfield Gardiner: You can put it whichever way you like. They have much more to do with settling that question than we have.


Major James William Coldwell: There is a difference.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have said in this report the British people still like our food and still want to take it, but I am pointing out to you that officially Great Britain does not want it.


Major James William Coldwell: Cannot pay for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement I have made is absolutely true. You can pick whichever official group you like to blame for it. I am not going to do the picking. That is the official position stated by no matter what official of the British government comes to this country, and no matter what official or minister of our government goes to Great Britain.
I presume it is an understanding of the facts that is wanted. I shall not attempt to say at the moment whether or not we are going to secure any contracts for 1950. All I am going to say is that discussions are still going on, and that is the environment in which they are being carried on. We are being told they just do not want it, and some say that we must go out and find some way of making it possible for them to have it. There are not very many ways in which you can do that. I think it is a kindly feeling on the part of Canadians when they say we should finance the sending of the food anyway when Great Britain needs it. But I should like to indicate what some people, who spend most of their time in Great Britain, think about what has been done and what might be done.
Supply-Agriculture
I have here a copy of an article written in Canada's Weekly a year ago, just after I made the speech I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. One of the paragraphs in that article is headed: "Canada was there when needed." This is an article printed in London, England; it is not something printed here. The article reads:
Britain suffered tremendously in every way in the late war. None realized that better than Canada, which pioneered methods of assisting Britain to the utmost, financially as well as with her armed forces. In 1942 she made Britain a gift of $1 billion.
How many members of this House of Commons have forgotten that? This country gave Great Britain a billion dollars and said: Go and buy your food or anything else where you like. We did not even say that they had to buy it in Canada. We said: Here is a billion dollars, with no strings attached to it at all; go and buy anything you want, anywhere you want to buy it. This paper reminds the British people of that. It goes on to say:
In 1942 she made Britain a gift of $1 billion and a year later a further $1 billion was earmarked for mutual aid.
All that mutual aid meant, as different from a gift, was that Great Britain was to buy the products in Canada. That was the only difference.
In 1943, to provide Britain with vitally needed dollars, she repatriated $205 million of British equity of fixed capital of war plants in Canada. Before the United States advanced its loan-
The important word there is "before".
-of three and three-quarter billions in 1945, Canada had already given Britain a post-war credit of one and one-quarter billion dollars. All this from a nation of only twelve million.
The trend of the article is to call attention to the fact, not in this country but over in Great Britain, that it is a pretty difficult task for twelve million people to undertake to feed, half feed or twenty-five per cent feed, fifty million people in Great Britain. If that is what is being suggested, then I am quite prepared to say if it is going to be done it cannot be done by the farmers alone.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not suggesting we should make a gift to Great Britain. I am looking at it from the point of view of trading with Great Britain in order that she may get the necessary dollars to spend for our produce.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course my hon. friend's view on this may be different from mine, but I am of the opinion that unless the public have all the facts we are not going to help trading very much. I do not care what the British people think about it. We are not dealing with the British people. We are not trading through the old methods we followed prior to the war. If we are going to trade.

Supply-Agriculture
with Great Britain at all, we must trade through agreements made by the government. As long as we must trade through agreements made by the government, then the people of this country should know what the British officials think about it when they come here. What they come here and tell us is: We do not want your food. You can interpret the word "want" in any way you like. You can decide whether it means that they are not able to pay for it, or something else, but they say: We do not desire to have it from Canada.
That is what I said at Brantford. It is in accordance with the facts, and it has been said all through the last two years every time I have spoken in the house and out of it. It has been published in every newspaper in Canada at least a dozen times, and it has been published in papers which are now writing editorials wanting to know why I did not say it before-which means they do not think their own papers valuable enough to read them themselves. That can be proven beyond any possibility of doubt. If we were not so near the end of the session I would take the time to read them.
Coming down to the present position, we know what the Canadian people can eat if they have the money to buy. We have pretty well found that out during the last couple of years. If the Canadian people had not had the money with which to buy the food produced on our farms in the great quantities that they have, we would have had one of the most difficult periods in agriculture during the last two years that we have ever had, owing to the fact that we could not market our food products where we have always marketed them when we had surpluses, and where we think somebody ought to provide that we have a perfect right to market them yet. That is the position as clearly and briefly as I can state it.
Why have we been able to market our food products at home? One of the reasons is that we have taxed the people who are making big profits, either in trade, industry or elsewhere, to such an extent that we have been able to pay for high old age pensions, family allowances and other social services which have made it possible for the people to have high purchasing power. The other is the fact that the Department of Trade and Commerce has been searching every corner of the world for markets for our industrial and natural products, everything that we have to sell, and have secured considerable markets for them. They have not stopped there. They have tried to find

markets for the surpluses of food we may have after our sales have been made to the Canadian public.
So, directly as a result of the policies introduced by the government in its various departments, our people have a higher purchasing power. My suggestion at Brantford was that we try to keep it that way, and that one way of doing it would be for the farmers, who have to sell practically all their food products in this country, to buy their farm implements where they are selling their products. I think that is what they should do, and that was my advice to them.
That is about all that was said there. I believe it met with a fairly good reception where it was said; and judging by my mail since that time I am quite satisfied that it has had a pretty satisfactory reception nearly everywhere. Therefore I am quite pleased to give the house the report that has been asked for by my hon. friend.
Now he wants to know what happened at Washington.
Mr. Cold well: With regard to the British contracts, can the minister produce any letters or memoranda which would bear out the statements he has made? I have made some inquiries concerning these matters, and the information one gathers from the British papers and from British sources would suggest, to put it quite bluntly, that the minister's statements are not based upon the facts and are inaccurate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should be sorry if in order to prove it I had to read from the London Times and a number of other British newspapers, because they all said it and all admitted it. They all added that there was some difficulty in finding a solution, but they admitted that that is what is being done.


Mr. Drew:: In what issue of the London Times did the editorial appear to which the minister refers?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I shall have to read it. There were two editorials, as a matter of fact.


George Alexander Drew: I think the last one is the issue the minister wants.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I have sent for it, and will read the editorial when I get it. In the meantime perhaps I can go on with the other question asked, as to the FAO.
The suggestion was that we did not support the proposal made at Washington for the marketing of surplus foods. I suppose an interpretation could be placed upon the position we took at Washington which would bear out that contention, if you consider the whole

proposal; but the position we took at Washington was that we were in favour of the principle of the proposal but were not in favour of the method by which it was to be financed.
I may add that we took this position after hearing what the Americans and British had to say about it, and both those countries took that same position very strongly. We did not say we were in agreement with them. We said we might appear to be in agreement, because of the position we were going to take; but realizing that such a proposal-in which we saw some weaknesses-could not be financed unless it received the support of the British and Americans, we said we thought a committee ought to be set up which would put into effect the principles of the proposal. In other words the suggestion was that someone should gather all the information with regard to conditions throughout the world; that this information should be compiled and kept available in a certain place, which would be the FAO, and that the committee should advise the various nations as to what could be done in order to avoid difficulties in connection with surpluses. In principle that was the proposal; and the only important addition contained in the original proposal was that a $5 billion fund be set up with which to carry it out.
It was suggested that many of the nations concerned might experience difficulty in supporting the plan financially. It was suggested, too, that many of them might have difficulty in carrying out any undertakings they might give. Therefore it was thought that a committee of this kind, which would gather all the information and pass it on to the governments concerned, could get more co-operation in that way than would be obtained by a compulsory board of any kind which would take delivery and market these surpluses in competition with other trade organizations.
That, in general, was the position taken; but we from Canada had in mind another matter which we thought would concern Canadian farmers in the long run more than any decision that might be reached at this time on the other question. It had to do with what I said a few moments ago; that is, that at the end of the war we, together with the Americans and everyone else, seemed to think that our particular task for the time being was to produce wheat in order to save people from starvation. The Americans held that view even more strongly than we did, and from time to time sent word that they wanted us to stop using wheat for this, or to stop
Supply-Agriculture
using barley for something else, in order that all our production could be used for human food.
In 1938, at a time when we were taking considerably less than 50 cents a bushel for our wheat on the farms of western Canada, a price at which we could not produce it, the Americans had 81 million acres of land in wheat. During the year just before the war, and in the early part of the war, however, they took 26 million acres of that land out of wheat production, reducing their acreage to 55 million. They said that under the multilateral contract which was being discussed then they considered that a reasonable acreage for their farmers to have in wheat; and they went on to say that they considered the acreage to which we had reduced ourselves during the war to be a reasonable acreage for our farmers to have. At the time that was said I believe we had something like 22 million acres of land in wheat. In our contracts of that time we went on to provide that other nations, in order to avoid these surpluses, had to reduce their acreage if they were to come in under those contracts.
At the end of the war all agreements of that kind were taken out of the contracts, and they are not now in the contracts at all. There is no acreage control in the contracts.
When I went down to the United States I was of the opinion that probably the Americans still wanted to go on producing that great acreage of wheat. If they did, it was going to cause us trouble. Some representatives of the other nations proposed that the Americans should continue producing that extra quantity of wheat, but the United States representative disagreed with them. He said the United States did not think it should continue to do so, not only in the interests of their present agricultural position, but in the interests of the long-term food position in the world. In other words it was said by the United States: If we keep several million acres in grain, eventually the soil will be blowing around and will not be producing anything. The United States representatives were of the opinion the soil should be turned back into grass and the production of livestock and other products.
Immediately I rose and agreed with them. That is what I was doing when I got the report which indicated that I might have been doing something else. I agreed with the United States people, and pointed out the reason for doing so, namely, that Canada has practically no surplus of wheat at the moment. I said that as a matter of fact we had not surpluses, to the extent we had before the war, in any agricultural products. The
45781-19G

Supply-Agriculture
reporter called them "top-heavy surpluses"; he said that I said we did not have any top-heavy surpluses. This was a fair interpretation of what I had been saying.
As a result of this discussion-at least I presume partly as a result of it, and partly as a result of their own judgment-when the United States representatives made their proposal to the conference it included a reduction in the acreage that was to be put into grain. I had a discussion with some of our press representatives at Washington as to whether "grain" meant wheat. One of them went to interview the leader of the United States delegation, Mr. Andrews. A report of that interview appears in the Regina Leader-Post, and I am going to read a paragraph or two of it, just to indicate why we think that we were on the right line:
Mr. Andrews said that the acreage devoted to wheat in the United States had risen by approximately 26 million from the low point of 55 million before the war. This increase was roughly equal to the acreage sown by Canada on its entire wheat crop. Mr. Andrews was fully aware of the anxiety this enlarged United States crop must cause to Canadian farmers seeking an outlet for their own produce.
Strictly on U.S. grounds of policy, however. Mr. Andrews was convinced that a new policy had to be applied. Much of this wheat was being grown on land never intended for this purpose. It had been brought into cultivation under the stress of the war and post-war needs. If it were not returned to grass, then "the land would blow away."
Already the U.S. government had made a start on this program by ordering a reduction of fourteen per cent in last year's wheat acreage of 81 million. Mr. Andrews expressed the private opinion that total reductions in the next three years might amount to something like 25 million acres.
That is exactly what we had in mind when we went there. We wanted to bring that situation about, and the Americans are stating that it is their intention anyway, no matter what we think about it. To continue:
Mr. Andrews said the government had two great sanctions in existing legislation to enforce this policy. These were acreage allotments and market quotas for individual farmers. Any farmer could store wheat on his farm, but if he tried to market wheat above his quota he might be fined very severely, in some cases up to fifty per cent of the value of his wheat. Restricting these allotments and quotas was one way to cut down on wheat acreage.
Then this reporter goes on to say that, so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned, that was the most important accomplishment of the FAO conference. I believe it was more important to have that wheat acreage reduction, and the land used for other purposes, than that our farmers should be forced out of wheat in order to maintain a surplus which might be of assistance to people somewhere else, but would

put our farmers in a worse condition economically than the people we are trying to help.
That is the only report that I care to make at the moment in connection with the matter, in view of the fact the official report of the position taken by the Canadian government is not yet in my hands.


Major James William Coldwell: I have heard a long list of editorials that have appeared in different papers, but I am asking about memoranda or correspondence. Editorial opinion is the opinion of one man who is writing for a newspaper. We know what editorial opinion is.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you are not interested in editorial opinion, all I can say is that every official from the city of Ottawa, and every official who came from Britain, knows that every word I have uttered is correct, and that includes every member of the government who is sitting in this house. That is a correct statement of what took place. I do not believe it needs any backing from anyone else, except those who were present, and they were the only people who heard it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister's statement is all the greater indication as to why the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make a long-term agreement with the United States. We might as well forget about the United Kingdom. I am surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce went down to New York and told the people they should buy from Europe. He should have been telling the people of the United States that they should buy from Canada. He should have been making a long-term agreement with the United States. We might as well make up our minds that the 175 million people on the North American continent will have to live within themselves.


Mr. Howe:: Just to set the record straight, I may say that I was in the United States to tell them that if they did not buy more from Canada, then Canada would not be able to buy as much from them.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister told them
they should buy from Europe, and Donald Gordon, an employee of this government, told them they should buy from Europe.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the speech that has just been made by the Minister of Agriculture is one of the most significant utterances that has been made in this house for many years. He has used phrases that are bound to have an important effect on the relationship between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom. As members of this house we must

assume that this speech is a carefully prt pared statement of the position of this government and its attitude towards the dealings they have had, and expect' to have, with the government of the United Kingdom in regard to agricultural products.
So far as we are concerned, the export of agricultural products to the United Kingdom is by far our most important export. The statement the minister has just made, therefore, is one that may have a far-reaching effect in considering the future of that export market. This market was described by the members and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce just a few days ago as being vital to the future of this country. On December 1 the Minister of Trade and Commerce used these words at page 2551 of Hansard:
Canada's prosperity is dependent to a large extent on the state of world trade and more particularly on our trade with the United Kingdom and the United States, our two largest suppliers as well as our two largest customers.
What we have just heard is a statement that there is a deliberate onslaught by the government of the United Kingdom on our trade in farm product's with that country. Surely it is not possible to imagine a statement of more significance, a more serious statement, if that does interpret the situation correctly.
One of the reasons why this statement must be of great concern to every hon. member is the impression that is left by what we have now heard as compared with the impression that was left on the minds of the members of the house and other Canadians who read the reports of the statements made here, right up to December 1. Hon. members who were in the house on that day will recall that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was being asked certain questions in regard to the sale of food products in Britain, and particularly in regard to some of the very food products that the Minister of Agriculture has now mentioned, he left the impression that there was no reason for concern about the future sales of those products. In his speech on December 1, 1949, as reported at page 2571 of Hansard, after giving a number of figures which showed our large export of food products to the United Kingdom in the present year and in recent years, he used these words:
Judging from these figures I have quoted one would hardly reason that we are losing our trade with Britain. Let us take the individual commodities. What about wheat? I think we are in grave danger of being oversold on wheat from this crop.
Those words, Mr. Chairman, do not give anything like the same impression as the words that we have just heard from the Minister of Agriculture, who is primarily 45781-196J
Supply-Agriculture
charged with the responsibility for supervising production of these particular commodities. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not confine his optimistic remarks to wheat. He spoke of oats, barley, flax, bacon and other food products. Nor should I limit my reference to the recent statement on December 1 of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On May 12 of this year I find that the Regina Leader-Post carried an extended report of a speech of the Minister of Agriculture in Simpson, Saskatchewan, under the heading: "Market is safe, Gardiner says". Then, criticizing those who had suggested that there was reason for concern about our markets in the United Kingdom, he used these words, according to the Regina Leader-Post:
We could sell much more of most farm products if we had them in surplus supply.
I could give numerous quotations which show that right up to December 1, both outside and inside the house, ministers of the crown have sought to create the impression that, in spite of disturbing incidents and difficulties that were being encountered, our market in the United Kingdom is safe, to use the words that were attributed to the Minister of Agriculture last May. If in this important speech of his this morning the Minister of Agriculture had told the members of this committee that, to his great surprise, he had just learned that there was a resistance to the purchase of Canadian commodities in the United Kingdom, and that, to his amazement, the government of the United Kingdom is conducting a deliberate onslaught on the sale of these Canadian commodities in the United Kingdom, then certainly we would have reason to be astonished and alarmed by such a statement; but at least it would be an explanation of the difference between the statement we have just heard and the statements that have been made outside and inside this chamber until recent days.
To me one of the most revealing features of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture is the fact that he tells us of a meeting behind closed doors in Regina in 1947, and he tells us that in 1947-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just say that the meeting was reported in the press; what I said was reported in the press the next day.


George Alexander Drew: Nevertheless it was reported in the press at that time without such an interpretation as is now put upon it by the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I put the same interpretation on it then myself.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. If the Minister of Agriculture put such an interpretation on it at that time, it is extremely difficult to

Supply-Agriculture
understand why he was saying last May that our markets in the United Kingdom were safe, or why the Minister of Trade and Commerce was saying in this chamber on December 1 that we had every reason for confidence in the United Kingdom market.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That was before the election.


George Alexander Drew: The statement in May of course was before the election. But what the Minister of Agriculture now says-and he cannot be critical of the reference to what he himself has told us this morning-is that in Regina in 1947 an official of the British government informed this meeting that in his opinion the United Kingdom would not be buying our foodstuffs in any event, and that, to repeat the illustration which he used, the United Kingdom would be trading bicycles for Danish bacon. If that is so, and if the minister has been aware that there was a deliberate onslaught on our sale of food products to the United Kingdom, then what I find extremely difficult to understand is how it was possible for him to continue to assure the Canadian farmers of the advantages they were gaining by contracts under which they were receiving less than the world price because of the assured long-term markets at those prices at a time when, he suggested, world prices might be less than they then were. The key to the alleged value of those agreements was the assurance that the contracts would be the basis of continued prices at that level, and that, while Canadian farmers might not at that time be receiving the world prices, they would later receive more than the world prices.
Nor was it possible to listen to the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture this morning without remembering where he made the speech that he made a few days ago. It was not made to an agricultural group.


James Garfield Gardiner: Fifty-fifty.


George Alexander Drew: It was made in the city of Brantford, which is a very important industrial city.


James Garfield Gardiner: At a board of trade meeting.


George Alexander Drew: I am aware there would doubtless be many farmers there. I am not suggesting for one moment that this speech was not fully reported both in the press of Canada and in the press of the United Kingdom.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to keep the record straight, may I say it was rural night for the board of trade. They had invited the farmers to come in and listen to the speaker, and I had been invited to speak.


George Alexander Drew: It was in Brantford, an important industrial centre, from which there comes

a great deal of agricultural equipment. The farmers in the Brantford area are responsive to the concern that might be felt by their immediate local market about the future of industrial production in that area.
The minister has said that his speech was given a fairly good reception in Brantford, and that it has received favourable comment from elsewhere since then. Certainly it would receive a favourable response from one point of view, and a perfectly natural point of view. He was asserting the proposition that, as Canadians, our first concern must be for Canada, and, quite properly, that our trade relationships with the United Kingdom or with any other country must be based upon our own legitimate self-interest.
The suggestion that Canadian purchases of industrial products from Britain should be related to Britain's willingness to buy agricultural products from us would undoubtedly receive support. I am not questioning the fact that it should receive support. But what we have been told today is that the reason for concern about the United Kingdom market is not something that arises now, but something that has been present since 1947 at least. That, to me, is one of the very real reasons for concern in connection with what we have heard here this morning.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to escape the impression that the Minister of Agriculture is now seeking to hide behind the government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of explaining the optimistic statements which have been made for the last two years, and which do not gibe with what he has told us now about the attitude of the government of the United Kingdom as disclosed at Regina, and as disclosed, according to his statement, at every subsequent meeting they have had.
The minister now tells us that our difficulties are not so much related to the dollar problem as they are to this deliberate onslaught upon our sale of products in the United Kingdom. I would remind hon. members that when I use the expression "deliberate onslaught" I am using the words employed here today by the Minister of Agriculture. He left no doubt that in his mind this is not so much a problem of dollars as it is a question of deliberate policy on the part of the government of the United Kingdom. He has emphasized that belief by saying that, after all, the solution of the dollar problem is much more the problem of the United Kingdom than it is for us.
By those very words the minister supported the clear statement he had made that this is a question of government policy. No matter what any one of us here may think of the

political point of view of the present government in the United Kingdom, it is the present government of the United Kingdom; it is the government of that country chosen by the people of that country. Therefore we must regard a statement of this kind as having the utmost importance. Because the Minister of Agriculture did explain why he made that statement in Brantford-and in this I am referring to a report contained in the Ottawa Journal of December 6, which states:
He was talking about it just now because negotiations for new food contracts with the United Kingdom are approaching conclusion. All existing food contracts, except that for cheese, expire the end of this month.
If that press report is a correct interpretation of what he said, either in his formal remarks or otherwise, then the Minister of Agriculture explained that he was making a speech at that time in which he was sharply critical of the government of the United Kingdom because negotiations for new food contracts with the United Kingdom were approaching a conclusion.
I can only interpret those words as meaning that the Minister of Agriculture was making this speech as part of the broad negotiations that were taking place, and that the purpose of the speech was to have its influence upon those negotiations. If that is so, and if his speech here this morning is for the same purpose, then it does unquestionably place before the government and people of the United Kingdom the proposition that, in the opinion of the government of Canada, the government of the United Kingdom has decided not to buy, no matter how much the people of that country like or approve the taste, standards or general quality of the food products they get from Canada.
This is something they should know. I agree with that proposition. By all means let us discuss these matters out in the open. By all means let us have all the essential facts before it is too late. If the situation is the one placed before us this morning, then it will be a good thing if, before the conclusion of these present contracts, the people of the United Kingdom have an opportunity to express their opinion as to what they think the government of that country should do.
I would also hope that in the interests of having a full knowledge of the facts, the appropriate official or officials of the government of the United Kingdom will say whether or not in their opinion the statement given to us this morning does correctly represent the situation. Unless we have that statement of course we cannot know what hope there may be of working out arrangements for the future.	[DOT]
Supply-Agriculture
I am not going to go into the details of the many figures that were presented to us this morning by the Minister of Agriculture in his long speech. I say long speech, but I admit that this important statement by the minister certainly required to be made, and adequate time had to be taken to give the essential details. In that speech the minister has left the responsibility for the present situation on the doorstep of the government of the United Kingdom. He has. left the impression that the dollar problem is not the crux of the problem that we have to solve; that the government of the United Kingdom, as a matter of continuing policy, is making an onslaught on our sales of food products in that country.
This being so, I suggest that, apart from the other considerations that have been put forward, there should be in the mind of every one of us the realization that this is either a problem attached to currency difficulties or it is not. I would remind hon. members of the fact that on several occasions recently it has been pointed out that currency problems are at the root of some of our difficulties. One recalls that in the excellent report of the maritime commission tabled in the house not long ago, it was stated that the recommendations they made would not help to solve the problems connected with shipping or the shipping industry unless there was a solution of the currency problem. We have heard that said inside and outside of this house in relation to other questions of trade.
The word "convertibility" has been used in this discussion. I suggest that the real crux of this problem is convertibility, and this is a problem that can be tackled by the Canadian government, because it is not exclusively a problem of the government of the* United Kingdom. Unless our trade in foodstuffs and other products is to be seriously threatened, one of the things most urgently required is that the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada get together to see if it is not possible to find some basis of actual convertibility which will loosen this log-jam and avoid the possibility of an extremely serious trade situation in the not distant future.
I suggest that everything that has been said here this morning emphasizes the need of tackling that problem. I suggest that everything that has been said here this morning emphasizes the importance of checking carefully what has been said in the past, and insisting upon the most complete and accurate information as to what is the present situation.
I can only repeat that what we have been told this morning is inconsistent with the

Supply-A griculture
statement made to this house in regard to these very products as recently as December 1. In the discussion that may take place now, between now and the next session and again at that time, we will insist upon full information. I would hope that the other party to the contracts, the government of the United Kingdom, will assist us in placing fully before the public, and in that way before us, their explanation of the present problem. Only in this way can a solution be found.
What has been said here this morning is significant and most serious. I feel sure that all hon. members want to retain these markets, and it is to be hoped that in seeking a favourable outcome of the negotiations which are taking place in regard to the renewal of these contracts a barrier of misunderstanding will not be created between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom.


Major James William Coldwell: One o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood that we were to go right along.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not aware that we were -going to go right through. I would point out that we still have to consider the estimates of trade and commerce, public works, finance, justice, the Prime Minister's office and legislation, all in full. We have still some items in agriculture, veterans affairs, and mines and resources. I take it it is up to the committee to consider whether it is possible to do that amount of work properly between now and midnight tonight. If it is, then I have no objection to sitting right through, but if it is not, I think we should adjourn for lunch. I am doubtful myself as to the possibility of completing all those departments before midnight.	[DOT]


George Alexander Drew: So that our position may be known to the committee I want to make it quite clear that we did agree to sitting through until six o'clock tonight. I certainly will not withdraw in any way from that agreement. I think it was hoped by all members that it would be possible to complete business by this afternoon, but I must say that at the present time there does not seem to be the slightest possibility of that being done. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of the business now before us being completed today, even though we sit through until midnight without interruption.
The opposition can assume no responsibility for the amount of time that is involved. There are still three important departments to be dealt with. The Minister of Agriculture spoke for an hour and ten minutes this

morning, and needed that time for the important statement he made. However, it is perfectly obvious, in view of the importance of the statement whi'ch was made here for the first time this morning, the significance of which hon. members cannot be expected to disregard, they should not be limited in any way in their discussion of it.
I have mentioned this in order to point out that I do not suggest that any undertaking be withdrawn, but the undertaking was on the premise that we would complete the business. If there is general agreement that that cannot be done by six o'clock, it would seem the most sensible procedure to recognize that fact and adjourn. Then we would be able to resume on Monday without being unduly exhausted by the effort made today to accomplish the impossible.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no objection to sitting right through if it is believed that we can finish the business.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I was informed that an arrangement had been made to sit through until six o'clock because it was expected it would be possible to give due consideration today to the business that still had to be completed. I know it was on that assumption that the undertaking was made. There can be no desire on the part of the government to curtail the time required to enable hon. members to give such consideration to the business still to be completed as they feel the public interest requires. Of course there was a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, but I do not think there are any other long statements to be made from this side of the house.
But there is not only one side of the house, however, and if hon. members on the other side feel that it is not possible to finish without slighting the consideration that the business of parliament requires, there might not be very much point in omitting the luncheon recess. The agreement to omit the luncheon recess was predicated upon the desire, which we all know is general, to complete the business as soon as it can be completed in a manner that will satisfy each member's feeling of responsibility as to the seriousness of what has to be done. If hon. members on the other side are convinced that they cannot properly discharge their responsibility if an attempt is made to complete the business today, it might be as well to take recess at this time and come back at three o'clock.	i


George Alexander Drew: I want to assure the Prime Minister that I am as anxious as anyone else to facilitate the business of the house in the natural course of events. But the statement

that has just' been made by the Minister of Agriculture opens up a new basis of discussion of the agriculture estimates as well as those of the Department of Trade and Commerce. In addition to the very important Department of Trade and Commerce there are also the Department of Public Works and the Department of Finance. We have not even dealt with the first item in the Department of Justice; and there are also the items under legislation. Therefore I do not believe there is any chance whatever of completing the work today.
So far as the time of sitting is concerned, I must admit it would probably meet the general wishes of members, if we are not to complete our work today, to sit through the lunch hour and adjourn at six o'clock rather than sit late tonight. It will then be possible for a number of members to get home for the week end.
In making these observations I am not suggesting that we rise now, or at any particular time; but my thought is that we cannot finish tonight even if we sit right through the lunch hour; therefore we might consider closing the discussion at six o'clock.


Mr. Shaw:: We are neither able nor willing to forecast the result of a continuous sitting, but we are prepared to co-operate in an endeavour to complete the business by midnight.


Major James William Coldwell: We will co-operate, but looking at the list of departments it would seem impossible. I am willing to sit through the lunch hour and see what' happens, but I cannot see that we can deal with the business properly today.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that
we sit through the lunch hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to reply to part of what was said by the leader of the opposition. Whether my statement was long or short, it was not a statement in which I was attempting to say what the reasons were for the position that was taken by the British. I was asked a definite question. I was asked to prove to the satisfaction of the leader of the C.C.F. group, and I presume others who think likewise, that there had been some official opposition to the marketing of these products in Great Britain. When he asked me if that was not owing to the dollar question, I said probably in part, but that after all that' was a British responsibility as much as, or more than, it was ours. I was not discussing that question at the time.
As to the remarks that were made by the leader of the official opposition, I only wish
Supply-Agriculture
to say that I take nothing back concerning that question from what I said a year ago. All that is on record, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat it.
On the other question of what was said before and after the election, my remarks both before and since the election were exactly the same as they were when I was in London a year ago. The newspaper reports naturally did not repeat everything I said, and every speech I delivered, over and over again. They took certain parts out of them and printed them.
So far as the speech at Simpson and speeches anywhere else are concerned, I stated that at the end of this season there would not be any of the surpluses of farm products which our opponents were prophesying we would have. I said our wheat would be all gone. I said we would not be able to fill our bacon contract, we would not be able to fill our egg contract, and all our food would have disappeared, with the possible exception of cheese, as to which we had already realized that the British would not take any further quantities. We have never expected any difficulty in connection with cheese. Therefore there is no difference between what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been saying and what I have been saying.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said about the beginning of the year that we had no troublesome surpluses. I said in Washington that we have no top-heavy surpluses. There is no difference between those statements; they mean exactly the same thing. I was reported to have said in Washington that there are no top-heavy surpluses. I did not use the word "top-heavy", but it states, as well as any one word could, what I did say.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: In view of what the minister has just said, why did he find it necessary to refer to the British as making an onslaught? If someone has made an onslaught on our trade, it suggests that everything in the garden is not so lovely.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know of any other word to describe it, and I am not withdrawing it. When we met with them in the fall of 1947 they said they did not want our food products except wheat. The second time they visited us, in 1948, they included cheese, but they did not include cheese in 1947. They said: We prefer not to have these products. As a matter of fact, at certain stages they said they would not take these products, and at certain stages we said other things which induced them to take the products. I do not think it is necessary to repeat all that here

Supply-Agriculture


Major James William Coldwell: Then why were understandings reached in a given year? We will take 1947. There were 195 million pounds of bacon-


James Garfield Gardiner: That was before.


Major James William Coldwell: -plus 29 million pounds of bacon later on, making 224 million pounds which they agreed to take, but we delivered only 176 million. Going back to 1946, the contract was for 450 million pounds, and we delivered far short of that amount. Coming to the present year, they said they would take 160 million pounds of bacon, and up to the end of September we have delivered approximately 58 million pounds. It simply does not make sense.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not applied anything I said to any time prior to the fall of 1947. I made that very clear. I indicated that under all members of the British government-


Major James William Coldwell: What about this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me answer what the hon. member has already asked. Until the fall of 1947 we had complete understanding with the members of the government in Great Britain. It does not matter whether it was the Churchill government or the present government. We have always made it clear that this is not a matter of party differences, either in Britain or here or anywhere else. So far as I am concerned it is simply a matter of fact.
Until we got to the fall of 1947 we had complete understandings to the effect that we would market our surpluses of bacon, cheese, eggs and other products in Great Britain. I am dealing only at the moment, however, with bacon, cheese and eggs; those other products were included prior to that time. Well, we set out to do that. At the same time we were increasing the purchasing power of our own people, and I have said over and over again that our people now are buying as much as fifty per cent more meat for their own consumption than they bought before the war. I have taken credit to the government, as has been stated, for evolving policies which brought about that result. Whether we are entitled to all the credit I have taken may be a question; nevertheless I say we have assisted in creating conditions which have resulted in Canadians consuming more and more of those products. That was what I was emphasizing at Simpson and at every other meeting I attended, namely, that we have created better conditions by family allowances, old age pensions and all the other social services, and by other methods which I went into at the time.
Having done that; with Canadians themselves-including the farmers-buying so much more food in Canada, the amounts we sent to Britain under the contracts were reduced from year to year up to 1947. Until that time we could go to the farmers and tell them to produce more and more; but since that time, as I said, we have not been telling the farmers to produce more and more. The reasons I gave were the very reasons I have given this house today, namely, that we had already been told by the British that they did not want these products. I have always said on those occasions that their reason for not wanting them was a dollar reason. It was not because they did not want our food; it was because they were not able to finance the payment for it.


Major James William Coldwell: That can hardly be described as a deliberate onslaught.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is a deliberate onslaught when officials come to you year after year, as they did in 1947 and again in 1948, and as they are doing now, and say: "We do not want your food at all." What are you going to call it, if it is not a deliberate onslaught? At the same time they say: "We are still going to buy that food, but in some other area." Sometimes they even come to this continent and buy the food in another area, paying for it in dollars. I do not know of any other term to describe it than a deliberate attempt to stop buying in this area. I presume it is because they cannot find the dollars with which to pay for it; but the attempt is deliberate.


Major James William Coldwell: That is different language.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know any other word for it. The fact is that our farmers must realize, as we are going into another crop year, that this is the attitude with regard to the shipment of food to Great Britain at the present time.
On the other question, whether or not we have surpluses, I have been saying that we have none, and I am prepared to say now that we have none. The only commodity in which there appears to be a surplus is cheese, and I have explained that, so I need not go into it further. So far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself are concerned, we are in entire agreement that we have not surpluses. On the other hand we have not been selling our products to Britain even in the quantities in which we sold them before the war; and they would prefer that we did not sell them any.


Victor Quelch: I regret very much that there seems to be danger of friction developing between this country and Great Britain in connection with our trade. I must say there

has been a real change in attitude on the part of the Minister of Agriculture as between today and a year ago. I believe he outlined the situation clearly in a speech he made before the Canadian chamber of commerce in London in December, 1948. His attitude was very different, of course, during the election campaign. X will agree that the stand he has taken today is the same as the one he took before the Canadian chamber of commerce, but it is not the same as the one he took while the election campaign was on.


James Garfield Gardiner: You did not hear any of my speeches. My position was just the same.


Victor Quelch: I read a number of them, and I heard a great deal about them. When X would discuss government policy at meetings, people would get up and quote statements by the minister on the trade position, in which he said there was no danger of the food contracts with Britain falling off. These statements were thrown at me time and again during the campaign, and my only reply was to quote what the minister had said in addressing the Canadian chamber of commerce in London.
Both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have pointed out time and again that the situation that is developing is largely due to the fact that the United Kingdom lacks dollars with which to buy our produce. It is not a question, of course, of Britain not wanting to buy our goods. The people there want our goods, but they have not the dollars. They have to buy their goods now where they can get them without spending dollars; so that the word "want" is ambiguous in that sense.
I agree with the minister that the official attitude of the British government today is that they must cut down their imports from Canada in order to conserve dollars. On the other hand I am satisfied that if they had the dollars they would be anxious to buy goods from us.
Another point is that the action the British government is taking today has been recommended by the international monetary fund and the administration of Marshall aid. They have been told time and again they must do everything in their power to cut down imports from the dollar area. You may find that in the annual report of the international monetary fund for 1948. So they are only doing what they have been advised to do by the body we helped set up, in an attempt to bring about a closer balance of trade. I think it only natural that they should take that action, because Marshall aid ends in 1952. The only reason why various nations
Supply-Agriculture
have been able to buy the quantity of goods they have taken from us is that they have been given dollars with which to buy them.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say to my hon. friend at this point, if he does not mind, that I think he will agree, as I believe most hon. members will agree, that no one has backed the British since 1939 more than I have as Minister of Agriculture in this country. No one has said more kind things about them or has more fully appreciated the British position than I have. But when it comes to the facts as they are related to our own farmers, then I think those facts have to be stated. My kindly feelings towards the British cannot be allowed to run so far that the farmer does not know his position. I think he must know that.
I think it will be generally agreed that all through the period under discussion, from 1947 to the present time, the people of Canada have pretty well known the British position. At no time during the election campaign did I say we were sure of being able to get contracts with Britain. I did indicate what had happened in the past. I said the British had come to every meeting and said they did not want our food, but that in spite of the fact that they said they did not want it we were able to get contracts for quantities which have worked out to our satisfaction, and I was hopeful that in future we would be able to do the same thing. We are now in the midst of making contracts for the third time under those conditions, and we are still hopeful that we shall be able to obtain contracts covering some of the foods, though not all of them, or even all for which we had contracts last year. We hope to get those contracts for next year; and my hope, which X presume is the hope of the hon. member who was speaking a moment ago, is that by that time Britain may have the dollars with which to buy more of our products. I do not know how they are going to get there, but I do think the British want our food, in the sense the term has been used by the hon. member. They are going to insist on having it, no matter what government they have, as soon as they have the means to pay for our food. Xt is mainly for that reason that I want to keep the products in the British market under these agreements, until the British can get back into that position.


Victor Quelch: I do not take any exception to the speeches the minister has been making. I believe he has been quite clear, although some people have the impression from his speeches that he is hostile to the British over this market situation. If one takes all the minister's speeches, both the ones delivered

Supply-Agriculture
in Great Britain and in this country, I think one gets the correct impression. I have always felt that the Minister of Agriculture felt rather kindly towards Britain, and would do anything he could to extend our trade with that country.
The minister has pointed out that the situation that has developed is due to a lack of dollars. I take direct issue with the minister when he tries to put the blame for that situation on Britain. Just a few moments ago the minister said that the shortage of dollars was Britain's responsibility. I should like him to show me any way in which the shortage of dollars is Britain's responsibility.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is hardly correct. What I said meant the possibility of its being corrected is more likely to be through Britain's efforts than through anything we can do.


Victor Quelch: Right after the war, in order to get aid from the United States, Britain signed the Bretton Woods agreement, and also agreed to make sterling convertible, knowing full well she could not carry out that agreement. After a few weeks of attempting to do it, Britain was forced off convertibility. We now have the unpleasant situation under which she cannot get the dollars she needs for her business.
When members suggest that a possible solution to this difficulty would be the establishment of convertible currency, or the establishment of an international currency, it seems to me they are putting the cart before the horse. You might have convertibility of currencies, but until you establish a balance of trade you will not get very far. The establishment of an international currency would not mean that all nations would be able to buy. The only way a nation could get that currency would be by selling its goods to another nation, and taking payment in international currency. So long as you have the unfavourable balance of trade in the sterling area which you have today, there will be a shortage of dollars with which to buy goods. An international currency would not be any solution to the difficulty, because you would still have an unbalance of trade between the sterling area and the dollar area.
The only solution for the problem is for the sterling area to adopt the attitude that the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to have adopted towards the United States. He has said that, so far as Canada and the United States are concerned, either they will have to buy more from us or we shall have to buy less from them, because we still have an unfavourable balance of trade. That is exactly the situation in which the British

find themselves. It does not make any difference whether you are trying to bring about convertibility of currency or the establishment of an international currency; until there is co-operation you cannot solve the problem.
The Minister of Agriculture has pointed out that the reason we have fallen down on some of our former contracts with Britain is that we are consuming more in Canada. I do not believe anyone could criticize the government for that. I believe the best market for our products is the home market. If the reason for the reduction in imports is the consumption of more in this country, I would not criticize the government except to the extent that our production might have been expanded in order to take care of the increased demand. There is one danger though, and it is this: if we try to consume the greater part of our agricultural production at home, we may, as a result, lose our markets abroad. Then I suppose in future the prices at which goods were sold in Canada would be determined by the prices for the small amount exported abroad. That has usually been the attitude of governments in the past. If the price of the commodity exported abroad sets the price for the commodity we consume at home, then to the extent that we lose markets the difficulty will increase.
For this reason I am hoping the government will establish the Agricultural Prices Support Act on a sound basis. I know I am out of order in discussing that, but a resolution will be coming up next year to terminate that act. I looked upon it as permanent legislation. The minister has said there is no reason why it could not continue indefinitely. Now it seems an end is to be put to the life of that act. I believe that will be a definite breach of faith with the farmers of this country. As a result of certain sacrifices they have made in the past, they were guaranteed stabilization in the future, and not just for four years. I regret the appearance of that resolution on the order paper, and I hope that by the time it is brought down it will be in different shape.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I make one comment about the last remark of the member for Acadia? He believes the British are not altogether to blame, and I should like to call his attention to the fact that, so far as I am aware-I may be wrong in this-it is only food products that are being declared surplus in the United States, as related to the provision of Marshall funds. This creates a difficulty in connection with food products that is not felt in connection with some other products. I do not blame the British for that; I do not blame anyone in particular. It is a fact, however. On behalf of our American

friends we have to say that although they did have 26 million acres more in wheat last year than they felt they ought to have, they did not declare wheat surplus in the sense in which it could have been declared surplus under the Marshall plan. Provision was made to help finance the sale of our wheat in Britain, and that is one of our important products. It has created some difficulties for us in connection with other products, and makes contracts of the type we have been making rather difficult.


John Alpheus Charlton: All I can say is that the statement made by the minister this morning, along with the speech made in Brantford, to which I had the pleasure of listening, constitute the most important statement made by any member of this government in many years. I can assure the minister that I have a copy of the Brantford Expositor which carried his speech in detail. The only difference is that the Brantford Expositor has the headline, "British barrier to Canada's foods."
I have warned the minister and the members of this house on many occasions during the last two or three years as to what might take place. On one occasion in 1946 the minister took me to task for even suggesting that the British would not fulfil any of their agreements, whether they were by word of mouth or by signed contract. This morning the minister tells us that the United Kingdom in 1946 was trying to buy all our surplus farm products. Then he comes along and says that the situation now is actually reversed; that the United Kingdom is trying to drive all our farm products off their market. The statement made by the minister then, and by many other members of the government, that Britain had no dollars with which to buy our food, apparently has not been true.
Surely neither the minister nor anyone else in the House of Commons or in this country would expect that Britain would take only our surpluses of food products. Unless we can assure a stable market to Great Britain or any other country to whom we expect to sell our products, certainly we cannot expect to have that market. That is the thing that I have said was the trouble during the past two or three years. I have repeated it in this chamber on several occasions. I so stated when the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were being discussed the other night, and I repeat it now. It is not only a case of the dollar shortage; it is not a case of their wanting to see our products off the British market; it is the effect of this government's lack of foresight in not maintaining production and not
Supply-Agriculture
fulfilling the contracts which we had with Great Britain, and allowing production to go down to such a level that we could not supply the food products that Great Britain wanted. She was therefore forced to go elsewhere to buy the food that she required to feed her people.
It would be interesting if the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night had put on the record the figures I asked for, or if the Minister of Agriculture would now put on the record figures with respect to the value of food products we have sent to Great Britain since the beginning of the war, the amount of the contract, and the amount we sent each year from 1942 or 1943 up to the present year. Those figures would be most interesting. I think all hon. members would agree that never since 1944-or it might have been 1944-45-have we filled a British contract, with the exception, probably, of that for eggs, and for cheese this year. The quantity of cheese this year, however, is the lowest quantity we have ever sent to Great Britain in the last fifty years.
The attitude now taken by the Minister of Agriculture is apparently very different from that taken in 1946, when both he and the then minister of trade and commerce assured us, and assured the farmers all across Canada, that if we supplied food to Great Britain at prices far less than world prices during those years, we could be assured of a future market at a reasonable level in the United Kingdom. That was the statement made on several occasions in this chamber by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: I still believe that, but it may not be next year-in the future.


John Alpheus Charlton: If it is not next year, it is not very satisfactory, is it? If we are going to cut out the odd year, what good is it?- because the very year we do not get these markets is the very year we are going to have a surplus in this country. Whether the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce believes it or not, there is a food surplus in this country today; whether they call it a surplus over domestic requirements, an unsold surplus, or whatever they wish to term it, there is still a surplus. We were all happy, as I have said, to supply Great Britain at that time; the farmers of this country never asked for all the traffic would bear with regard to the price of food; they were doing it partly on a patriotic basis and partly on a basis of maintaining those markets with Great Britain in future years. The thing the farmers across this country are fearful of now is that, having sold these things for less than the world price, they are

Supply-Agriculture
to be expected to take the low prices in the post-war era; and that is what they have been worrying about for the last number of years. This government always assured us, through the federation of agriculture and through the House of Commons, that they were going to stabilize farm prices; and one means they were going to use to do that was through the Agricultural Products Act and the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
I see that on the order paper there are two resolutions having to do with prices support acts. I grant you they are not to be taken up this session, but it is obvious that the government has in mind taking out section 9, the operative section, of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Now that this whole market situation has fallen down over his ears, the Minister of Agriculture is looking for a scapegoat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, it is fairly obvious that he is looking for somebody to blame for the situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not blaming anybody.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister is not blaming anybody?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yet he says-


James Garfield Gardiner: Why should I blame anybody? Two days ago I hunted all over to find a few bottles of milk or a few cans of milk and a few pounds of something else to sell to a group of people who were here to buy these things, and I could not find them. Why should I be blaming anybody for the condition? We have no surpluses of these food products. The food is all gone. I have no complaint to make about that. That is what we grow it for. We grow it in order that somebody may consume it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think it is fairly obvious from this newspaper report-the minister himself read it over this morning-and from the newspaper reports which have appeared in many papers since that Brantford speech, that he is blaming the government of Great Britain now for not wanting our food.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not withdraw that, either. The government of Great Britain does not want our food; but in spite of the fact that the government of Great Britain does not want our food, we have sold it all. I do not think it is going to be a good condition for the future. I think we must have the British markets in which to sell our foods some years ahead; I do not know just when, but some years from now.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the government doing to get those markets?


James Garfield Gardiner: Trying to keep our contract with them.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister says there are no food surpluses. I wonder if the apple growers across this country will believe that. I wonder if the milk producers across this country will believe that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think even the apple growers will believe that.


John Alpheus Charlton: That there are no surpluses of apples? I am sorry, but I am afraid the minister is being extremely optimistic. Here is a statement in the Ottawa Journal of November 9, for instance, which is headed: "Processed milk and butter surpluses proving problem". Has that been sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: When was that?


John Alpheus Charlton: November 9.


James Garfield Gardiner: That may be. But they are not here this week. They are gone.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the minister trying to tell me that 56,600,000 pounds of powdered milk and condensed milk were sold since November 9?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I am trying to tell the hon. member that within the last week I have been trying to find powdered milk, canned milk and milk of any kind to sell to anybody, and could not find it. If there was 56 million pounds here then, it is not here now, begging for a market.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the hon. member for Leeds will believe that. He talked about the supplies stored in church basements.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think he will. He had a newspaper here the other day. He was going to quote it. I do not think he is here now, but he will have it here and quote it to you after a while.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister still says there are no surpluses in Canada. He has all the figures. He has all the departmental officials in front of him. I have talked to some of these officials within the last week, and they tell me a different story. I do not know whom we can believe, if we cannot take the figures in the Trade and Commerce booklet, and if we cannot take the figures which are given to the press, obviously from the department.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have here a list of products which was handed to me the other day by people who wished to buy them. It includes skim milk powder to the extent of 920 tons,

I believe it is; whole milk powder, 600 tons; yellow cheese, 1,200 tons; fillets of fish, 1,440 tons; canned fish, 900,000 tons; egg powder, 480,000 tons; canned vegetables, 7,200 tons. Then it deals with grits, barley and maize, frozen wheat and buckwheat, and canned milk. I went right down that list with the branches that are presumed to have them, and was told that we have none of those surpluses left whatsoever under our control. The only way they could buy these products is to go out and buy them in competition with other countries at prices they are prepared to pay for it.


John Alpheus Charlton: What prices were offered for those materials?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have them here, but it is a lengthy list.


John Alpheus Charlton: They are low, I imagine, as compared with previous prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price is lower than they were prepared to offer for some.


John Alpheus Charlton: The price we were asking is lower than they were prepared to pay.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price, as I understand, at which they could be bought is nine or ten or eleven cents on the first one, thirty-four on the second one, and so on.


John Alpheus Charlton: What products are they?


James Garfield Gardiner: Skim milk and whole milk powder.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is characteristic, because the minister told us this morning that England offered us more for our beef than this government wanted to charge them for it, just to maintain price control and to maintain the low cost of living. So that we could expect the government to sell our products for less than they could get for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: But we had price control then, and we have not now.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, this is still the most discouraging statement made in this House of Commons for many years. I am sure the farmers of Canada will take it as a very strange Christmas present to come from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Alpheus Charlton: Everyone on that side of the house seems to treat it as a joke.


Mr. Warren:: It is not a joke.


John Alpheus Charlton: Certainly it is not a joke. It is a different story now from the one that was told prior to the election. The minister says he told the same story. One newspaper after another quoted what the Minister of
Supply-Agriculture
Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture said. The London Free Press of October 21, 1949, carries a headline, "Trade protection key Canadian policy-Howe" and
states:
Need of Adjustments
"Ours is a healthy, prosperous, well-balanced and in fact a booming economy," he added. While there were indications that 1950 would be a favourable year in exports, there would need to be some adjustments.
These adjustments may see the exports figures not as "impressive" as those attained in 1949.
"Not as impressive". Of course we are not going to sell as much. He says they are not as impressive as they were in 1949. The report goes on:
High domestic demand, nevertheless, would cushion the effect of any adjustments. The domestic demand already has been able to fill the gap created by export markets restrictions.
Then follows the heading "domestic markets strong," and the minister goes on to tell how the domestic market is strong. That is true of many things. But is the domestic market enough to take all those surpluses which we will have?
I have here a telegram from the hog producers of my own riding, and they say they are discouraged about the situation at present.


James Garfield Gardiner: They say they want a contract with Britain.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I got the telegram, too.


John Alpheus Charlton: They want a contract for more than one year, and they want to know what the contract price is.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the British will not sign one for more than one year.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is something which this government has never given.


James Garfield Gardiner: The British will not sign a contract for more than one year, and if they have their way they will not sign one at all; but I think they are going to sign one.


John Alpheus Charlton: It seems strange that they will sign contracts with other nations, even behind the iron curtain, for terms of two or three years-yes, fifteen years. They sign those contracts; I do not know why they will not sign similar contracts with us. Apparently the department is not prepared to sign those contracts for more than one year.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we have been trying to sign them for four or five years, but they have refused to sign them, either during the war or since, for more than two years

Supply-A griculture
on anything but wheat. We heard a lot of criticism from hon. members on the other side of the house for signing one on wheat for four years.


John Alpheus Charlton: Possibly they have refused, when contracts have been for anywhere from 200 million to 300 million bushels and they were sent only half of it. You cannot expect to sign a contract for four or five years under that condition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably not, but the hon. member's statement is not correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is wrong with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend stated the position correctly himself at the beginning of his remarks, when he was sticking to the record. Our production went up until 1944. We did fill the contract, and more than filled it every year. Of course the reason why we did not fill it after that is that the British came here in 1944 and said they would not sign a contract for a higher amount. They would only take 450 million pounds after that, where they had been taking 700 million. When they wanted to write it into a contract we refused to write it into a one-year contract, and finally agreed to write 900 million pounds into a two-year contract. That is the way it turned out. That is the way it went down, and we allowed it to go down deliberately because the market was not there.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is a big difference between 450 million pounds a year and 56 million or 55 million, as we have it this year. But of course the minister will find some excuse for lowering of production; naturally he will not blame the government. I still say it was lack of foresight on the part of the government. Taking the ceiling price off feed grains was one thing. In 1947 the price of little pigs went down to nothing, absolutely nothing. They were killed and thrown on manure piles in some parts of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Farmers do not do that.


John Alpheus Charlton: Some of the people here who claim to know so much about farmers have been away from farming so long they have lost track of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I go back three or four times a year.


John Alpheus Charlton: Apparently the hon. member does not go out behind the barn; you stay in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only little pigs that were ever thrown out behind the barn of any farm I was ever on-and I have been on them

from one end of Canada to the other-were those that died a natural death, in spite of all the farmer could do. He did not kill them.


John Alpheus Charlton: I told a story in the fall of 1947 about a chap who was trying to sell pigs and who put a sign on his trailer which he left outside stating that anybody who would take them was welcome to them. When he came back there were twice as many pigs in the trailer as when he went in.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that never happened.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do you say it never
happened?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is a good story, but it did not happen.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Rural Co-operator of Toronto, Ontario, states in a headline on October 11, "Gardiner says market not lost if nothing to sell." That was the kind of statement that was made prior to the election. The last statement made at Brantford and which was directed to the farmers was that the farmers across Canada would do just as well to sow what they wanted of the products they could make the most money with and then everything would be all right. That was quite an optimistic statement coming on the heels of the statement the minister made previously with regard to the British export market.
Everyone knows that we must depend upon our export markets. As I have said on previous occasions, we cannot look to the United States to provide markets for our agricultural products. The United States is a competitor and the year we might have a surplus of products, the United States would have a surplus of the same products and would not permit ours to be shipped there.
While the minister did not name the product, I have no doubt he was referring to cheese that is being shipped by the United States to Great Britain, and to the fact that this government had not permitted cheese to be sent from this country to the United States. Would we expect them to take it when they were exporting to the United Kingdom?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me read to the hon. member the report he is looking for and then he can find the answers he wants. Here is what is said in the Brantford paper:
The minister said: We can produce more cheese now and enter into a larger contract with the United Kingdom next year.
Then the report continues:
In conclusion he advised farmers: "Use your farm the way you have used it in the past. Produce as much as you feel you want to produce,

and I am sure that we will maintain good relations between the farming community and the industrial community."


John Alpheus Charlton: That statement could have been made 25 or 30 years ago. Another statement made at Brantford by the minister was that the United States was going to reduce its wheat acreage by some 26 million acres. Are we going to continue to expect the United States to carry the agriculture of this country? It has been ECA dollars that have paid for the wheat and many other of our products that have been sent to Great Britain in the last couple of years and now the minister states that the United States are going to reduce their wheat acreage.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member should tell the committee what he said at the Brantford meeting.


John Alpheus Charlton: Sometimes one says the things one is expected to say on such an occasion, but I do not always believe them. In thanking a speaker who had come that distance it would only be common decency and courtesy for me not to disagree with the statements he made on that occasion. I do not think that, with the minister coming into my home riding, I would be expected to do that.
1 showed that much courtesy to the minister, out I am sure I am not called upon to show *he same courtesy here in the House of Commons that was shown to him in Brant-:ord.


James Garfield Gardiner: You showed much more lourtesy than there was any occasion for. Does the hon. member want to repeat what le said?


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not need to repeat it.


Mr. Knowles:: Don't repeat it, just repent it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The United States is to [DOT]educe its wheat acreage by 26 million acres, jut what has this government or the minister lone to see that the same reduction is carried >ut by our western agriculture where the and is threatened with wind erosion? We hould be doing the same thing. We should >e reducing our acreage and getting the land tack into pasturage. Is the minister willing o permit the United States to reduce its icreage by 26 million acres and then say hat everything is all right here, that we can ;o on and produce all the wheat we want? Apparently that is the attitude taken by the /linister of Agriculture and this government.
The statement made this morning must lave been quite a shock to some Liberal lembers who were given other statements to rake previous to the election 'to the effect bat everything was rosy in the British larkets, that everything was going to be all
Supply-Agriculture
right in the future. It must have been quite a shock to those hon. members to have heard the statement made by the minister this morning which absolutely reversed the position taken previous to the election.
Referring to the FAO meeting in Washington, the Globe and Mail of November 25, 1949, says that the Minister of Agriculture "doubts value of FAO clearing house". The London Free Press of November 24 headlined an article by the minister to the effect that there should be a return to sound agricultural practices followed in both Canada and the United states.
The farmers across this country are wondering what is going to happen in the next few months. When there is doubt in their minds there certainly is not going to be increased production; there is more likely to be a decrease in production. Apparently the only thought of this government is for today, let tomorrow look after itself.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister was going to answer some questions I asked.


James Garfield Gardiner: I misled the hon. member for Victoria-Carieton by saying that the question he asked would come under this particular item. The amounts spent to assist the marketing of different farm products are as follows:
1946	Potatoes	
$ 170,748.481947	Apples	
3,119,274.221948	Potatoes	
1,642,122.491948	Apples	
1,409,000.001948	Beans	
195,000.001948	Honey	
325,000.001949	Skimmed milk	
1,063,000.001949	Butter	
26,775,000.001949	Cheese	
5,200,000.001949	Apples	
1,500,000.00
In the case of butter I would not say that that amount was paid to assist in marketing. That money was used in order to accumulate the butter, but the butter is now being sold and the money will be returned. The item for cheese is in the same class. The arrangement with regard to apples was on a fifty-fifty basis; this government paid half the price and the British paid half the price.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Has the minister received any requests from the department of agriculture in New Brunswick or from anyone else in that province to support the price of potatoes? This season we have had the largest potato crop ever produced, and on December 1 there was the largest amount in storage ever known. The market has gone down to the point where it is less than the cost of production. I should like to ask the minister if he intends to put a support price on potatoes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have had a request from both the government of New Brunswick and

Supply-Agriculture
the government of Prince Edward Island to put on a support price. Up to the present time it has not been done.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Does the minister intend to take some action?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have an arrangement to discuss it with the minister from the province of New Brunswick next week when the agriculturists are here, but I do not know what the outcome of the discussion will be.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understand the minister will be in Ottawa on Monday. Will he take up this matter with him?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think I have an appointment to meet him some time on Monday. I was not able to set a time because we have the conference on Monday.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is the United States embargo against wheat shipments from Canada still in effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the embargo is the same as was put on early in the war.


Mr. Fulford:: On September 30 I spoke before the committee, and my remarks were of a very gloomy nature concerning the future of the evaporated milk industry. I was referring entirely to a local situation, and at that time my figures were absolutely correct. Since then a very different picture has presented itself to the industry. I am only speaking now of evaporated milk. The situation that had developed has resolved itself, and I can say confidently that today the industry is in a substantially better position. In fact exports of evaporated milk have gone ahead in an extraordinary manner.


Mr. Graydon:: That was because of the by-election.


George Taylor Fulford: The by-election had nothing to do with milk. The markets that have been found are chiefly in Europe. I want to commend both the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture for their unfailing efforts to develop the markets of Canada, harbingers of gloom on the other side and reports to the contrary notwithstanding.


Gordon Graydon: You should have a talk with them before you make another speech.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture one question. As the result of the remarkable statement he made this morning, is he now in a position to admit that he accepted too low a price for the products he sold in the British market during the war?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, in the first place I do not admit that the statement was remarkable. In the second place I do not admit that, so far as any of the products we have been discussing are concerned, we accepted a low price from the British for them. An examination of the markets now will indicate that we are asking a higher price than most other people are getting in the British market.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I do not think that answers the question. During the war years you sold our agricultural products to Great Britain for less than you could have sold them on any other market with the understanding that we were to continue to have the British market after the war. I should like you tc admit that one thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will not admit any such statement.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, you will not admit it, bu' you should.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not admit it. Then were only a few months during whicl Canadian farmers could have sold their foot products at higher prices than they wen sold. At the end of the war the Unitec States took off all controls, and there was i period of time, which might have extendec over twelve months but after all was only i few months compared with what we an talking about, when you could have sole Canadian products at very much more in thi United States market than you could haw sold them here, if they had let them in. am not too sure that they would have le them in if we had tried to sell them on th United States market. We have been sellin our products, with the exception of whea under the four-year contract, at just as gooi a price in the British market as could hav been found in any other market for tha quantity of products.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chair man, I want to say a word or two, thoug: now that I no longer represent an agricultura riding I do not feel as expert on agricultura matters as I used to. I wish to make on or two comments. First of all I think th Minister of Agriculture did himself a grea injustice when he said his speech was nc remarkable. I think it was quite remarkabl in one or two ways.
There are two things I want to say abor it. I am sure that anyone undertaking t criticize the Minister of Agriculture woul never criticize him for being stupid, for n( knowing the meaning of words, or not havin a due sense of publicity. When the ministe used the words "deliberate onslaught" moi

than once, when he said many times that Great Britain "does not want our products"- I will tell him the other things he said too-


James Garfield Gardiner: The officials.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When he said they "would prefer that we did not sell to them", although it is quite true that at times he explained it was because they did not have the money, nevertheless the whole tenor of the minister's remarks created the impression that the British people were being unco-operative and a bit perverse.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will not permit anyone else to have the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is not going to put words in my mouth. I was not talking about the British people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will not allow the minister to interrupt.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all on Hansard.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for
Greenwood has the floor.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will go on. The minister is such an experienced parliamentarian that he can shout us all down, and he gets away with things that we amateurs cannot very well do.


James Garfield Gardiner: After that statement, I am sure you will permit me to say that I did not refer to the British people. I made it very clear I was not talking about the British people. I said "officially".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will accept that correction. We will say the officials or the government. Nevertheless what I say is that the impression remains and will be carried into the press-indeed I should very much like to see the press release to see how it was put out-that somehow or other the British people are not being co-operative, the British government is not being cooperative. The government represents the British people. I do not take very much stock in that distinction although I accept it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know you will allow me to correct you-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No more interruptions, Mr. Chairman; I have the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no press release.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have the floor. In my opinion it is being done to becloud the issue. It is good footwork. I have always admired the minister's footwork, but
Supply-Agriculture
never so much as I did this morning. He is able to say-and I think with truth-that he has been a friend of Great Britain. I think that is true. I think he can point to many things which have greatly helped Great Britain for which he has been responsible, but nevertheless now there is a different situation. We have a change. We have to get off on a new track, and the minister's speech is very clever on that point. I think he has deliberately tried to create what to me, at any rate, is an entirely false impression of the situation in Great Britain, and of their attitude. The second thing I want to say is-


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot be responsible for your impressions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am giving my opinion for what it is worth. It is just the opinion of a private member for what it is worth. The second thing is that a short time ago we had a picture of the minister, this great free trader, [DOT] going into what he would have called years ago the home of high protectionism. It is almost like the bible picture of the lion and the lamb lying down together. We had the minister creating a lovely picture of how we were going to get along by pulling up each other's bootstraps. In other words, the west was going to grow prosperous by selling to the east, and the east was going to grow prosperous by selling to the west. The minister very modestly suggested that that was due to what the government had done. He forgot to refer to the Marshall plan. He forgot to point out we were still making advances to enable the British to pay.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not forget those things at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All I want to point out is that that is another of those befuddling statements which are intended to lull the Canadian people into a sense of entirely false security. But do not take my word for it. I want to quote a short extract from a newspaper which often supports the minister, and of which I imagine he often thinks well. It refers to a statement along the same lines made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The article is from the Winnipeg Free Press of November 16. It deals with a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the importance of the home market. I think the Canadian people had better realize the implication of the statement which apparently is that somehow or other we are going to get on very well by the east selling to the west and the west selling to the east. That was the general impression left by a part of what the minister said. The minister is very adroit at slipping in words here and

Supply-Agriculture
there which enable him to come back later and say, "That is not what I said at all."
I want to put forward what an ordinary fellow like the hon. member for Greenwood takes out of what the minister says. This is the quotation from the Free Press commenting on the speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
It has to be realized, however, and doubtless Mr. Howe realizes it, that the abundant domestic market which is absorbing more and more of our Canadian production is abundant mainly because our export trade is high. When Canadian farmers, lumbermen, miners, fishermen and factory workers can sell their products outside Canada they have money in their pockets to buy Canadian goods.
As proved again and again throughout Canadian history a serious drop in foreign exports instantly impoverishes a large part of the Canadian population, reduces its consumption of Canadian as well as foreign goods and thus slows down the whole national economy.
This morning, as I say, the minister has tried to divert our attention and make the British government the villains of the piece, or at any rate the un-co-operative people. I got it right that time, I hope; not the British people but the British government, which to all intents and purposes is the British people. I hope the public of Canada will not swallow that, will not fall for that piece of fast footwork. I hope also the public will realize, notwithstanding all the Pollyanna statements of the various ministers, that foreign trade is vital to us and that if we begin to lose our foreign trade our prosperity will not remain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion-
43. Freight assistance on western feed grains, $4,750,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: There is an apparent reduction of $16 million in this item, but $12 million has been added in a supplementary item, which still leaves a reduction of some $4 million. As I understand it, order in council P.C. 3803, dated July 29 and effective August 1, changed this whole situation. Will the minister tell us exactly what this freight assistance was before that order in council was passed and what change was made by the order in council with respect to those in the east who buy this grain?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount provided in these estimates is to the end of the financial year; but if the policy is continued longer supplementary amounts will have to be provided as well. I understand the figure up to the present is about $17 million, which will have to be provided eventually if the policy is continued.
Answering the other question concerning the change of rates into Ontario, that has to

do with the fact that there were increases in freight rates generally, and as a result changes had to be made in the amounts charged not only in Ontario but elsewhere. At the time that was being done it was realized that since the policy was put into effect certain discrepancies have developed in the amounts paid in Quebec and the provinces further east as compared with Ontario, owing to the fact that some of the grain coming into Ontario is shipped in by water, some partly by rail and some by rail, water and truck. The changes were made in order to adjust that position so that the farmers in the various areas would benefit more nearly to the same extent. That is the general reason, without going into the detailed changes that were made.


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister explain in more detail just what those changes were? As I understand it, no payment is to be made now for trucking, and the amount paid at the various ports along the lakes varies. Previous to this order in council the amount was the same at all ports, about $5.40 per ton. I believe the minister should give us the amounts paid these various companies at the different points, such as Owen Sound, Goderich and Port Colborne. As I say, the rate formerly was the same in all ports. Since the adoption of P.C. 3803 that system has been changed and a graduated scale has been adopted. In Georgian bay ports, Goderich, Sarnia and Walkerville the amount is $3; in Port Colborne it is $3.60; in Toronto it is $3.80; in Kingston it is $4 and in Prescott it is $4.15. Under the previous arrangement, when the same amount was paid in all ports, a man at Goderich would be getting very much more in proportion than a man at Prescott.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position in Ontario is different from that in some of the other provinces in this way, that a very considerable part of the grain coming to Ontario for feed purposes is unloaded at Georgian bay ports. Another considerable portion is unloaded at Toronto; some is brought to Prescott, and so on. At one time we did allow special rates for trucking in Ontario which were not allowed in any of the other provinces. We also had certain provisions concerning the relationship between rail shipping and lake shipping which we considered gave Ontario an advantage over some of the other provinces. The first order in council was intended to more or less equalize the returns in Ontario as compared with the returns in other provinces, and the second order in council put into effect a 50 cent increase in the rates due to the fact that the railways had been given an increase in freight rates.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister still has not answered my question. Is it not true that previous to this order in council each company, regardless of where it was located, received the same freight assistance of $5.40 or $5.50 per ton?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was true, and under that method some got more than their costs. That situation has been corrected under the order in council as finally approved. I think they are pretty well all satisfied with the arrangement that has been made. Naturally there was some criticism from those who were going to get less than they had received before, but I think it is pretty well agreed that they were getting more than they were entitled to previously.


John Alpheus Charlton: Consideration has not been given to paying for trucking from these various points?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: As long as the shipment is by rail the assistance is given?


James Garfield Gardiner: On carload lots.


John Alpheus Charlton: By rail?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Up to the maximum of $5.50?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is $6 now. It was $5.50 before the last order.


John Alpheus Charlton: And nothing is to be allowed a chap who may be thirty or forty miles from Goderich, for instance, and who wants to truck the grain to his mill? He is not allowed anything for that trucking, though obviously it would not pay him to put the grain on a railroad car and ship it that short distance?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, there are great difficulties in connection with the payment of freight moved by truck. Everyone moves grain by trucks. If a company decides to move its grain by truck instead of by rail, that is its own choice. I am afraid it would be an impossibility to administer payments of that kind to everyone who would be entitled to them if you started paying freight on trucks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45. Dairy products board, $22,022.
John Alpheus Charlton: I understand the government now is releasing the more than 48 million pounds of butter held in storage by the dairy products board. Just what percentage of that butter has been disposed of, and how is it grading, coming out of storage? What percentage of the butter is grading No. 1?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: It is grading out exceptionally well. To date there has been approximately 5 million pounds of it sent out. It is going out in carload lots to persons who desire to distribute it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister says it is going out in car lots. I understand some of it is being trucked from these warehouses; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The packing house in the town in which we had the meeting the other night made an application to me to make representations to the officials that they be allowed to truck some of it, but to date no trucking has been allowed.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is only sold in car lots?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is sold in car lots.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion-
667. Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $250,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: These supplementaries are the ones which are known as the Newfoundland supplementaries. Will the minister say whether this money was used as freight assistance to get feed grains into the province of Newfoundland?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we are obligated to give some consideration to the farmers who want to take feed grain into Newfoundland, just as we give assistance to the other maritime provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
755. To provide for payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $1,815.
John Alpheus Charlton: This item has to do with the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. Will the minister give the committee an idea what the cost will be as a result of the amendment to that act?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not yet in a position to state what it is going to cost. An estimate was made at the time the amendment was under consideration, but it has slipped my mind. The act does provide that the government will pay for all cattle that went to the tank from April 1, 1947, down to the present time. We shall continue to pay on that basis for all cattle that go to the tank. It is presumed payment will be made on the basis of the average price those cattle would have brought on the open market. I have no estimate of what the amount will be.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


John Alpheus Charlton: At that time we were told that the payments under the retroactive part of the legislation would be based on the average for three-month periods.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think the act gives the minister authority to arrange some regulations that will apply. I am not sure whether it will be three-month periods, but there will be some period over which we will average it. It will depend upon when the price changes came into effect. There were certain price changes following the war, and we will try to set it so that whatever the period is the average price will be about the same throughout that whole period.


John Alpheus Charlton: That average has not been worked out as yet?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister say when he reasonably expects that to be worked out, and when the payments will be made to the farmers?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is estimated we will have the payments made by the end of this fiscal year, or within a short period running into April which is always allowed for the final cleaning up of payments charged to the fiscal year. We will have the records completed and the cheques out.


John Alpheus Charlton: By the end of this fiscal year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is no item in the estimates for that, so how can the money be available?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
413. Departmental administration, $468,107.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister going to make any general statement of any nature concerning the work of the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a comprehensive statement when this item was called on December 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That statement, of course, was before the statement the Minister of Agriculture made this morning. I do not rise to pursue that, but I should like to ask another question. It relates to the employees of the board of grain commissioners, which I understand comes under the minister's department. Would he like to have the question now, or is there some other item upon which I should ask it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It should be asked when we reach item 430, the administration of the Canada Grain Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, I shall wait until then.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the department whose estimates have just been completed has some relationship to the discussion now before us, because of the similarity of the subject matter in so far as a number of the items are concerned. One of the points I should like to emphasize particularly is something that was said by the Minister of Agriculture in a speech he made last year in London. It was delivered to the chamber of commerce on December 17, 1948, and I am referring to it because of what seems to me to keep recurring in any discussion of trade, or of our business activities of any kind.
After reviewing the situation with which he thought Canada was confronted at the time, the Minister of Agriculture said this- I suggest that it has a great deal to do with the whole trade and commerce situation with which we are confronted.
I am convinced that the world is not in any state of mind where it can expect to agree that the manipulation of any system or systems of currency is going to be allowed1 to interfere with the will of those who have empty stomachs, when it is preventing surpluses of food to get to them. It might be a good thing for everybody if they closed down United Nations' meetings long enough to permit of the United Kingdom and United States experts getting together and settling some basis upon which dollars and sterling can be converted, to allow nations like Canada to produce food to feed tne starving millions, and distribute it.
In those words, I believe the Minister of Agriculture has pointed to the greatest need of this period, if we are not to find barriers in the way of trade which will cause difficulties, no matter how optimistic the predictions might be. I repeat the suggestion that was presented earlier in	this	session,	that thegovernment of Canada should not wait for action to be taken by the government of the United Kingdom and the United States but that it should itself take the initiative in seeking to find some	way	in	which Canadacan trade with the	sterling	area.	If thisproblem is tackled, I believe that we may find the solution for the broader problem; because if we can	find	a	way	to trade
effectively with Britain, then at the same time we shall have found a way to trade effectively with the rest of the sterling area; and if we find that solution, we shall have found a solution for the broader problem, which will be to the advantage of the United States as well as Canada.
There is a reason why Canada is in a better position to make proposals which might solve this problem than is the United States. Even with the full recognition of the great service that the government of the United States has done to all mankind by the financial resources which that government has

made available to the nations of Europe and to other nations throughout the world during the period of recovery, there is still some measure of reluctance to disregard the possibility that the financial power of the United States may be exercised in a way that might reduce the complete freedom of action of some of the other nations. That suggestion can never be made with regard to Canada. Fortunately we are not large enough, from the financial point of view, to be in a position to threaten the economic position of any other country. Nevertheless, we are large enough, and financially strong enough, to enter into discussions which might form a pattern for other nations in the sterling area and ultimately for a solution of this broad problem.
I am not going to quote in detail the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce which gave an optimistic picture that seems to be so greatly in conflict with the picture given to us this morning by the Minister of Agriculture, as to the immediate prospects for the sale of our agricultural commodities. Nevertheless, the speech that he made here on December 1 can be summed up by saying that it was an optimistic speech, and all of us will hope that optimism may be the spirit in which all our problems will be tackled; but it was a speech in which the optimism that was expressed refused to admit the many suggestions that were made that there was a real reason for concern for the immediate trade picture.
It is not necessary for me either at this time to quote the statements made by the leading representatives of the Canadian chambers of commerce, of the exporters' association or of other organizations whose business it is to stimulate the trading activities of this country. Everyone has read them. Everyone knows that there is being expressed, by those whose personal business is export trade, a feeling of concern which is not in keeping with the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his speech of December 1.
Then we also have a recent speech by the Minister of Finance in which the word "crisis" appeared in the heading above the speech; and there again we have the difference-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend think I am responsible for the headings?


George Alexander Drew: No. But seeing that it is in the Toronto Daily Star, I believed the minister would approve it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not even write the headings in the Toronto Daily Star.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps not; but the Toronto Daily Star of course has such a measure of intimacy with the government that I thought possibly we might take the heading as an accurate interpretation of the speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a great newspaper.


George Alexander Drew: I felt sure that the minister would agree with that. We have the constant appearance of the word "crisis" and the word "threat", and now today we have the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that we are being squeezed out of the British market.
It is not necessary to debate what the interpretation of any of these statements or speeches really should be. If confirmation were needed of the real concern which has been felt for some time by Canadians about the future of our export trade, particularly in the line of agricultural products, that doubt was removed this morning by the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. The question ' before us is not whether there is danger to our export trade, but whether it is possible to find any way to meet the situation with which we are confronted today.
It may well be that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not the one to deal with financial problems as such; but again may I point out the recurrence, in speech after speech of those in the government ranks and in statements prepared by government agencies, of expressions of the need for finding some solution to the present problem presented by the inconvertibility of sterling and dollars.
This is not a problem that we can sit back and wait to see solved. Our position is not the same as that of the United States. This is a special problem of our own. With the importance of overseas export markets-and I underline those words "overseas export markets"-it is essential to the future prosperity of this country that we should not wait for any other nation to find a solution of that problem which now confronts us and which presents these immediate dangers, as was clearly expressed by the Minister of Agriculture today. Shipping, shipbuilding, the export of our industrial products and of our agricultural products, all are related to a solution of this difficulty, as has already been stated in this chamber and as has appeared in reports of such government agencies as the maritime commission. Therefore, without seeking to go back and balance one interpretation against another of the things that have been said in the past, I urge with all the earnestness that I believe the present situation demands that in meeting problems of trade and commerce, particularly export trade, Canada take the initiative in trying to find

Supply-Trade and Commerce a solution to the very difficulty which was so clearly stated by the Minister of Agriculture in London last December.
As he said at that time, I do not think the people of Canada or the people of the rest of the world are nearly so concerned about the details of exchange problems as they are about finding a way in which we can trade, and finding a way in which there can be convertibility of money, no matter what the unit of money may be. We do not want to see this world divided into three economic areas, one behind the iron curtain, one in the sterling area and one in the dollar area. I would hope that, without any regard to past statements or past points of view, Canada for the particular purpose of holding our trade and expanding it in the years ahead will take the initiative in seeking a solution of this very grave problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
414. Commodities branch, including assistance in the development of markets and the procurement of supplies, and contributions as detailed in the estimates-a proportion formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $753,324.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say a word on this item? I was not here when he gave his preliminary statement. If it was covered in that I shall drop my question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This represents the cost of the commodities branch of the department, and includes all the specialists in such subjects as textiles, steel and lumber who operate in various parts of the world to advise the department on commodity matters.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To what
extent is it an increasing or decreasing operation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This item represents an amalgamation of branches formerly under the Department of Munitions and Supply. Formerly, for instance, lumber, steel and several other items were administered by that department, later by the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, and then finally were absorbed into the Department of Trade and Commerce. I doubt if there will be any great reduction. I believe this is a most valuable service, and I should think it is being stabilized at about this year's level.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It shows an increase of $413,676. The minister says it represents functions formerly performed in the Department of Munitions and Supply. What is the over-all net position in the way of costs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The sum of $237,540 was included in last year's estimates of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So that, over all, it is roughly an increase of about $200,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An increased cost, over all, of about $50,000. There were two items in other departments last year. One was in the main estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and then there were the demobilization and reconversion estimates of the same department. The amounts are $124,260 and $237,540.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are those to be added together and then deducted from $413,676?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those two added together with $51,000 which is the increase in the vote make the $413,000. If the hon. member will take $51,800 and add to it the $124,000 voted last year under the demobilization item of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and then add to that the $237,000 voted last year under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, he will find that the whole thing adds up to $413,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
416.	Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $267,210,
Mr. McLure:: What type of advertising generally is carried on in the interests of Canada abroad?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Generally speaking, advertising abroad is in support of our international trade fair, as well as advertising special features in special countries which will be helpful to Canada's trade. Practically all the advertising is done outside Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
417.	Economic research and development branch, including the conducting of investigations and reporting upon commercial relations and foreign tariffs, and the development of Canadian industry, and a contribution of $8,400 to the international customs tariffs bureau-a proportion formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $536,960.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister comment on this increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was an item last year for industrial development, commercial relations and the foreign tariffs division which now has been amalgamated with this division. The hon. member will note a decrease of $130,000 in the former item, which amount has been transferred to this item. The vote in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply last year for the same' purpose was $271,482.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I might be permitted to ask a further question on item 413. I notice at page 257 that while

previously the department had a confidential messenger, he has now turned into a packer and helper. Can the minister explain that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure I do not know. I have one messenger who has been with me since I entered the government in 1935-but I have no packers and helpers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You have not lost confidence in him?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, he is still my messenger, and doing very well.


Mr. Fleming:: I presume he has been
screened.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
418.	Exhibitions generally, including a contribution of $1,000 to the international bureau of exhibitions, $328,832.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is this for the travelling exhibition, the one which is designed here and is sent abroad?	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; such as the various exhibits we had in London at the time of the British industries fair. We also show at most of the industrial fairs throughout Europe and in other countries. We have exhibits at fairs in the United States as well.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to ask the minister to make a long statement at this stage, but could he give us a word or two as to his views on the success of these exhibitions. I do not suppose you can measure this in actual volume of order, but the minister must have some yardstick.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our exhibit at the British industries fair this year was devoted wholly to showing the opportunities for British imports in Canada. We believe that the people of Canada should be represented at these international fairs and we try to prepare our exhibits in a way that will best serve the interests of Canada at that time. I find it difficult to assess the value of these undertakings. I have tried to get independent views as to the success of the international trade fair in Toronto and I must say that at the moment I am not sure whether the fair is sufficiently valuable to warrant its being continued. I decided that we would try the fair one more year and have another look at the situation. I confess that I am not an expert in judging the extent of benefits from fairs and exhibitions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
427. Census of population, including a contribu-;ion of $3,146 to the inter-American statistical nstitute committee on the 1950 census of the Americas, $569,836.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has there been a census since 1941?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The taking of a census is an important part of the work of the department and a staff is employed continuously. There was a census of the western provinces in 1946.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will there be a census in 1951?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, a dominion census.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
429. To hereby authorize the Canadian wheat board to buy rapeseed and sunflower seed from producers at a price of six cents per pound for the best grade f.o.b. local shipping point and at appropriate prices for other grades during the period commencing on August 1, 1948 and ending on July 31, 1949 to sell rapeseed and sunflower seed so purchased or the oil extracted therefrom as directed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; to enter into such contracts as the said minister may direct for the carrying out of any of these operations, $1.
Victor Quelch: Could the minister make a statement with regard to the wheat pool and the outlook for another payment at an early period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can say definitely that another payment will be made, but it is too early to indicate the size of the payment. I do not think my hon. friend would expect me to do so at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
433. To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses incurred in purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, etc., on behalf of the Department of National Defence under chapter 51, statutes of 1947, $900,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister may remember that last year we discussed item No. 638 to reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for amounts advanced by it as working capital under mortgage security to George T. Davie and Sons, Limited. I should like to have a breakdown of the present item in order to see if any further advances, either directly or indirectly, have been made to the Davie company or its associates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This item has no reference to the Davie adjustment. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. friend that there was a recovery from the Davie item with the result that the loss to the government will be approximately $400,000 on the Chinese ship contracts. This item is to reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the cost of buying for the armed services. The earlier practice was to charge a percentage of the purchase price to cover the cost of buying but the Auditor General ruled that that was not appropriate procedure for handling sums

Supply-Trade and Commerce appropriated by parliament, and suggested that the cost should be obtained by a vote from parliament. That suggestion is being followed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then the expenses of the Department of National Defence would be lessened accordingly?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If an amount is provided to buy things for the Department of National Defence, surely that would not show in that department's estimates as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is to cover the cost of the service of buying which we thought should be charged to the Department of National Defence but which the Auditor General ruled to be a service that should be supplied by the Canadian Commercial Corporation at the expense of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is really a payment to the Canadian Commercial Corporation for services rendered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that the minister says that no advance of any kind has been made to the Davie people in Quebec since the advances reported last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true, and on the contrary there has been a recovery of about half the amount then outstanding.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want only the net figure. I want to know whether since April 1, 1949, any advance was made regardless of recoveries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Cash was advanced under the vote. In other words, parliament voted some $800,000 which was advanced to the Davie company to permit that company to complete the Chinese ships.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It had been advanced before parliament voted it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what we were talking about last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The commitments may have been made but certainly the cash was not advanced. I believe Canadian Commercial Corporation had made some advances out of its contingent fund. The total amount advanced was the amount of the vote and of that about one-half has been recovered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had better explain a little further. When we were here last year the situation as disclosed-I think
FMr. Howe.]
anyone who reads Hansard will confirm this -was that money had been spent without authority. Then they came here and the minister said, "If we pass it now, does not that conclude it?" It did conclude it; it covered up an entirely unwarranted expenditure which had been made. Regardless of what recoveries have been made I want to be sure whether further advances have been made subsequent to April 1, 1949. In other words, I want to see if you have been guilty of any more wrongdoing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that generally speaking the department has been a model of rectitude since that discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is not
generally speaking that we are talking about; it is about a particular case and the minister has not answered my question. I want to know if any further advances were made, and I do not care how much you recovered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No advances were made on that account that were not voted by parliament. I think that is what my hon. friend is getting at, is it not?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us try
again. I think if the minister will look at Hansard he will see what we were talking about last April, I think it was April 7. At that time the minister came here and disclosed that he had spent some $800,000. There was a lot of talk about legal opinions which eventually were not produced. The minister finally said, and I am bound to say he was correct: Well, anyway, if we vote it now will that not settle it? That was the argument, and when you have a government majority that is prepared to support anything that the government does they can cure it to that extent. The minister has not answered me yet. I want to know whether any further advances were made subsequent to that. The deputy will tell you. Let us know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The deputy tells me he does not know what had been spent at that time. Ii it was all spent none has been spent since, If only a part of the $800,000 was advanced up to that time, we did advance the balance of the $800,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not an answer. I am not going to hold up the item, but if we let this pass I am going tc ask the minister if before the house prorogues he will put on Hansard exactly whai happened. On that understanding I will Ie1 the estimate go; otherwise I will not. I wani an answer to this, and I have not got it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is Saturday afternoon, anc we hope the house is going to prorogue Saturday evening. We will try to get the information requested by my hon. friend.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will make the minister a sporting offer. If the house prorogues Saturday evening I will understand that he cannot put it on Hansard, but if the house does not prorogue tonight then the minister will undertake to put it on Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council-
441. Salaries and other expenses of the national research council, $8,908,969.
Mr. Green:: Can the minister tell the committee what policy is in effect as to inventions which were taken over by the government? I believe there was set up during the war an inventions board which functioned under the research council, but apparently it has now gone out of existence. I wonder if we could be told what body deals with such inventions at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Inventions are handled by the national research council under a policy that has been established within the last twelve months. My hon. friend now asks me what the policy is. I am sending for the officer who can give me that accurately. At the moment I would hesitate to tell the hon. member what the policy is.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask the minister whether officials of this department are allowed to take out patents for inventions they discover while working for the research council, then resign from the research council and go out and make millions of dollars out of the invention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the policy definitely does not permit that. Generally speaking, anything that is invented during employment by the government, that is, by a man who is receiving a full-time salary from the government, is the property of the government. What I was going to ask my officer was whether there is any provision for participation by the man. I now am told there is a provision under the policy of national research council that if a patent is sold by the council, the man whose work made the patent possible for the government is entitled to a return of 5 per cent of the gross receipts from the sale.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The official I have in mind patented this article, resigned from the council, and then went out and made millions of dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to my hon. friend that was not an official of the national research council. I think he was an official of mines and resources, was he not?


Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not know.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we are thinking of the same man, I think he was.


Heber Harold Hatfield: He was a full-time employee . of the national research council. Let us put it that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy I have just enunciated was put into effect on the first of January, 1949, and applies to inventions from that time on.


Heber Harold Hatfield: This is before that.


Howard Charles Green: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: As a gratuity.


Howard Charles Green: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The position during the war was that all inventions by men in the armed services or men employed on government payrolls, directly or indirectly, had no participation in the rewards from their inventions. The staffs were large; it was too difficult to sort out who was responsible for what. As I say, at the beginning of 1949 a new policy was instituted, which is the government policy for all departments. It applies to the national research council, the armed services and mines and resources. The policy is that all patents are taken out in the name of the
3106

Supply-Trade and Commerce crown, but if the patent is sold 5 per cent of the gross receipts from the sale go to the inventor.


Howard Charles Green: Does that apply to inventions, made before the first of January of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: There is no provision whatever to cover them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the minister to give us as frank and detached an opinion about the work of the national research council as he did about the trade fair. Of course everyone is in sympathy with research. On the other hand, there are many agencies of research throughout the country, and a thing of this kind could run wild. An increase of $3 million is quite large. I realize that it is difficult to measure results by any yardstick, but perhaps the minister would make some comment by way of assessing the work being done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the amount spent on research through the national research council is well spent, and is returned to the Canadian economy many times over. It does not take many successes to offset the total expenditure; and the national research council has experienced success in a considerable number of the projects it has undertaken. I believe the growth of industry in Canada has been greatly stimulated by the work of the council in the war years, particularly, as well as by the follow-up work in the post-war years. Canada spends less for research than most industrial countries. We are spending now about ten times as much per capita as we spent before the war, but still we are rather low in the list of industrial countries with respect to the amount per capita spent for research.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Proportionately?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Per capita.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister the figures for the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., for example, by way of comparison?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not have them here but I have seen them. I believe the United Kingdom spends more than either the United States or Canada, while the United States spends much more than Canada per capita.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
442. Expanded research on the utilization of farm crops (revote). $135,000.
Mr. Herridge:: This item is worded rather strangely: "Expanded research on the utilization of farm crops." Would the minister explain why the words "expanded research" should appear when there is a reduction of $225,000 in the amount? Would he also give the committee a brief summary of what this research is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a capital vote. The item covers the cost of completing the laboratory at Saskatoon, which was constructed in that city by the national research council in conjunction with the university of Saskatchewan.


Victor Quelch: What kind of work is being carried on? I should have thought that with the difficulty we are experiencing in connection with the marketing of our agricultural products there would have been greater need than ever for research into the utilization of farm products.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly what this item has to do with, research into the utilization of farm products. I wish my hon. friend would not always talk about the difficulty of marketing farm products.


Victor Quelch: Page the Minister of Agriculture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Even though it may be difficult, as long as we market the products there should be no complaint.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
446. Maritime regional laboratory (revote $140,000), $478,000.
Heber Harold Hatfield: Would the minister explain this vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is part of the cost of building a branch laboratory at Halifax, Nova Scotia, to work on the special problems of the maritime provinces. It is being built on the campus of Dalhousie university at Halifax.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What special problems?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The utilization of seaweed, for one, and I believe there are several others in prospect. Each region has its own local problems.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We do not get very much help in connection with potatoes. We get more help from the state of Maine than from the national research council. The university of Maine sends a man around to try and help us, but we get very little if any assistance from the national research council of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Atomic Energy Control Board-
448. Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $76,020.
Howard Charles Green: A dispatch appeared in the press yesterday concerning the talks between the United States, Canada and Great Britain on atomic energy. The last paragraph of that dispatch reads:
If the Washington view prevails, Canada and Britain will continue to expedite shipment of fission materials to atom plants in the United1 States. Specific information on atomic techniques, however, will not be exchanged for the immediate future, even on peacetime uses of atomic energy, for security reasons.
That would make it seem that the Americans are sticking to their original plan with respect to the exchange of information on the peacetime uses of atomic energy. Is that the position at the moment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The tripartite talks are continuing. They are highly secret. I cannot make any comment about them except to say that Canada is rather happy about the direction the discussion is taking at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
450. Chalk River project-capital and operating expenses, $6,056,670.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Here we have a vote of more than $6 million and there is not one word as to how it is to be expended. Is this absolutely a secret society? You would think some little detail would be given, as to whether the money is thrown away or what is done with it. I should like to know how many people are employed up there and how many of them are returned soldiers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At great expense the government sent a committee of parliamentarians to examine the whole situation at Chalk River. If my hon. friend will speak to his colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra he will be able to get full details.


Mr. Casselman:: He will not tell us anything.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say I hope the committee know more about the situation than I do, because they have been at Chalk River since I have.


Mr. Low:: I suggest that hon. members read the report which was tabled in this house on Thursday of this week. If they do so I believe they will get the full content of anything that can be revealed by the committee that went up there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
714. Census of population-further amount required, $30,300.
45781-197i
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Stanley Howard Knowles: Part of this item has to do with the decennial census of 1951. Would the minister tell us why this money must be spent in advance with respect to that census?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The expenditure has been made to improve the method of taking the census. Experts have been working on that matter, and a new method has been devised. In order to make sure the new method is workable, trial censuses are being taken in certain parts of Canada; in one of the Toronto wards, in one ward in Winnipeg, and elsewhere. I believe about $150,000 is being spent in testing the new method.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
901. Statistics-further amount required, $85,076.
Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not think the dominion bureau of statistics has a very good method of estimating the crops of this country. They do that by sending cards to Canadians all over Canada. This year they estimated the potato crop in New Brunswick at below the yield last year, when actually the yield was twice that of last year. The report from the Department of Agriculture in December reveals that we now have more potatoes in Canada than we had last year. The bureau of statistics estimated that we would have less than we had last year. I think there should be a better method of securing those figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to call the attention of the officers of the bureau of statistics to the remarks of my hon. friend. We find the same situation with regard to wheat. In some years there is a good advance estimate, but in other years the outcome is widely different from the advance estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
905. Operation and maintenance, including inspection, weighing, registration, etc.-further amount required, $18,668.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask my question with respect to the employees of the board of grain commissioners stationed at Winnipeg. The question is related to the five-day week, and particularly in the summertime. I realize that the question of a five-day week the year round for government employees is speedily becoming an issue, but for the moment I am speaking of it for the summertime.
The reason I asked the question is that last summer the civil servants thought the five-day week was to be generally applied.

Supply-Trade and Commerce The employees of the board of grain commissioners, and particularly those stationed in the railway yards in Winnipeg, were kept on a 5| or six-day week. Compared with the railway employees with whom they were associated, and compared with other government employees, that seemed to be unfair. I wrote to the civil service commissioner, and he referred my letter to the deputy minister of trade and commerce. The deputy minister of trade and commerce wrote to me setting out that the federal government had laid it down as a desirable policy, but it was left to the heads of the different departments as to whether or not it was implemented for the employees of that department.
I am rising now to publicly express the hope that, whatever happens to the five-day week for the year round, next summer when the other government employees are on the five-day week it will be applied to the employees to whom I refer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad, Mr. Chairman, to call the attention of the board of grain commissioners to the remarks of my hon. friend. The difficulty is that railway movements have to be serviced. The situation Is similar to that of the post office in Ottawa. No way has been devised as yet to put the post office employees on a five-day week, because it is a six-day service. I rather think that the same difficulty is found in regard to the employees in question. Some effort will be made to see whether or not an alternative can be worked out, or perhaps the granting of extra holiday time in lieu of that extra day per week.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
906. To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses incurred in purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, etc., on behalf of the Department of National Defence, under chapter 51 of the statutes of 1947-further amount required, $75,000.
Heber Harold Hatfield: Does this corporation handle surplus products only, or what kind of products?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This refers to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which buys for the armed services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
909. Supersonic wind tunnel building and equipment and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $30,000, $275,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Where is this famous supersonic tunnel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is located in the city of
Toronto, and is operated by the university of Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Atomic Enery Control Board-
910. Chalk River project-capital and operating expenses-further amount required, $375,000.
Howard Charles Green: This is another item relating to the atomic energy control board. The minister will have read the recommendation of the special committee on atomic energy.
Your committee has been in existence for only six weeks and in that time has been unable to complete its examination into the field of atomic energy development. Furthermore, this field is a new one, is widening rapidly, and may well be of tremendous importance to Canada. For these reasons your committee recommends that a special committee be reconstituted next session.
I think all of the members of that committee will agree with me when I say our work has been most interesting. I do not think there has ever been a finer spirit in a committee. The minister has 14 keen supporters of the Canadian atomic energy project. Can he assure us that the committee will be set up again next year, so that this work will be continued? All the members of that committee were agreed that it would be a tragedy if the work were allowed to drop now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I presume the next session will come early in the new year. I fully agree with my hon. friend that the work of the committee was splendid. I believe it had a good deal to do with raising the spirits of the staff at Chalk River. It occurs to me that a similar committee might be set up to look into all the work of the national research council, including atomic energy. I am not promising that, but such a proposal could be considered next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Since when is the Minister of Trade and Commerce responsible for veterans affairs? The chairman has been calling veterans affairs items.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I understand that those items you have just called were for the Department of Veterans Affairs. If that is correct, we cannot agree to passing them without having the minister here.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: If they were veterans affairs items, I think we should allow them to stand.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Are we on item 936?


Alphonse Fournier: No, that has been passed.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question on 936, I believe he should be permitted to do so because there was some confusion in the items called.
936. To provide for the purchase and storage of, and incidental expenses in connection with strategic reserves of materials, $1,293,375.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will the minister explain the purpose of this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canadian Commercial was
instructed to purchase a certain supply of tin and antimony, which materials are obtainable only in the Far East. We have acquired stocks of those two materials, and this item is to reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for that purchase.


Howard Charles Green: Was that only the one purchase, or is this to be a continuing policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We accept the advice of the armed services on that point. No purchases have been made since the original purchase of tin and antimony.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
327. Branch administration, $373,105.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to make a few brief remarks on this item of administration. The officials in British Columbia have an exceedingly large area to cover in proportion to their number, and are obliged to do a great deal of travelling. I am now expressing the comments made by a good many people in my own constituency and throughout British Columbia when I say that' the Department of Public Works is at the present time understaffed with engineers and senior officials.
I also wish to convey to the minister's officials the appreciation of many in my constituency, particularly those who have had to do with the supervision and building of wharves and docks. I would make particular mention of the most effective work that has been done by the captain of the dredge on the Arrow lakes in the last year or two. That is greatly appreciated by the people along the lakes, because it makes it possible for the steamer to run longer than it has run for some years; and the running of that steamer is important to many of those people. I should also like to express the appreciation of the people living in the Laredo district for the removal of jams in the Duncan river. While a small amount of money has been spent on that work, I have been informed by a good number of people that the work has been done most efficiently and to the great advantage of those residing in the district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
329.	Maintenance and operation of dominion pubic buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, ncluding rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., and o authorize commitments against future years in ;he amount of $500,000. $11,289,644.
Supply-Public Works
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Items 328 and 329 might be grouped together. About $20 million is being voted there. Is any of that money for new construction or is it for rent and repairs?


Alphonse Fournier: No. These votes are for administration and maintenance; they are not for new works. They are for the maintenance and repairs on our architects' works in the different districts, Ottawa and outside Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Nova Scotia-
330.	Dartmouth public building-addition and alterations (revote $15,000), $39,000.
Dominion-public building-(revote), $25,000.
Halifax-accommodation for customs (revote), $100,000.
Halifax-customs building - improvements and elevator (revote $21,000), $25,000.
Halifax-postal station at Armdale (revote), $43,000.
Halifax-office building, $150,000.
Kentvilie public building-addition and alterations, $15,000.
Kingston-public building (revote $23,000), $53,500.
Mr. Gillis:: I want to ask the minister about this $25,000 for construction of a dominion public building. Is that the building we discussed last year and that was supposed to be utilized for a post office in the town of Dominion, Nova Scotia?


Alphonse Fournier: That is correct. I am informed that we have purchased the site to date and that the plans and specifications are being prepared in the office here in Ottawa.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is that for a post office only?


Alphonse Fournier: In Dominion it is a post office, I understand.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It is not a public building? It is a post office, is it?


Alphonse Fournier: It is a post office.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How does Dominion get a post office, with a revenue of $3,000?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps the case put up by the hon. member for Cape Breton South was a strong one, because it was approved by my officials.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I have a stronger case than that.


Alphonse Fournier: If as good a case is made for Woodstock, probably they will get one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick-
331.	Andover-customs and immigration buildings (revote $40,000), $100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
Fredericton-public building-site and preliminary work towards construction of building (revote $73,500), $150,000.
Moncton public building-addition and alterations (revote $50,000), $150,000.
North Head public building-addition and alterations (revote $25,000), $32,000.
Sackville public building-addition and alterations, $10,000.
Saint John public building-addition and alterations, $500,000.
St. Leonard-customs and immigration buildings (revote $50,000), $100,000.
St. Stephen-public building-(revote $20,000), $50,000.	.
Sussex public building-addition and fittings (revote $27,000), $35,000.
West Saint John-terminal building for customs and immigration (revote $200,000), $675,000.
Heber Harold Hatfield: When is the minister going to comply with the recommendation made on May 6 by the Post Office Department to his department to build a new post office building in the town of Woodstock?


Alphonse Fournier: Ever since the request was made by the hon. member, and approved by the Post Office Department, it has been taken into serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-
332.	Charlottetown - public building (revote $100,000), $150,000.
Summerside-public building (revote $50,000),
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I see a vote here for a new building in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and the amount is $150,000. Is there anything in the supplementaries? It will be a poor looking dominion building, at $150,000. I thought there would be about $1,500,000 in the estimates.


Alphonse Fournier: This building is
estimated to cost $800,000, but we cannot spend more than the amount of $150,000 in this fiscal year.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The other $800,000 has not been voted yet?


Alphonse Fournier: I am giving my hon. friend the estimate we have in the department for that proposed building in Charlottetown. There is another $50,000 for that building in the supplementary estimates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I know that. What properties have been secured for the site of this building? Have any prices been agreed on or have the properties just been taken without any price being agreed on? It has been difficult to get any information for those who are making inquiries, and I thought this might be a time when I could get it.


Alphonse Fournier: The site selected for the proposed building is a city block bounded by Richmond, Queen, Sydney and Pownal
fMr. Fournier (Hull).l
streets. I understand that we have taken expropriation proceedings; not long ago, I believe, we made settlements with some of the owners of these properties, but we have not completed the negotiations as to the entire site.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When will the contract be let for that building?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that next spring we will be ready to call for tenders.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will public tenders be called for?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, absolutely; and the lowest tender, if it is regular, will get the contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-
335. Barrie-public building (revote), $80,000.
Belleville - public	building	(revote	$52,000),
[Stage Direction]
Brantford public	building-elevator	(revote).
[Stage Direction]
Chapleau-public building (revote $25,000), $91,500.
Chatham-public	building	(revote	$50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Cornwall-public	building	(revote	$50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Delhi-public building (revote $25,000), $120,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $100,000, $900,000.
Dundas public building-addition and alterations (revote $20,000), $40,000.
Fergus public building-addition and alterations (revote $29,000), $55,000.
Fort Erie customs building-addition and alterations (revote $50,000), $75,000.
Geraldton-public	building (revote $24,500),
[Stage Direction]
Hamilton-office building (revote $100,000), $300,000.
Little Current-public building (revote $50,000), $142,500.
Ottawa-additions to mines and resources sites on Booth and Le Breton streets (revote $33,000), $200,000.
Ottawa-building for Department of Veterans Affairs (revote $100,000), $300,000.
Ottawa-central experimental farm-accommodation for staff (revote $6,500), $10,000.
Ottawa-central experimental farm-insecticide building, $35,000.
Ottawa-departmental office building (revote $175,000), $350,000.
Ottawa-east block-improvements, $200,000.
Ottawa-fuel research laboratory-alterations and improvements (revote), $50,000.
Ottawa-improvements to heating in Woods and Canadian buildings (revote $70,000), $85,000.
Ottawa-laboratory accommodation for Department of Mines and Resources, $110,000.
Ottawa-toward accommodation for Department of Mines and Resources, $50,000.
Ottawa-new supreme court building-rehabilitation, completion and furnishing (revote), $200,000.
Ottawa-records storage building-alterations and improvements, $340,000.
Ottawa-testing laboratory for Department of Public Works (revote $50,000), $223,000.
Pelee island-building for Department of National Revenue (revote $5,000), $16,000.﻿DECEMBER 10, 1949
Pembroke-public	building (revote $25,000),
[Stage Direction]
Peterborough-public building (revote $50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Picton public building-addition and alterations (revote), $25,000.
Port Arthur public building-purchase of site (revote), $50,000.
Port Colborne public building-addition and alterations (revote), $26,000.
Sault Ste. Marie-public building, $265,000.
Sudbury-public building site (revote), $165,000.
Tecumseh-public building (revote $31,000), $35,000.
Toronto-city delivery building-extension, restoration, mechanical equipment and addition to site (revote $150,000), $300,000.
Toronto-postal station on St. Clair avenue (revote $85,000), $125,000.
Toronto-postal station "E" (revote $30,000),
[Stage Direction]
Welland public building-addition, fittings and improvements (revote $50,000), $250,000.
Frank Exton Lennard: I am not going to repeat myself. I merely wish to draw the minister's attention to what I said on the Postmaster General's estimates in connection with the Dundas public building.


Alphonse Fournier: I will ask my officials to look into the statement made by the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba-
336.	Brandon public building-addition and alterations (revote), $30,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $50,000, $205,000.
Flin Flon-public building (revote $100,000), $184,000.
Grandview-public building (revote), $49,000.
Pine Falls-public building (revote $35,000), $40,000.
Winnipeg-postal accommodation at Canadian National Railways station (revote $75,000), $100,000.
Winnipeg-public building-site (revote), $150,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The last item in this group is $150,000, a revote for a public building site. Is that the site for the new post office building in Winnipeg?


Alphonse Fournier: That is right.
Mr Knowles: Has any money been appropriated yet for any other purpose in connection with that building?


Alphonse Fournier: We have under expropriation some property in this site; there are sixteen properties comprised in it. Valuation was made for the department by Mr. H. R. Veals, real estate, November, 1947. Mr. Veals valued the properties at approximately $317,770. At the time these estimates were prepared it was anticipated that settlement for nine of the properties would be made through negotiations with the former owners. It was anticipated that settlement on the remaining seven would be made through the exchequer court. We will continue the expropriation proceedings.
Supply-Public Works


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have those proceedings been completed yet?


Alphonse Fournier: Not to date. I understand that the cases have come before the exchequer court but that judgment has not been rendered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell me what arrangements have been made in connection with plans for the building? The next question would be whether tenders have been prepared yet.


Alphonse Fournier: On July 6, 1949, the firm of Green, Blankstein, Russell and Associates, architects and engineers at Winnipeg, were engaged to prepare the plans and specifications for this building.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those plans have not been returned to the department yet?


Alphonse Fournier: They are not completed yet.
Mr Knowles: Can the minister give any indication as to when construction of that building might be commenced?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that we will be ready to ask for tenders in June or July next.


Mr. Isnor:: The minister will recall that I carried on considerable correspondence with him concerning two post offices. Will he advise the committee if he has decided yet to call for tenders in connection with the post offices buildings at Armdale and Bedford?


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as plans and specifications are ready we will call for tenders.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-
339. Abbotsford-public building, $91,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $50,000, $400,000.
Douglas-buildings for customs and immigration (revote) $120,000.
Haney-public building (revote $47,000) $132,000.
Huntingdon-buildings for customs and immigration, $10,000.
Kingsgate-customs and immigration building (revote) $100,000.
Ladner-public building, $80,000.
Langley Prairie public building (revote $75,000) $129,000.
Nanaimo-public building, $50,000.
North Vancouver-postal station, $225,000.
Ocean Falls-public building (revote $40,000) $75,000.
Osoyoos-customs and immigration buildings (revote $40,000) $100,000.
Smithers-public building (revote) $25,000.
Vancouver-Alvin Estates	building-purchase,
alterations and extension (revote $800,000) $1,100,000.
Vancouver-Begg building-purchase, alterations and extension (revote $380,000) $620,000.
Vancouver-post office building site (revote $250,000), $350,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
Vancouver-addition and alterations to postal station at Sea Island airport, $17,000.
Vancouver-building for customs, $100,000
Victoria-public building (revote $50,000), $350,000.
White Rock-public building (revote $25,000), $65,000.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister about two buildings, one of which is known as the Alvin estates building and the other as the Begg building, both in Vancouver, and also about the proposed new post office building for Vancouver.
I would refer first to the Alvin estates building, where the office of the unemployment insurance commission is located. From whom was the building purchased and at what cost?


Alphonse Fournier: The cost will be $862,155. Additional work had to be done to the extent of $200,950. The estimated cost will be $1,100,000. This will be a federal building, and we are going to purchase it.


Howard Charles Green: From whom was it bought?


Alphonse Fournier: The Alvin estates. I do not know just who they are.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the minister knows from whom this property has been bought?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know many people out there.


Howard Charles Green: Has not the minister any note of the name of the company from whom it was purchased?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that the deal was between the department and Allan and Viner, builders, in Vancouver. That would be the firm.


Howard Charles Green: Is this sum of $1,100,000 being paid to Allan and Viner, contractors?


Alphonse Fournier: My deputy tells me that is so.


Howard Charles Green: Is this the total amount to be involved, or is something more than this $1,100,000 to be paid?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told this is the whole amount for the purchase of the building. At one time we had no space for the unemployment insurance commission. We tried to secure the national defence building, but did not succeed. Then we entered into a contract with these people to put up a building at a stated rental per year, and we have the option of purchasing it after one year's occupancy.	We have decided to
purchase the building.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister table the agreement between his department and this construction firm?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. That would be the order in council passed when we undertook to buy the building. There was a clause giving us the option of purchasing.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister table in the house a copy of that agreement?


Alphonse Fournier: If we do not prorogue, we shall; if we do prorogue I shall have a copy of the order in council sent to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: I bring this point up because I think this is a very wasteful way of constructing a building. I understand the picture is this: Certain parties who are pretty friendly to the government got the property first. I believe the price paid originally for the property-that is, the land-was about $45,000. I am not clear whether they bought the land outright or just took it on option. Then this company, the Alvin Estates Limited, was formed; and Allan and Viner, who are the contractors, I believe are two of the men in the company.
Then they transferred the property to the company. Debentures were issued to the amount of $650,000. I think those debentures are held by the same individuals who had the company incorporated. At first they had a very good lease from the department containing the right of the department to purchase. Then the department exercised that right to purchase the building at a total cost, we are told, of $1,100,000.
It is hard to understand why the department did not simply buy the land and erect a building, calling for tenders in the ordinary way instead of going around the corner and dealing with friends, as would appear to have been done in this case. I am afraid the result is that this building has cost a great deal more than if it had been constructed in the ordinary way and if competitive bids had been called. Can the minister say why this roundabout policy has been followed?


Alphonse Fournier: The explanation I have is that at one time the unemployment insurance branch lacked space in Vancouver. We sent out our Mr. Mills to make an inquiry into conditions and he could not find any space in Vancouver at that time. To have put up a first-class building, such as we would have put up in Vancouver, would have taken more time than the securing of this building. A note I have here states that no office buildings for rentals have been constructed in Vancouver since 1939, and that in view of the extremely rapid growth of the city there is no available office space in the locality In March of 1948 Alvin Estates Limited offered to construct a four-storey building and to rent

it to the department on a ten-year lease at a rental of $96,000 a year. There was no available space in the city when this deal was made. We were pressed by the unemployment insurance people who required space for their administration. The offer also included the option to purchase by the department after one year's occupancy. We think it is cheaper to become the owners of the building than to continue to pay rent. During the war and for the last two or three years we have been hard-pressed for building space. In many cases time was of the essence. I am thinking of one case that was settled only two weeks ago at the request of some hon. members.


Howard Charles Green: Why does not the department purchase land through a real estate firm in the way that an ordinary company would instead of making these payments to friends of the government who have property?


Alphonse Fournier: In normal times I agree that what the hon. member is saying would be the correct thing, that if we had time it would be better to acquire these buildings. The hon. gentleman has been here a long time and he knows that during the war I did not have any estimates for the construction of buildings. For a number of years after the war we were told that we should let materials and labour go for private housing which was in short supply.


Howard Charles Green: This deal was made last year. Is the department still carrying on in that way?


Alphonse Fournier: In certain cases; in extraordinary cases. The unemployment insurance had to vacate the old Vancouver hotel and we tried to get space in the armouries from national defence but they would not release it. We had a man stationed there who was trying to make some sort of a deal so that unemployment insurance would not be out on the street. I agree that except in these extraordinary circumstances we should construct buildings.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think the department gets space any more quickly with a deal of this kind than by buying the land and building.


Alphonse Fournier: I have another case in Vancouver where we have been trying to get a site for three years.


Howard Charles Green: What it all adds up to is that some friend of the government gets a nice bit of money out of this deal. It is a most inefficient way of handling the matter.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not admit that. A man coming to Ottawa may find it most
Supply-Public Works difficult to get an apartment and in order to get one he will do things that he would not do in normal times.


Mr. Mitchell:: I have looked at that building and I would say it is the best laid out unemployment office in North America.


Howard Charles Green: It ought to be for the money.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the kind of mind my hon. friend has indicated he has this afternoon; I still think most people are decent.


Howard Charles Green: I object to that. Simply because a member points out how money has been wasted-


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: Simply because a member points out that a method of acquiring a building has not been businesslike the Minister of Labour gets up and says that the member who makes that suggestion is not doing it in a decent way. I am not going to bother to ask the minister to withdraw that because his statement is just ridiculous.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that. This is not a police court; this is the House of Commons.


Howard Charles Green: Then do not speak as though you were in a police court.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member always talks as though he were in a police court.


Howard Charles Green: I must object to that remark and ask that it be withdrawn.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will withdraw it. All I want to say is-


Howard Charles Green: Be careful that you do not make another remark.


Humphrey Mitchell: -that I think most people are decent, even my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Coming now to the Begg building. Can the minister tell us who has been getting the money in that case and how much it is going to cost?


Alphonse Fournier: This building was purchased from Mr. Begg, the owner. This is another case where we were pressed for space in Vancouver. The hon. member knows the situation out there better than I. Our man was looking over the city and these two buildings were submitted to my colleagues who wanted space and they agreed that they would be appropriate buildings for their purposes. I am told that this building cost $1.06 per cubic foot whereas the buildings we put up vary in cost from $1.25 to $1.30 per cubic foot.


Howard Charles Green: What is the cost of the Begg building?
3114

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: The building is being renovated and two storeys added and I am informed the total cost of the contract will be $1,050,000.


Howard Charles Green: The item on page 52 is for $620,000; there was a vote for $1,060,000 last year, of which $380,000 was not spent. According to my figuring that makes the cost $1,300,000.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that the cost will be $1,050,000.


Howard Charles Green: There is also a supplementary item for $200,000.


Alphonse Fournier: There is one item for $620,000; a revote of $380,000; one for $200,000.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the total cost?


Alphonse Fournier: That is more than the total cost of the contract, which I am told will be $1,050,000.


Howard Charles Green: To whom is that money being paid?


Alphonse Fournier: An amount of $375,000 is being paid to Mr. Begg, the owner of the building, and the balance is the contract for the renovating and construction.


Howard Charles Green: An amount of $375,000 is being paid to the owner. How much was paid to the contractors for remodelling?


Alphonse Fournier: The amount paid to the contractors is $1,050,000, and to the owners of the building, $375,000.


Howard Charles Green: How much is that?


Alphonse Fournier: $1,425,000; I am just adding the two figures.


Howard Charles Green: To what contractors was that money paid, the same people that built the Alvin estates building?


Alphonse Fournier: That is what I am told. It is Allan and Viner.


Howard Charles Green: They are getting $1,050,000.


Alphonse Fournier: They are getting $1,050,000 to put up a building or complete it, but it is not a gift. We have a contract with them, and they are getting the amount for delivering the goods.


Howard Charles Green: Were any tenders called for this remodelling?


Alphonse Fournier: No, I am told not.


Howard Charles Green: There were no tenders?


Alphonse Fournier: No. The reason would be the urgency for the building.


Howard Charles Green: Pardon?


Alphonse Fournier: The urgency for the building. It was an alteration job. It was not a new job except for the two storeys that were added to it.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the minister that what was done here was to take an automobile show building or warehouse, which was not constructed in the first place for an office building at all-it had no facilities for a large staff-and then add two storeys to it.


Mr. McCann:: There was an addition besides that.


Howard Charles Green: That was done without calling for any competitive bids. The same firm, Allan and Viner Construction Company Limited, apparently got the work. Did they get it on a cost plus basis?


Alphonse Fournier: The fixed fee was $25,000.


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Alphonse Fournier: The fixed fee for the
erection of these two storeys and making alterations was $25,000.


Howard Charles Green: Was there a contract?


Alphonse Fournier: There must be a contract. We would not go into a deal like this without a contract.


Howard Charles Green: The minister and the departmental officials will know whether there was a contract.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told there is a contract.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister table it?


Alphonse Fournier: I will send a copy to my hon. friend because if the session prorogues I do not see how I shall have time to table it.


Howard Charles Green: I am advised that a well-known office building in Vancouver, the Vancouver block, could have been purchased for under $1 million.


Alphonse Fournier: My officers tell me that when our people were out there they could not find space to buy or rent within a distance of ten miles from Vancouver. Do not think we went into these deals because it was pleasant. The taxation division of the Department of National Revenue needed these offices if they were to collect the money owing there. Officials of the unemployment insurance division had to meet the public. The Department of Public Works had to provide the space to do that work. We were under pressure from all departments, and one of the most reliable men of the department, Mr. Mills, an architect, was specially sent to Vancouver to try to find space. I recall the discussions I had with my deputy, and it

was because of Mr. Mills' reports that I agreed to these deals, which are not the normal way of proceeding so far as public works are concerned. I admit that.


Howard Charles Green: I hope that no more deals of this kind will be put through by the department, and that they will stop handing all these contracts to Allan and Viner.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know these people at all. I have heard of the Alvin building. If I gave you Mr. Mills' reports on the whole matter, after reading them you will be convinced, I believe, there was no other way to provide space for the Department of National Revenue or the unemployment insurance branch.


Howard Charles Green: There is a vote for a Vancouver post office building of $350,000, of which $250,000 is a revote. In the supplementaries there is also a vote of $550,000. Can the minister tell us how much money is available now for this new post office, and when it is axpected that work will be commenced on it? Two or three months ago press dispatches ndicated that nothing would be done for several years. I have a clipping from the Vancouver Sun of August 18, the heading >f which is:
Five year delay for new post office.
Can the minister answer those two ques-;ions, first as to how much is available, and second, when the work will begin?


Alphonse Fournier: The first votes are for the acquisition of the site. The site is the city nlock bounded by Georgia, Homer, Dunsmuir ind Hamilton streets. It was selected after consultation with the Post Office Department, ;he Vancouver city council, town planning commissions and various business interests. Practically the whole of the site is occupied ay very old houses. It is comprised of forty-ive individual parcels owned by nineteen >eparate owners. The total assessed value imounts to $213,800. Valuations of the croperty were prepared for the department cy Mr. Howard Foster and Mr. Alan Ker. Vlr. Howard Foster's valuation was $582,500 md Mr. Alan Ker's valuation was $540,650. ^n order in council dated November 3, 1948, granted authority to expropriate the proper-ies, and I understand that expropriation proceedings are now before the court. As to he delay of five years in erecting that post iffice building in Vancouver, I may say that s not the intention of the government or the iepartment. The moment we have the site ve will have a firm of architect's appointed o prepare plans and specifications.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us when t is expected that the building will be ompleted?
45781-198J
Supply-Public Works


Mr, Fournier (Hull):: Oh, I should not like to make a guess because you would catch me when my estimates came up in some future year.


Mr. Sinclair:: I should like to ask the minister a similar question about the North Vancouver post office for which there is a further item of $225,000. I should like to know when this splendid building he is now constructing will be completed, and whether further money will be required for the purpose.


Alphonse Fournier: It is under construction. I do not know exactly when it will be completed, but we will see that estimates are brought before the house to enable us to finish it.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding the Osoyoos customs building. Has the contract been let for that building? I understand also that additions are to be made to the post office in Penticton. Are any provisions made for that?


Alphonse Fournier: I understand there is an amount of $45,000 in the supplementary estimates for the Penticton building.


Owen Lewis Jones: But what about Osoyoos?


Alphonse Fournier: There is an amount of $100,000 for that building.


Owen Lewis Jones: But has the contract been let?


Alphonse Fournier: We are proceeding with the acquisition of the site, but the contract has not been let yet. I am not sure just where the matter stands at the moment.


Owen Lewis Jones: The minister has no idea
whether it will be proceeded with forthwith?


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as the plans and specifications are ready we shall ask for tenders.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and operation of roads and bridges-
363. Burlington channel bridge. $56,970.
Frank Exton Lennard: Would the minister tell me whether his department has approached the Ontario department of highways asking their co-operation in the development of some other method of crossing that channel?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that to date no such negotiations have been entered into.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am very pleased to hear that, because during the last election campaign I was accused-


Alphonse Fournier: Not by the Minister of Public Works.

Supply-Public Works Mr. Lennard: I was accused by one of the other candidates during the last election campaign of having blocked such negotiations. That, of course, was ridiculous, but I wanted to clear it up right here; and I am very glad to have that statement by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
[Stage Direction]
371. Amethyst harbour-wharf, $11,000.
Belleville-harbour improvements, $23,000.
Britt-wharf (revote $8,600), $12,000.
Brockville-breakwater reconstruction (revote), $98,000.
Burditt lake (Clearwater lake)-wharf, $8,000.
Byng inlet-wharf (revote), $7,300.
Charlton-wharf, $5,400.
Christian island-wharf extension (revote .$10,300), $12,000.
Cockburn island-reconstruction of harbour works (revote $56,000), $61,000.
Collingwood - harbour reconstruction and improvements (revote $100,000), $265,000.
Dawson's Point (New Liskeard)-wharf, $7,000.
Dryden-wharf (revote), $10,000.
Fort William-dredging (revote $60,000), $486,000.
Fort William-wharf, $35,000.
Goderich-redredging and repairs to harbour works (revote $30,000), $148,000,
Gore bay-wharf extension, $39,000.
Hamilton - harbour improvements (revote $630,000). $1,000,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $75,000, $350,000.
Honora-wharf replacement (revote $3,500), $8,000.
Island Grove-wharf (revote), $23,000.
Lion's Head-wharf repairs, $25,000.
Macdiarmid-breakwater replacement, $25,000.
Matachewan-wharf, $6,000.
Meaford-repairs to harbour wall, $30,000.
Michipicoten-dredging, $80,000.
Midland to Parry Sound-towards dredging inside channel (revote $152,000), $162,000.
Millhaven-wharf enlargement, $21,000.
New Liskeard-breakwater-wharf, $8,000.
Nipigon-wharf extension and dredging (revote), $57,000.
Oshawa-redredging, $150,000.
Ottawa (Rideau river)-repairs to walls (revote $56,400), $59,000.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements (revote), $105,000.
Pelee island-wharf reconstruction (revote $50,000), $80,000.
Penetanguishene-harbour improvements (revote $22,000), $35,000.
Port Arthur-dredging (revote $160,000), $165,000.
Port Arthur-breakwater, $500,000.
Port Bruce-reconstruction of pier (revote $38,000) $65,000.
Port Burwell-reconstruction of pier (revote $24,000), $325,000.
Port Colbome-breakwater repairs (revote $24,000), $85,000.
Port Dover-repairs to west pier, $51,000.
Port Lambton-harbour improvements, $35,000.
Port Maitland-repairs to harbour works, $35,000.
Portsmouth-wharf reconstruction, $96,000.
Port Stanley-towards pier reconstruction, $100,000.
Salmon Point-breakwater extension (revote $17,100), $23,000.
Sand Point-wharf repairs (revote $39,000), $43,000.
Sioux Narrows-wharf, $9,000.
South Baymouth-harbour improvements (revote $52,000), $65,000.
[Mr. Fournier (Hull).1
Squaw bay-wharf replacement, $19,000.
Stella (Amherst island)-wharf enlargement,
[Stage Direction]
Stokes bay-wharf repairs, $29,000.
Tobermory-warehouse and lighting on wharf, $14,000.
Toronto-harbour maintenance (revote $15,000), $59,000.
Toronto-harbour improvements (revote $310,000), $560,000.
Trenton-wharf extension, $20,000.
Wallaceburg-extension to wharf and warehouse (revote $31,500), $38,000.
Waupoos-Waupoos island-wharves, $17,600.
Wheatley (Muddy creek)-fishing harbour (revote $37,000), $80,000.
Whitby-repairs to harbour works (revote), $50,000.
Ralph Melville Warren: I want to say a word on this item. We want a bridge. I think the minister has heard about this bridge before. We want that bridge across the Ottawa river, about four miles east of Pembroke. This is a very modest request, but the matter is urgent; it has been urgent and necessary for the last fifty years, but still the bridge has not been built. I know the plans and blueprints are all ready, and I know the minister will tell me that he must wait until either Quebec or Ontario requests that the bridge be built. I am going to make a suggestion, and I hope the minister will listen. If the provinces hesitate or refuse to approach the federal government, will the minister not consider approaching the public works departments of either Ontario or Quebec, or both, asking them to meet here to consult with respect to this bridge?
The matter is urgent for many reasons. It is important in connection with the tourist traffic. It is important with respect to the health of our people, who for weeks in the spring and fall of the year cannot get to hospital without going four or five hundred miles out of their way, because of blocked roads. We want that bridge and we want it soon; we should have had it years ago. If the minister would just take the bit in his teeth and request the co-operation of Ontario and Quebec we probably would get the bridge. We would like it to be built at once; it is badly needed, and under any circumstances, give us a bridge.


Alphonse Fournier: As the hon. member says, this matter has been mentioned before; but I have never heard of a project of this kind which met with the approval of everyone. It is a matter of time, to see whether the various authorities interested in this project can get together. I can say this, however; that if this government received a letter from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec saying they were ready to contribute to the cost of constructing this bridge, I have the assurance of my colleagues that such a

request would be favourably considered. But, while everyone is thinking of this fine new bridge over the Ottawa river, we have not received such a request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia and Yukon-
374. Alert bay-wharf, $79,000.
Arrow Park west-wharf reconstruction, $24,000.
Balmoral-wharf (revote), $14,000.
Bear river, Bedwell sound-float, $7,000.
Beaton-wharf reconstruction, $20,000.
Bella Coola-scow grid and loading platform, $26,000.
Blubber Bay-wharf reconstruction, $51,000.
Bull harbour (Hope island)-float, $8,000.
Campbell river-fishing harbour (revote $100,000), $275,000.
Campbell river-wharf replacement (revote), $77,000.
Chemainus-harbour	improvements (revote),
[Stage Direction]
Comox-wharf replacement (revote $100,000), $132,000.
Davis bay (Wilson creek)-breakwater and float (revote), $17,000.
Dodge Cove, Digby island-wharf, $23,000.
Fraser river-towards improvements (revote), $605,000.
Fraser river (Kirkland island)-replacement and extension of channel protection (revote $13,000), $200,000.
Fraser river and Vancouver harbour-dredging (revote $82,000), $525,000.
Gambler island (Camp Georgia)-wharf (revote), $24,000.
Half Moon bay-wharf repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Harbour and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $75,000, $425,000.
Lewes river, Yukon-towards taking over, reconstructing and maintaining dam (revote), $37,000.
Lyall harbour-wharf repairs and improvements, $13,000.
Nanaimo-dredging (revote $60,000), $593,000.
Nanoose bay-breakwater, $88,000.
New Westminster-wharf reconstruction and improvements (revote $125,000), $176,000.
Okanagan flood control project-towards dominion government's share of cost (revote $25,000), $500,000.
Port Alberni-dredging (revote $40,000), $85,000.
Port Alberni-harbour improvements (revote $376,000), $460,000.
Port Clements-wharf repairs (revote), $38,000.
Prince Rupert-roadway and renewal of fishermen's floats (revote), $72,000.
Prince Rupert (Fairview bay)-breakwater (revote $75,000), $250,000.
Qualicum beach (French creek)-boat harbour, $75,000.
Robert's Creek-wharf repairs and improvements (revote), $54,000.
Ruskin-wharf replacement (revote), $8,000.
Sandspit-wharf renewal (revote), $75,000.
Sechelt-wharf repairs and improvements (revote), $56,000.
Shawnigan lake-wharf and floats, $15,000.
Snug cove-floats, $8,000.
Sointula-breakwater and floats, $62,000.
Squamish-wharf	repairs and improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Stewart-wharf repairs (revote), $50,000.
Tofino-harbour repairs and improvements (revote $20,000), $34,000.
Trail-landing (revote), $8,000.
Ucluelet west-improvements, $20,000.
Supply-Public Works
Vananda-wharf replacement (revote), $57,000.
Victoria-dredging-(revote $121,000), $165,000.
Zeballos-wharf replacement, $124,000.
John Ewen Sinclair: I want to say a word or two on this item. The hon. member for Kootenay West, speaking a few moments ago, mentioned that the engineering offices in British Columbia are very much understaffed. The district engineer himself is a very able man, but the list of projects included under this item is visible proof that the staff in that province is not adequate, because almost every second item is a revote. One item in my own riding, a small breakwater at Davis bay, has now appeared in the estimates for the third time. The amount involved is only $17,000; the men at any of the logging plants, in the vicinity could throw it up in a week without plans, but because of the lack of staff to prepare plans we have had this as a revote for three years.
I suppose I should not complain, since almost one-third of the items in this list are in my riding, but there is a great difference between having an item in the estimates and actually getting the work done. My first request is that the minister take every possible step to see that the New Westminster office is brought up to full strength. Then in connection with the vote for Robert's Creek, for which $54,000 is provided in the main estimates and a further $100,000 in the supplementary estimates, this is one project that certainly should not become a revote. During the recent storms a month ago the work done by the department so far was completely washed away; so I would urge that this money be spent before March 31. It is even more important, I think, that the $100,000 for the assembly dock at Squamish, which was promised in connection with the extension of the P.G.E., be spent and the work begun.
So I urge the minister to see that the civil service commission brings his staff at New Westminster up to strength so that next year we will not have this long list of revotes instead of the finished public works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Newfoundland-
705. Dominion public buildings -* construction, purchase, repairs and improvements, $750,000.
George Alexander Drew: On item 705, I wish to raise a question with the minister. The member for St. John's East has asked me to take this matter up for him. This item is related to the construction, repair and improvement of public buildings in Newfoundland. On November 21, in a reply contained in sessional paper No. 92A, the Department of Public Works listed the repairs and other public works

Supply-Public Works projects which were under way in Newfoundland. The first question related to work projects dealing with harbours or rivers generally, undertaken in Newfoundland since April 1, 1949. In answering, the figures are given for the different constituencies, as to the works now under way. In St. John's West the total is $7,500; St. John's East, $9,000; Burin-Burgeo, $47,100; Bonavista-Twillingate, $55,100; Grand Falls-White Bay, $12,700; Humber-St. George's, $10,000; Trinity-Conception, $38,150. It will be noticed that the figures for the constituencies outside the two St. John's constituencies are for large sums, except in the case of Grand Falls-White Bay, and in that case also the sum is larger than that for the St. John's constituencies.
Then, with regard to the question of minor day-labour works undertaken since April 1, 1949, we find that what is being spent in the two St. John's constituencies is quite small when compared with the amounts spent in the other constituencies. I point this out, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to ask the minister if he has some explanation in regard to this. It will be noted that St. John's East and St. John's West are not limited to the turban areas of St. John's, but include a number of ports that are important. There are also requirements for public works in the city of St. John's itself, which is a large city. Will the minister explain the large sums spent in the constituencies which happened to have supported the government candidates, and the small payments in those constituencies which failed to do so?


Alphonse Fournier: I fail to follow the trend of reasoning-


George Alexander Drew: It is just a peculiar coincidence.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not even say that. Newfoundland came into confederation on March 31. No staff of the public works department was available in Newfoundland, and we did not have much knowledge of the island. From the head office we sent one of our young engineers, who has a good reputation in the department, Mr. Millar, and several employees of the department, to make a report on the minor works that could be carried out this fall on the island. The list that was given in answer to the return is a list that was submitted to the department by the engineering staff in Newfoundland.
I had not noticed the details on it, but one day one of the members for St. John's spoke to me and said it was on a political basis. I said if it was it had been made by some civil servant because I had not been down there since Newfoundland joined confederation. I have noticed that the two St. John's ridings have received less than the others, according

to this list. After my attention was called to it by the member for St. John's West, I made up my mind that in any other list that was brought to my attention, if the need was there, money would be provided for those projects.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to pursue the matter beyond the fact that I do find the minister's innocence as to the details very touching. I feel quite sure that those living in the St. John's district, which of course includes the different ports as well as the city, will be greatly assured by the statement of the minister that, before any further undertakings are embarked upon, he will ascertain what their needs are.
I raise the question on behalf of one of the members for St. John's, in view of the somewhat interesting statement that was made by a rather prominent man in Newfoundland not long ago, that those who did not vote for the government in power might not find the results too satisfactory. I hope that this is strictly a coincidence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Nova Scotia-[DOT]
858. Barrington passage-public building, $25,000.
Dartmouth public building-addition and alterations-further amount required to complete, $42,000.
Dingwall-accommodation for customs, $9,000.
Dominion-public building-further amount required to complete. $15,000.
Halifax-eastern air command buildings-altera* tions, improvements and repairs - to complete (revote $45,000), $97,500.
Halifax-customs building - improvements and elevator-further amount l-equired to complete, $15,000.
Halifax - federal building - improvements and repairs (revote $17,400), $65,000.
Halifax-postal station at north end-to complete (revote $6,000), $13,500.
Kentville public building-addition and alterations-further amount required to complete, $7,000.
Liverpool-public building, $25,000.
Pictou public building - improvements and repairs, $32,500.
Shelburne public building-improvements and repairs, $30,000.
Sydney public building - improvements and repairs, $26,000.
Truro-public building, $50,000.
Wolfville public building - improvements and repairs, $30,000.
Yarmouth-public building, $25,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the money allotted to Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia, will the minister say whether it is for construction, repairs or improvements.


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is to provide for the purchase of a site for the erection of a public building for customs, fisheries, post office and the R.C.M.P. at Barrington Passage. The construction of the

proposed building was strongly recommended by the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-
866. Duncan public building-addition and alterations, $27,000.
Langley Prairie-public building-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
New Westminster public building-addition, alterations and improvements, $100,000.
North Vancouver-postal station-further amount required to complete, $25,000.
Ocean Falls-public building-further amount required to complete, $48,000.
Pacific highway-customs building, $25,000.
Penticton public building-addition and alterations. $45,000.
Prince George public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Smithers - public building - further amount required, $25,000.
Vancouver-Begg building-purchase, alterations and extension-further amount required to complete, $200,000.
Vancouver-post office building and site-further amount required, $550,000.
Vanderhoof-accommodation for government telegraph service, $6,000.
Victoria astrophysical observatory - repairs, alterations and improvements - to complete, (revote), $10,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister look down the list for item 866, until he comes to the last but one, Vanderhoof, accommodation for government telegraph services, $6,000. This is a town up in northern British Columbia, and the people there understood that there was to be an appropriation for a public building to house the various federal government services. I trust that this small item is not the one they thought was going to do that. Can the minister say what is to be expected?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount of $6,000 is required for the purchase of a building, and the erection of an addition thereto, to provide more adequate accommodation for the government telegraph services. I think the former member spoke to me about this place. That is how this estimate came to be put in. It is made up as follows: purchase of the building, $3,500; additions, $2,200; contingencies, $300.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My speaking about it arises out of a conversation with the former member for Cariboo and also out of the fact that I have been in the town. The expectation was not for just a small item like this, but that there was to be a proper federal public building in the town to house the various services. It is quite a sizeable place. The name may look a bit strange to the minister, but it is an important town in that part of northeastern British Columbia. There is no other item in the estimates?
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: Not for a new building.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I say that I have had discussions with the department about this matter, and that they are carrying out the wishes of the people there with respect to this public building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
870. National printing bureau-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Mr. Hansell:: Although this item is for just $1 million, it strikes me forcibly when there is no explanation and no detail given. Will the minister say what the extra $1 million is for? It is a great deal of money to vote when we do not know any detail.


Alphonse Fournier: I always hesitate to speak of my own constituency. This is in order to give out, in the next few months, a contract for the construction of the new printing bureau in Hull. I could not give more details now because plans and specifications are being prepared. This would be the first amount towards this contract. To date we have acquired part of the site. We have had the excavations completed. They are proceeding now with the foundations and this would be for going further in the construction of this building.


George Alexander Drew: Will tenders be called for?


Alphonse Fournier: In every case in Hull.


George Alexander Drew: When is it expected that this work will begin?


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot give an exact date. They are on that contract for the foundation. The moment the foundations are completed, we will ask for this contract.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is perhaps a minor point, but I am interested in the name applied to the bureau both in this item in the supple-mentaries and in the items we had a while ago in the main estimates. Is it proposed to change the name of the bureau to the national printing bureau? It is a perfectly good name, but is it not a change? At the present time it is known as the bureau of printing and-


Alphonse Fournier: Does the hon. member suggest that we change the name?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I am saying that it looks as though you have changed the name. It has not previously been called the national printing bureau.


Alphonse Fournier: That is the name of it, to my knowledge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it not the bureau of public printing and stationery?

Supply-Finance


Alphonse Fournier: No, it was the national printing bureau.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
872.	Maritime provinces-further amount required, $109,120.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Again I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that more dredging is required at Wood Island where the Cariboo-Wood Island ferry boats dock. Last season, on account of lack of dredging there at the proper time, one of the boats, the larger one, was not able to dock and had to be laid up for at least ten days during the best part of the tourist trade. I hope sufficient attention will be paid to dredging there this year, particularly at Wood Island, so that conditions will be satisfactory for the docking of boats.


Alphonse Fournier: I thank the hon. member for calling my attention to the item because I was under the impression that this dredging was completed. If not, I will see that it is completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
71.	Departmental administration, $1,326,285.
George Alexander Drew: I do not intend to make any extended remarks on this item or on the items before us generally because the affairs of the Department of Finance have been dealt with otherwise in other discussions, except for various details which are before us and which will be examined as we go through the estimates. Neither do I propose to raise some of the subjects that might be raised at this point in connection with the Department of Finance, because I recognize the fact that we are merely dealing with items that are before us and it is either a case of these items being dealt with or otherwise. I only say this because I would not want the omission to discuss any of these subjects that come under the Minister of Finance, such as rent control and matters of that kind, to suggest that I have not a good deal to say about them; I believe, however, that they cannot be effectively covered at this point.
Nevertheless, I should like to say this. I still hope that the Minister of Finance will give immediate and further consideration to the whole situation raised by the action taken with regard to rent control. Recognizing that some change in the situation is going to take place even if only to the extent of some of the provincial governments occupying part of this

field, I once again urge him to reconsider what has been done and to recognize the desirability of avoiding the confusion, the dissatisfaction and the unhappiness that have been aroused on all sides by the step that has been taken. It seems clear that what has been done satisfies no one, and that the interests of everyone would be best served by a careful and immediate reconsideration of this problem.
One other thing I wish to mention-and in mentioning it now I hope it may be possible for the minister to give consideration to it. The amount involved may be relatively small, but the principle is important.
Perhaps the minister will have seen, as I did, reference in a newspaper in his own city to the luxury tax on miniature medals. It does seem to me inconsistent that these miniature medals awarded for service or valour, and which must be worn on certain occasions either in mess or elsewhere, by those who continue their service, or those who attend various meetings of their units, should be subject not only to the sales tax of eight per cent but also the luxury tax of ten per cent. I should think the minister might well dispose of that today, because I do not think the same objection would apply to many of the other items covered by the luxury tax. It seems strange to acclaim the service and recognize the valour of men and women who have served during the war only to find that they are subject to a luxury tax imposed by the country they have served so well.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I must confess I have never given the subject consideration, but I shall be glad to do so when the budget is under consideration again. The tax is not a luxury tax as such, but rather a special excise tax which applies to a variety of articles including miniature medals. However, I do not think there is any real hardship. They are worn with a dress suit or a dinner jacket and if a man can afford to rent one of those, I think probably the extra five cents or so involved in connection with the miniature medal is not a very serious matter. However, it will be considered when the budget is under consideration again.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to labour the point, but might I say I did point out that it was a matter of principle rather than of the actual amount involved.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I saw the editorial in the Montreal Gazette.


Victor Quelch: The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have stressed the fact that our international trade problems are of a monetary nature.

Is the minister in a position to assure the house that as a result of the conference in Washington and the action of Great Britain in devaluating the pound we have reason to feel that this problem will be smoothed out in the near future?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I have said in the house before, I have never given myself a high rating as a prophet. I do not intend to attempt to add to my reputation in that respect today. I think that as a result of the Washington discussions, among other things we are getting closer to an understanding of what the real problem is. But it is not a problem which can be solved unilaterally by any nation; and there is no use merely saying that convertibility of currency is desirable, because we all know it is.
I must say I believe all nations, debtor and creditor, must adopt policies which will achieve that desirable end. So far as we in Canada are concerned, it is our belief that we are attempting to follow a policy of that kind. I do not suppose my hon. friend either wants or expects me at this stage to attempt to enter into a discussion on monetary policy. That has been discussed on other occasions, and will of course be discussed again. I am simply saying generally that I think we are making some progress along that line.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I have an explanation for this substantial increase of $343,192?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This increase is proposed to provide for authorized additional positions, salary revisions and annual increases, and to meet the demand for newly minted coin based on the current upward trend of shipments of coin to all agencies of the Bank of Canada for distribution to the chartered banks. Provision is also made for the outright purchase of the Remington-Rand punch card installation in the treasury board establishment section.
As my hon. friend knows, there were substantial salary revisions throughout the civil service last year. The total increase in salaries of staff amounts to $219,122. The express on coin and silver bullion shipments amounts to $50,000, and the acquisition of equipment, $71,545.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What, generally, is the occasion for the increase in staff?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The total increase in staff is 58 over the previous year.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There are 95 permanent civil servants affected by this item, with a vote
Supply-Finance
of $342,035, and $649,541, or nearly twice as much for temporary assistance. I suggest some detail should be given about this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are 349 temporaries in this vote, and 95 permanent.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, there are many things a number of us would like to say on the estimates of the Minister of Finance. We think however that at this stage it would be unwise to try to launch a full-dress debate on the items. One thing I am going to ask is that the minister give us the undertaking that at the next session of parliament he will ask the house leader to bring forward his estimates at an earlier time, so that there may be a full-dress debate on financial policy. There has not been one for some time. I believe there are a number of members who would like to get down to the bottom of that policy, and have a full discussion. I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would welcome it, and there would also be some others in the same position.
If the minister will give that undertaking and attempt to get these estimates before us earlier so that we may feel we could launch a discussion without delaying the house, we would not be disposed to force a debate at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be happy to do that. As has been suggested in connection with some other departments, at the next session we could call the administration items in a number of departments at as early a date as possible with the understanding that general discussion could take place on those items in connection with matters relating to departments, and not necessarily attempt to cover all the estimates of a department at a particular time.
As the committee knows, one reason why these estimates are brought forward at a later date is that there are so many occasions, in the budget debate or otherwise, to discuss financial and economic matters in which the Department of Finance is concerned. There are always ample opportunities for hon. members to discuss the general financial questions. However I shall be happy, as has been suggested, to arrange to have the departmental estimates opened as early as the house will allow, and to have the first item called in order to permit a general discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I welcome what has been said by the Minister of Finance. Not having been a member of the government at any time, it is a mystery which I have never been able to solve why these are left to the last moment when we cannot really

Supply-Finance
give them the time we should give to them. I hope the minister's memory will be good when we come to the next session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, after what has been said by the two hon. members who have just spoken, I hesitate to deal with a technical matter at this time, but at least the point I intend to raise will not take long to discuss. In fact it may make it possible for the Minister of Finance to clear up a point. I want to make it clear that I do not raise the question in any critical spirit, nor am I opposed to the expenditure of the money involved.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister will remember that a few days ago, when we were discussing the bill to provide salaries for the new ministers I asked whether provision would be made for the usual car allowances that minister's enjoy. The Prime Minister told me that that point had presented itself to him but he had been advised that it would be covered in the estimates of 1931. I made the natural response that I would like to look into it for myself, and I have done that. I have here Appropriation Act No. 5, 1931, which is chapter 61 of the statutes of that year. Item 352 reads:
352. To provide for payment annually from the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $2,000 to each minister of the crown charged with the administration of a department, the solicitor general, and the leader of the opposition, and the sum of $1,000 each to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, in lieu of motor cars and their maintenance, including chauffeurs, the acceptance of such sums not to vacate their respective seats in parliament; and to authorize the governor in council to appoint any person now employed in the public service as a chauffeur of a passenger automobile at Ottawa, whose position is abolished, to a vacant position in the public service, provided such chauffeur has been continuously employed as such for at least two years and that the appointment will be made at no higher remuneration than he is now receiving, $42,000.
Actually it was not necessary to read the whole item, but I thought I should, lest after reading only the pertinent part someone should ask that I read it all. As I see it, the point is quite clear. In 1931 the House of Commons passed an Appropriation Act which provided for a sum of $42,000. It is clear from the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which was amended in that same year, that no sum can be paid out in excess of the amount appropriated by parliament. No matter how that item may be worded, I cannot see how an amount in excess of $42,000 can be paid.
I recognize that the word "annually" appears in the item, which might seem to give permission to pay that sum annually; but is it not also essential that the total amount paid shall not exceed $42,000? The fact is that

most of that $42,000 was paid in that fiscal year. I looked up the public accounts and found that some $30,000 odd was paid. Section 32, subsection 1, of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, reads:
Balances of appropriations which remain unexpended at the end of a fiscal year shall lapse and be written off.
In other words it would seem to me that whatever was left of that $42,000 as the end of 1931-32 would lapse.
May I call attention to one or two other sections in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. Section 22, subsection 1, reads:
Subject to the provisions of subsection two of this section, no issue of public moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund shall be made except under the authority of parliament.
Section 23 reads:
All estimates of expenditures submitted to parliament shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year.
Section 24 is a long section, but it ends with these words:
-not exceeding the amount of the sum so voted or granted.
I come back to the point I made. All I am arguing for is that this $2,000 should be properly provided for by a statute, because it seems to me that once the 1931-32 fiscal year ended, whatever part of that money had not been spent would lapse. I do not see how the government can go on making payments year after year on the strength of the $42,000 voted in 1931.
The item which I referred to is to be found in schedule A attached to chapter 61 of the statutes of 1931; and it is stated that the items in that schedule are based on the main estimates for that year. That act provides that the amounts expended under the terms of schedule A shall not exceed a certain rather large figure.
As the minister knows, there are frequent occasions on which it becomes necessary to get authorization from parliament to make commitments to be expended in future years. Last night we had a case in the Department of Mines and Resources about which I inquired. I confess that I knew the answer before I asked my question, but I wanted to get it on the record. The Minister of Mines and Resources made it quite clear that what the government was asking for was authority to commit the government to a future expenditure, but he answered me, I think correctly, that a vote would have to appear in the estimates for each year in which money was paid to carry out such a commitment. The same thing shows up in the estimates of the Department of National Defence, where a number of commitments are made for future

years, and lor which authorization is sought in the current fiscal year. It is always clearly understood that when the time comes to pay the amount committed, it will require a vote of parliament.
I have no thought that I am raising a problem which has not presented itself to others in times past. The Prime Minister indicated that it had presented itself to him this year. I have gone into this as carefully as I can, but I stand to be educated on the point by the Minister of Finance. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that he is going to have a hard job explaining that you can continue to pay out $40,000 a year on the strength of an item voted in 1931. Remember that on that occasion the vote was for a sum of money not to exceed $42,000.
Is this the correct way to do it? Should it not be done by statute? Is it proper to have these items marked "statutory" in the estimates when there is no statute covering them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend pursues these purely legal questions I always follow his legal arguments with a great deal of interest. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to say that the Minister of Finance has received a formal opinion from the deputy minister of justice that this is what is known as a continuing vote. From year to year the estimates are filled with items of this kind, including a number of pension items, which are voted once in an appropriation bill but which continue as a statutory charge. I used to lecture in the law faculty of McGill before I entered public life, but I have given up that occupation for the time being. If my hon. friend would like further elucidation I am sure the deputy minister of justice would be only too happy to discuss it with him. I can assure him that there is appropriate legal authority for the continuing payment of this item from year to year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
74.	Superannuation and retirement acts, administration, $200,402.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Once again I hesitate to raise questions at this stage of the session, but, as we all know, it is not our fault that these items are called now. I assure the Minister of Finance I shall be very brief.
I should like to ask the minister to go back and read all the things I have said before about' superannuated civil servants; and I do want to make a plea, despite the number of times he has turned us down, for reconsideration of the plight of superannuated civil servants, particularly those
Supply-Finance
in the lower brackets. A return was brought down in my name on October 13, 1949, which shows that' there are 1,425 retired civil servants whose pensions are less than $40 a month, and that there are 2,463 widows of retired civil servants whose pensions are less than $40 a month. The return is sessional paper 100-A, of Thursday, October 13, 1949. I could give more figures, but those I have given will suffice to indicate that there are a large number of our faithful servants and employees of this government whose pensions are far too small. There is one piece of new evidence that I should like to bring forward on this occasion in support of the case. It is contained in a letter I have from the deputy minister of finance of the province of Newfoundland. I have pointed out on former occasions that the government of the United Kingdom has done something for retired civil servants in the lower brackets, as has the government of the province of Saskatchewan. I now call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that the province of Newfoundland is doing a pretty fair job in the matter of providing cost of living bonuses for their retired civil servants. The figures contained in the letter dated October 31, 1949, which I received from the deputy minister of finance of the province of Newfoundland, indicate the following:
With effect from January 1, 1949, this scale-
This refers to the previous scale of bonuses.
-was repealed and the following introduced . . .
These are the bonuses that are given to retired civil servant's in Newfoundland.
Married Men		Women and Single Men
	per cent	per cent
On pensions up to $600	70	55On pensions $601 to $1,000	60	45On pensions $1,001 to $1,500	40	30On pensions $1,501 up	20	15
If the federal government was prepared to do as well as the province of Newfoundland, it would be of great benefit. Certainly, without trying to pigeonhole that province, it is fair to say that it' is not the wealthiest province in Canada. In fact some of those who come from there refer to themselves sometimes as our poor relations. It must be difficult for them to finance things, and yet they are doing a fair job of bonusing their civil servants whose pensions are so low. If we applied even that scale of bonuses to our retired civil servants, in certain cases the results would be as follows: Married men on a pension of $20 a month- and there are 249 of them-would get a pension of $34 a month; $30 would become $51;

Supply-Finance
$40 would become $68; $50 would become $85; $60 would become $96; $70 would become $112; $80 would become $128; $90 would become $126, and $100 would become $140.
If we applied the Newfoundland scale, the corresponding figures in the case of women and single men would be $31.00; $46.50; $62.00;	$77.50;	$87.00;	$101.50;	$116.00;
$117.00, and $130.00.
As I say, I am prepared on this occasion to cut my remarks short. I feel keenly about this matter, and I have never been satisfied with the answers the Minister of Finance has given. The only thing I can say about them is that he has been definite. Once he has concluded consideration of a matter and has given us a negative answer, he seems to think he has to stick with it. He sees no reason for reconsidering the matter, but as he and other hon. members of the house know, our superannuated civil servants across this land do not feel that they are getting a square deal, especially those in the lower brackets, and the figures show there are far too many of them.
Once again I make my plea to the minister that he reconsider the whole question. I am sure if it were not so late in the session-it may happen even now-there would be many members of the house who would rise to support me. In fact I hope two or three of them will do so, in order that the minister may know that I am not "a voice crying in the wilderness". I feel that the answers which were given in the last parliament were not good enough. To put it briefly, if a province having the financial difficulties of Newfoundland can do that well; if it can be done in Saskatchewan and the United Kingdom, surely this federal government can do it, and I urge action on this important matter without further delay.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to join in the plea made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There is really very little that can be added to the statement he has made, but I should like to point out to the minister that when these civil servants were making their payments they believed that their retirement allowances would be sufficient for them to be able to carry on. Because of the increase in the cost of living, some of them, particularly those in the lower brackets, are now in a very difficult position. We have a large number of retired federal civil servants in British Columbia, and personally I know of a good many cases in which there is considerable suffering because of the inadequacy of the pension. It seems to me that Canada might very well take the lead in meeting this situation. Certain industries have made some provision in this regard and

I suggest that the minister give further consideration to the plea that something be done for retired civil servants.


Solon Earl Low: I think what has already been said points to the necessity for a re-examination of the whole basis of the pension schemes. There is no questioning the fact that actuarially the whole basis of the contributory pension scheme is wrong from the point of view of the decreasing value of money. You cannot say today, nor can any actuary, what will be the value of a man's pension forty years from now. When we ask for a contribution of a certain percentage of a man's salary and say that in twenty or thirty years his pension will be so much, we are sticking our heads in the sand, because we all know that the inexorable trend is for money to diminish in value, since prices are constantly going up. It seems to me we shall have to call for a complete re-examination of the whole basis of our pension program if we are to give our civil servants a fair deal; and I ask that this be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public debt charges
[Stage Direction]
76. Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc., $386,400.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to know just how this commission payment is progressing. I notice that it is slowly decreasing. I had thought that the repatriation of so many securities during the war would have tended to bring this down. Will the minister explain just how the figure is arrived at? Is it on a percentage basis?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Owing to the low level of expenditures incurred in replenishing the reserve stock of bonds between 1947-48 and 1948-49, it was originally considered that provision for this purpose could be reduced by some $50,000 for the current year. The balance of the decrease reflected in this item resulted from an expected reduction in the value of coupons to be cashed during the current year, thus requiring less provision for the payment of commission to agents who handle such coupons.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I want to ask a question in regard to the item covering the cost of loan flotations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a statutory item, but I should be glad to give the details.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish the minister would explain it briefly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was no change in this item, which has remained the same for some years. It is mainly used in connection with the Canada savings bond campaign,.

which, as my hon. friend will recall, was the only public issue of securities in Canada during the year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister give me the statutory reference so I can look it up?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act-section 7, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
General-
84. To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office, $10,459,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a word about the increase here, please.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a very large vote, of course. The net increase of $209,000 over the estimate for 1948-49 is due to normal statutory increases, reclassifications and revisions of salary rates; increased costs of printing, stationery and postage, for the registration of income tax refund cheques. This is partly offset by a net decrease of 358 positions and the dropping of provision for unemployment insurance contributions, which are now provided in a specific vote for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
86. The Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, and the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, 1946-administration, $52,795.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It seems to me this amount is quite high, in view of the amount of business done under this legislation. What percentage does this amount represent of the total business done under these two acts?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is the administration vote. The increase is due almost entirely to the increased volume of business being done by this branch, which has necessitated an increase of four in the number of positions provided for, and provision for legal and collection costs. There is a proportionate increase in certain other sundry and administrative expenses.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister give the total amount lent under both acts for the current year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Total loans outstanding under the first act, as at September 30, 1949, amounted to $46,108,502. The amount lent under the second act is $3,813,483.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
89. To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for salaries, reclassifications, increases and other paylist items, $20,000,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like a word of explanation on this. Whom does it concern?
Supply-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is an apparently large item. As my hon. friend will recall, during the course of the year substantial increases in salary were made throughout the civil service generally, as the result of an investigation carried on by the treasury board and the civil service commission. The ordinary departmental estimates for salaries were inadequate, of course, to cover those increases, and this item is put in to take care of salary adjustments and perhaps unforeseen increases in staff during the year. It is, of course, included in the estimates of the Minister of Finance, but next year the appropriate amounts will be included in the separate departmental estimates, covering the more or less major increases which were given this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
91. To provide for the government's contribution, as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $950,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this a new item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; this is the item I referred to a moment ago in connection with the estimate covering the office of the comptroller of the treasury. Last year these amounts were included in the general estimates of each department. Now the total amount is set out as a separate item, under the Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
93.	Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, $5,000,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I observe with satisfaction a decrease in this item; but I should like to know what commodities are still being stabilized, and why?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This item was included last year, when the estimates were being prepared, as a clean-up vote. I am informed that according to present indications very little of this amount of $5 million will in fact be needed this year. The Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation has pretty well completed its operations, which now consist largely of recovering the overpayment of subsidies which were made through profit control arrangements and otherwise. All important domestic subsidies and bulk purchasing programs have been discontinued for some time past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
94.	Advances to the Canadian wheat board for payments in respect of flour or food containing wheat for human consumption in Canada, $6,000,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like a word about this item, please.

Supply-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
100. To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses and for the temporary provision of recoverable advances for working capital purposes and for the re-advancing of any such advances repaid, $1,000,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Could we have some explanation of item 100?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The purpose of this item, Mr. Chairman, is to provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, and for the temporary provision of recoverable advances and for working capital purposes, and for the re-advancing of any such advances required. Generally, this item provides funds from which important requirements which could not be foreseen sufficiently well in advance, or with sufficient accuracy to enable the estimates to be submitted, may be financed. It is an item which is put in year after year. Obviously, in preparing estimates of over $2 billion, it is difficult if not impossible to foresee every possible item. This is a sort of unforeseen contingency item which is included year after year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How much was drawn on the item last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told it was $178,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
669. Government's contribution to the superannuation fund-further amount required, $300,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why is it
that in the main estimate this item has increased $330,000, and yet the situation was so unclear at that time-


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a Newfoundland item, Mr. Chairman.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I suppose that does explain it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will recall the explanation I gave last year, that we put in separate items for Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
671. To authorize payments hereafter required to be made under an agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Newfoundland pursuant to term 27 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, estimated amount required for fiscal year 1949-50, $4,845,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Those are the figures settled at the time of confederation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. These payments, if made, would be in accordance with the terms of union.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7SI. Servicing of public debt-commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc.-further amount required, $50,000.	[DOT]
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the reason for this increase?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that the reserves for government bonds, printing and so on, have been depleted as a result of the demand for fresh issues. Perhaps I had better give a more formal explanation.
An unforeseen increase in bonds presented for transfer, both from registered to coupon and coupon to registered, has depleted the bond reserves of several victory loans necessitating a fresh printing by the bank note companies of engraved bonds to replenish the reserves. We always keep a reserve stock of these bonds on hand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What about these commission payments?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There were no commission payments; this is a general item which is always included, and the $50,000 additional is for the purpose I have indicated,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

938. To provide tor administration of the program respecting grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown property outlined in the House of Commons on November 14, 1949, including initial grants and other payments to be made in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $300,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Items 938 and 939 recall a statement by the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago concerning grants to municipalities, in lieu of taxes on property owned by the crown in the right of the dominion, or agencies of the crown in the right of the dominion. I do not propose to go into that very confusing statement at great length, but the minister has referred to it since as being a clear statement. There are not many people who have commented upon the statement, editorially or otherwise, who have found it clear. Practically every municipality in Canada has found it a most disappointing statement of policy.
In the light of statements that have been made from time to time by the government, it had been hoped that the government did appreciate that the time had come when it ought, in all fairness, to make to municipalities, in lieu of taxes, grants that would at least be a reasonable approach to the amount that federally-owned properties would have borne in taxes had they been owned by private individuals. The statement which the minister made seems to be based upon the assumption that only the municipalities having more than an average of federally owned property should qualify for any federal assistance whatever. With respect, I believe that is an entirely unfair decision. Here is a government that is amply provided with revenues and which, so far as its taxing powers are concerned, has unlimited sources of revenue. The municipalities with which we are concerned are all suffering seriously from limited sources of revenue and rising costs of services; and, I may say, Mr. Chairman, an extremely unfair burden of services has been cast upon them. There is hardly a municipality in this country, certainly among the larger municipalities, which in recent times has not been ground between the upper and nether millstones of limited sources of revenue and rising costs of services. Formerly, these were regarded as the municipality's responsibility, but today enlightened opinion regards many of them as the proper responsibility of the federal government.
In connection with the recent amendment to the housing act, the minister of reconstruction gave a clear undertaking that, for all the houses that would be owned by the federal authorities or constructed under the new legislation, payments would be made to the municipalities in lieu of taxes equal to
Supply-Finance
the amount of taxes which those properties would have borne had they been in private hands. That was a fair enough example for the Minister of Finance to follow.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the amounts that are proposed by the government for the municipalities are entirely inadequate. Within the city from which I come we have over $13 million of federally-owned property. Under this disappointing scheme which the government has introduced, that city is not going to receive a cent. It is expected to continue providing services. The whole situation is lamentably unfair, Mr. Chairman. I say to the minister that before another session comes around I hope he will have the courage and determination to take the situation in hand and see that fair play and justice are extended to all municipalities which have federally-owned property within their borders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is most unfortunate that this item, like so many others, should come up for discussion at the end of a session. I wish to register my protest-


Alphonse Fournier: At this stage,
Mr. Chairman, as it is five minutes to six, may I be permitted to move that the committee report progress, and report the resolutions so that we may have Mr. Speaker in the chair?


George Alexander Drew: I think perhaps if the minister explained the purpose, it might avoid any unnecessary discussion.


Alphonse Fournier: It is the intention before six o'clock to move the following motion:
That Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six p.m. this day, and that for the remainder of this day's sitting, government orders shall have precedence over all other business, notwithstanding any standing or special orders.
I understand we must do this before six o'clock, if the house agrees.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again? Later this day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: By leave of the
house, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move:
That Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six p.m. this day, and that, for the remainder of this day's sitting, government orders shall have precedence over all other business, notwithstanding any standing or special orders.

Supply-Finance


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just one comment I should like to make. I understand the other place has been giving a bit of a rough ride to a bill that we dealt with so favourably last night, and that it may come back to us with an amendment. From the Clerk's nodding his head, I gather that to be the case. I would hope that this motion, if we pass it, would not prevent our dealing with Senate amendments to the Red Cross bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You can do anything by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-*
938. To provide for administration of the program respecting grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown property outlined in the House of Commons on November 14, 1949, including initial grants and other payments to be made in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, ^300,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I was about to express my protest against the formula that the minister has produced with respect to the matter of the federal government paying something to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown properties. The day the minister announced his formula it seemed to me that, in those earlier stages of what he had to say, it sounded good. I thought he was laying the basis, theoretically, for a formula that would be acceptable. It looked to me as though we would get some sort of sliding scale that, despite its discrimination against some places, would at least be defensible. But when he came down not with a sliding scale but with [DOT]one that cuts off abruptly, and provides no relief to a great many cities and municipalities of the country, I felt that it was most unfair and certainly did not solve the problem.
I can state my protest perhaps most readily by reading a few sentences from a letter which I received from the mayor of Winnipeg, Mr. Garnet Coulter, which I believe is in terms identical with those of letters received by each of the other members from the city of Winnipeg. The letter is dated December 6, 1949. I am not going to read all of it, but just a few selected sentences that drive home the point. I quote from Mayor Coulter's letter:
In October of this year I was one of a delegation from the executive committee-

That is the executive committee of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities.
-who waited on the Prime Minister when he told us that the government did have a plan under consideration which would be before the present session of the house, and we were all encouraged to believe that this issue was on its way to at least a partially fair solution.
The members of our city council were therefore very surprised and disappointed when the announcement of the details of the government proposal was made by Mr. Abbott. That proposal carries little or no benefit to any Canadian city, with the exception of two or three, of which group Winnipeg is not one. So the old situation still remains with our city gratuitously furnishing expensive services from which the government benefits.
I can assure you that a great deal of resentment has been created, not only here but in the other major cities of Canada, by the action of the government in purporting to deal with the situation and then having produced a formula which does not deal with it with any degree of adequacy.
Then I skip a few sentences in which the mayor tells me that the finance committee asked him to write to all four of the members for the city of Winnipeg, two of us being over here in this group and two on the government side, and then he goes on to say:
I was also requested to urge you, and the other members, to do anything possible to have the proposal revised so that at least some recognition of the moral right of the cities will be given.
My information is that since the proposal was announced by the government it has been scrutinized again by the executive committee and national advisory board of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and that a protest is being forwarded to the cabinet, as well as a counter-suggestion, that the government should make payments in lieu of taxes to the extent that the government properties receive service benefits from the respective cities.
The letter has another paragraph and then it is signed:	"Yours very truly, Garnet
Coulter, mayor".
I have two or three questions to ask. First of all, I should like to ask the minister whether the protest and the countersuggestion referred to in Mayor Coulter's letter have been received and whether consideration has been given to such correspondence. My other question is this, and I ask it in the light of the discussion a few minutes ago about ministerial car allowances. Is the wording of this item such that it is a continuing item that does not have to be voted again?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. In my public statement I announced that we put a single item in this year, and that a special statute would be introduced at the next session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is in my statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So this is just for the current fiscal year. Will the minister tell me whether

this protest and counter-suggestion have been received since his statement was made and whether consideration has been given to them, in the light of the assurance that the mayors felt they had had from previous interviews?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not recall that particular protest. When the federation of mayors were here, in their brief they expressed some dissatisfaction with the formula as they understood it. Perhaps I might say at this point that there is not a great deal that I can add to the perhaps lengthy and complicated statement I made when I announced this policy, but here is the position. If federal property was distributed evenly throughout all the municipalities in Canada, obviously no taxes should be paid, since they are providing services, and the federal service would be distributed evenly throughout different municipalities. That is the basis upon which the exemption on taxation is contained in the British North America Act, and it is computed in every other way we have been able to find on a similar basis.
The justification for paying the tax to municipalities is that there is undue concentration of federal property and services in those municipalities. The basis of the proposed formula for the payment of general taxes is that, where there is an excess above what is established as a national average, then the taxes should be paid with respect to that excess, and that excess only.
It seems to me however that in the public comment respecting the outline of the proposed policy insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that in the case of crown corporations tax agreements will be made for the payment of fair sums in lieu of taxes, a procedure which has not been generally followed in the past. Secondly, all municipalities will receive payment for local improvement taxes, both current and arrears, if they have not been paid. That is something which has not been done in the past.
Thirdly, these transition payments will be made in any municipality where the federal government acquires property. It will pay the taxes for a period of three or five years, as the case may be, depending upon whether the municipality is one in receipt of the general grant or otherwise. Those are very substantial changes in the heretofore existing law.
I have only one further word to say, and that is that people should not jump to too hasty conclusions as to how this proposed formula will work out. It will require a
Supply-Finance
very considerable amount of additional work and time to get at the fair value of the different federal government-owned properties in the different municipalities, and to determine which municipalities are entitled to specific grants, and the extent of those grants.
The vote now before the committee is a purely interim vote. The primary purpose is to carry up to the end of the year the grant which has been paid to the city of Ottawa for a great many years. The other item of $300,000 is to provide for the setting up of a special grant in the treasury, to which I referred in my statement, and for the future possibly another grant which it may be necessary to make between January 1 and March 31, the end of the fiscal year.
One point I omitted to mention in connection with the new policy is that payment will be made in all cases for specific services in connection with federal property-services such as water, and all that sort of thing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has told us that we should not jump to hasty conclusions. I wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in regard to this very ingenious but unconvincing procedure the minister has suggested. I should like to point out also that this is a piece of class legislation, because what the minister is doing is to favour people who are above, as against those who are below the average.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think the last remark of the hon. member scarcely does credit to his very high intellectual attainments. Surely my hon. friend is not suggesting that every town in Canada which has a post office should be taxed on that post office. And I just refer to that as an example. Clearly a post office is providing a local service which the municipality needs and wants. Nearly every municipality has a post office, either rented or owned. That is an obvious case.
To say that we are benefiting those who are over the average and discriminating against those who are under is exactly the reverse of the principle which should be operative, and exactly the reverse of the actual fact.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I have not taken up much time, and I should like to ask the minister a question as to how this act works out. In my riding there is a large army camp and a large airport, of which I am very proud. The preliminary talk was such that the municipalities thought they were getting

Supply-Finance
something out of it. My understanding now is that municipalities such as Chilliwack will get nothing out of it. I would ask, as the Minister of Labour says, "in a kindly way", for an explanation that I can give to the people in my riding because, as I see it, the municipality of Chilliwack in which there is a large army camp, and the municipality of Abbotsford, in which there is a great airport, get absolutely nothing. I should like to have an explanation why.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Cases of military establishments will have to be considered on their merits. In respect of a purely self-contained military establishment, where it provides its own municipal services such as roads, fire protection and the like-and there are some of them in Canada-it' is understood that of course they are not being paid the grant in lieu of taxes, because they do not receive municipal services from the particular area in which they are located. There are some of those. Then there are others, such as Esquimalt and, I believe Halifax, where the military property, whether it is navy, army or air force, is within the town limits and is in receipt of general municipal services. Under those circumstances those facts will be taken into account in determining the formula as to whether the grant' would be payable or not.
It is impossible to give a general answer with respect to military and harbour installations without looking at all the circumstances of a particular municipality in which they are located. I am familiar, in a general way, with my hon. friend's constituency, and with at least' one of the large military installations there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Probably it is because of our climate-and we are noted for our fertility in the Fraser valley-but I would ask the minister, in all seriousness, if there is any hospitalization at Chilliwack for maternity cases. It is all very well for hon. members to scoff at that question, but we have to pay these bills, and we are anxious about it.
I understand that' at the present time the Department of National Health and Welfare are paying for some things in the army camp.
What about hospitalization? I am asking this because I have not the information. I shall be asked about it when I go home, and I think it best to ask the minister at this time. What is the answer, so far as the airport and the army camp in my constituency are concerned? Will consideration be given as circumstances arise?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to look into the matter and let my hon. friend know later. Perhaps I can get the information from the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Cameron:: I have the honour to represent a Toronto constituency, that of High Park, and I have seen some of the comments that have been made about the minister's statement. I agree thoroughly with the principle enunciated and that we cannot deviate from the principle that has been established from time immemorial that the crown is exempt from taxation. But when we admit that as of grace we are going to make certain payments I am forced with some hesitation to come to the conclusion that I cannot agree with the formula that has been adopted. Once having admitted that principle, I submit that the essential public services that are rendered should be paid for by the federal government.
I notice that water was the only service mentioned, but other services to be considered are police and fire protection, sewage and others. I submit that the proper and businesslike approach would be for the federal government to make these payments on the basis of the services received.
I cannot agree with the inclusion of school taxes because I think that is a provincial responsibility. We have here a resolution which would indicate that we might be asked to do something in that respect in a general way, and I think we should. I associate myself with that principle and I hope that in due course the government will give consideration to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
939. To confirm and to authorize the doing by His Majesty during the period from July 1 to December 31, 1949, of acts and things that were required to be done by him in accordance with the agreement between His Majesty and the corporation of the city of Ottawa (entered into under the authority of chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1945) which expired on June 30, 1949, as if the agreement were in effect to December 31, 1949 and for that purpose to authorize payment of the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars as if it were the amount payable for that period under clause one of the agreement; the payment to be made on or before December 31, 1949, upon delivery to His Majesty by that corporation of a release of all claims in respect of services rendered by the corporation to His Majesty to and including December 31, 1949, if the Minister of Public Works is satisfied that the said corporation has done all acts and things that it would have been required to do had the said agreement been in effect to December 31, 1949, $250,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: May we have an explanation of this item. After looking at the Ottawa Agreement Act, which is chapter 27 of the statutes of 1945. I should think that the

proper thing to have done would be to amend the agreement. Section 1 of the agreement provides that the government will pay to the corporation the sum of $300,000 annually. I understand that for the six-months period from July 1 to December 31 of this year it is proposed to make this payment of $250,000 instead of prorating it on the basis of $150,000. This extra amount is being paid to compensate for certain services that have been rendered.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On January 1, 1950, the city of Ottawa will come under the general formula and there will be no special statute relating to the city. As my friend has indicated, it was necessary to take care of the period from July 1 to December 31, and an item was included in the estimates which was prepared for the Department of Justice. It was decided to do this by means of an item in the estimates, since it is not proposed to continue the practice of having a special statute for the city of Ottawa. The city of Ottawa will be subject to the same general rule and will be covered by the general statute I intend to introduce next session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have the officials of the department calculated how much the city of Ottawa will receive under the new policy? It has seemed to me that the amount received by the city of Ottawa up to the present has not been adequate compensation for the services that have been provided.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall not discuss the adequacy of the previous grants. As I pointed out in my statement some time ago, the dominion government has in fact been paying for services which would normally be rendered by the municipality.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A great many, and I indicated *what they were. As to the amount that will be paid to the city of Ottawa, an estimate has been made but I would not care to indicate what that will be until more accurate figures have been obtained. I feel it will certainly be not under the $500,000 per year, which this item for six months would indicate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will other municipalities receive the same consideration as Ottawa?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The basis upon which grants will be made to Ottawa will be the same as that on which grants will be made to other municipalities. They will be based upon the same formula.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The formula is not quite clear to me because unfortunately I am not
Supply-Veterans Affairs a Rhodes scholar. I am asking that Chilliwack be considered on the same basis as the city of Ottawa.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think my hon. friend can rest assured that the problem of the beautiful town of Chilliwack will be considered on exactly the same basis as the city of Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
551. Post discharge rehabilitation benefits including out of work allowances, university and vocational training including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, awaiting returns allowances, temporarily incapacitated allowances and unemployment insurance contributions, $28,850,000.
Howard Charles Green: A number of questions were to be answered by the department when these estimates came up again for consideration; could we have those answers now?


Mr. Mutch:: I have here answers to various questions which were asked when the estimates were previously before the committee. I should like to have the answers to these questions, which I am assured are complete, placed on the record in order to save the time of the committee.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is it the pleasure of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: This is the statement which deals with the questions and answers thereto:
During the debates on the veterans affairs estimates-Hansard, page 640, column 2 and page 1049, column 1-the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked for the number of cases between the period 30th June, 1947, and 30th June, 1949, wherein the commission had refused entitlement on the basis that the condition was pre-enlistment and not aggravated. The total number of such decisions for the two-year period in question is 6,740.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member stated: "and, mind you, they had been discharged as disabled but were ruled out on application for pension on the ground that they had pre-enlistment conditions."
I wish to make it very clear to hon. members that the group in question were not discharged as disabled. The great majority were discharged in the ordinary course of demobilization, and subsequently the Canadian pension commission considered a claim for a condition which may or may not have been recorded on the proceedings of the discharge medical board.
At this stage I find it necessary to say a word regarding the procedure leading up to

Supply-Veterans Affairs these decisions of pre-enlistment origin. On attestation a recruit was medically examined, that examination was a physical one and the examining medical officer asked a number of questions regarding the state of health and as to whether the recruit had ever suffered from certain conditions. This all forms part of the official record on attestation and actually, for example, thousands had defective vision to a greater or lesser degree, but not sufficient to cause rejection. The condition was pre-enlistment and obviously the commission, when considering a claim, would review the discharge board's records and, if there was no worsening during service, would rule "pre-enlistment, not aggravated." In other cases the member of the forces during his service reported sick and gave, on his own volition, a clear-cut statement of the preenlistment existence of the same condition for which he was suffering and being treated. It is the responsibility of the commission to determine whether the condition was, firstly, of pre-enlistment origin and, secondly, if there was any worsening during service; if not, they rule "pre-enlistment, not aggravated." Another group, and quite a considerable one, was found in those cases where, on examination during service, it was found they had constitutional or congenital conditions. These included adolescence and developmental anomalies, all of which were definitely of preenlistment origin, and the commission, on review, had to determined whether service played any part in aggravation.
Again it is only fair I should state that many pre-enlistment conditions were not disclosed as found on enlistment but very soon became apparent and led to discharge. To illustrate, I would repeat the figures on the record of the 1946 committee on veterans affairs: 3,830 served for 30 days or less, 17,388 served from 31 to 90 days, 28,982 served from 91 to 183 days Cwhich is 6 months), 42,516 served from 184 to 364 days. A total of 92,716 men served less than one year because they were found to be unfit and unsuitable for service.
Then again I must point out that the decisions rendered by the commission were initial ones and gave the reasons. The act provides the veteran may renew his claim and may appear before an appeal board of the commission. Not only is this so, but my department has a branch called the veterans' bureau which, free of charge, assists applicants in the preparation and advancement of their claims to pension, and some of the national organizations of ex-servicemen render a similar service.
I make this statement and hope it will make the situation clear regarding this type of claim.

When on the subject, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hansard, page 641, column 1-[DOT] mentioned the case of a young man who was enlisted for service with the R.C.A.F. and suffers from a severe heart condition which the commission ruled to be of preenlistment origin and they have pensioned on an aggravation basis of two-fifths. On examination I find the facts of this case are:
The applicant had a relatively short period of service in the R.C.A.F., actually less than eight months in Canada. On enlistment he stated he had rheumatic fever in 1934 and later stated he had an earlier one in 1930. No cardiac abnormalities were discovered on enlistment but it was suggested he be watched. He was admitted to hospital less than 6 months after enlistment when the history and diagnosis of heart complications were made and led to his discharge.
It is my understanding that the time at which the heart disease resulting from the rheumatic fever first becomes manifest is a long drawn out process between the stage of original infection and the date of final incapacitation. A most eminent specialist says: "It is to the growing child we must go as rheumatic heart disease begins always in childhood." It certainly did in this case at the ages of eleven and fifteen.
We therefore have an airman who, very soon after enlistment, gave evidence of the serious effects of two childhood attacks of rheumatic fever. He had no complaints at the time of his discharge from service, no murmurs were detected and he worked as a C.P.R. brakeman until December, 1944, when he had a further recurrence of joint pains and definite murmurs were described. The commission has ruled pre-enlistment, aggravated to the extent of two-fifths of his entire disability. The latter is assessed at 100 per cent, and two-fifths of that is 40 per cent, being the award in payment. He also has the right to treatment with hospital allowances from my department at any time such is required.
Question by hon. member for Acadia- (Hansard, page 1051):
How many veterans, engaged in full-time farming under the Veterans' Land Act, have made their current payments? How many, if any, have paid up in full? How many are in arrears, and how many, if any, have signed quit claims?
Answer: Number who have made all payments due to 31st March, 1949, 18,293, or 94-7 per cent.
Number who are in arrears of payments due to 31st March, 1949, 1,025, or 5-3 per cent.
Number who have made prepayments, 4,710.
Amount of prepayments made, $1,253,732.03.

Number who have paid cost to director and taken title, 307.
Number who have paid contract debt and will get title in 10 years, 391.
Number who have signed quit claim deeds, 326.
The figures are for full-time farming only, but the standing is also as satisfactory for small holding establishments. Collection figures are given as at March 31 last, as current payments only became due on November 1.
Question by hon. member for Calgary East-(Hansard, page 1053):
How many soldier settlers did obtain their mineral rights?
Answer: 240 applications have been received from qualified soldier settlers where the mineral rights were acquired in the purchase of the land. Of these, 232 have been submitted to the governor in council for approval. On 26th October of this year, 147 have to date received a grant of the mines and minerals. The breakdown by provinces is as follows:
Applications for Province	mineral	rights
Alberta	147
Saskatchewan	 43
Manitoba	 45
Ontario	 4
Quebec	 1
Submitted to governor in council
	 144
	 40
	 43
	 4
	 1
Grants received Province	by settlers to date
Alberta	 106
Saskatchewan	 19
Manitoba	 20
Ontario	 2
Quebec	 -
Question by hon. member for Cariboo- (Hansard, pages 1053 and 1054):
I should like to ask the minister if the rights of soldier settlers at Moberly in the Peace river country in British Columbia are being protected with respect to the oil rights on the land which has been taken over from the Indian reserve.
Answer: The mines and minerals underlying 17,924 acres of the Fort St. John Indian reserve No. 172, township 85, ranges 18 and 19, W.6, were acquired with the land and, accordingly, are available for sale or lease by the director at the request of the veterans established or who may be established on the land.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Questions were asked by the hon. members for Royal, Vancouver East, and Melfort- (Hansard, page 1055), about the British family settlement schemes.
Answer: Total disbursements since inception on account of both schemes have been from-
Canadian government funds $9,992,909.31
United Kingdom funds ....	3,825,044.81
Generally speaking, the Canadian government paid for the land, while the United Kingdom paid for the stock and equipment.
Regarding the item of $25,000 in the estimates, in the early days of the schemes accounts were kept for each government and collections or other revenue emanating from land was credited to Canada, and that from stock and equipment to the United Kingdom. This proved so cumbersome that an agreement was reached between the two countries by which each collection was credited in the proportion of the total disbursements that each country had made for the two schemes combined.
A similar agreement waS reached by which losses were to be shared in the same proportion. Therefore, when a property reverts and the proceeds from the subsequent resale are not sufficient to reimburse each country for the total expenditures it had made on account of that property, an adjustment in favour of either country has usually to be made.
As most of the earlier revenue collections were applicable to land, the effect of this sharing of loss agreement usually requires an adjustment in favour of the United Kingdom government.
In answer to the question as to how long these payments will continue, I may say that the department is now endeavouring to arrive at a figure that will be acceptable to the United Kingdom in full and final payment of their equity in the two British family settlement schemes. If such a settlement can be made, all collections and receipts from sales would go to consolidated revenue.
Question by hon. member for Acadia- (Hansard, page 1057):
Where a veteran is not able to complete an agreement by making a second or third payment, owing to crop failure, is it the policy of the department to extend the agreement for another year, or does the agreement automatically die and the amount of the indebtedness go back to the original amount?
Answer: If a veteran is unable to complete his agreement within the time limit, authority will be sought to enter into a new agreement to meet the circumstances.
Province
Alberta	
Saskatchewan Manitoba . .. .
Ontario	
Quebec	

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Question by hon. member for Acadia- (Hansard, page 1056):
Whether or not an agreement had been reached with Alberta to pay a grant where land is leased in special areas on a ten-year basis? Has anything developed since that time?
Answer: Veterans Land Act officials in Alberta recently concluded discussions with the minister of municipal affairs and the minister of lands in regard to the settlement of veterans under section 35 of the act in the special areas of Alberta. The province has agreed to grant a twenty year cultivation and grazing lease in lieu of the ten year lease which is normally granted in the special areas.
A supplementary agreement dealing specifically with the settlement of veterans in the special areas is in the course of preparation.
Question by hon. member for Calgary East -(Hansard, page 1056):
Can the minister tell us how many of our Indian veterans have taken advantage of the act? Can he give us a breakdown of the number who have used the act in order to get into full-time farming operations on the reserves, and the number who have used it really as a small holdings scheme?
Answer: As at August 31, 1949, a total of 1,014 loans were approved in favour of Indian veterans. The following is a breakdown by provinces of those cases where disbursements have been made. The difference of 81 is accounted for by grants approved but not disbursed:
Full-time Small Commercial Farming Holdings Fishing Total
Nfld	. .	. .P.E.I	1	2	3N.S	1	22	23N.B	86	3	89Quebec ...	3	29	32Ontario . ..	110	208	29	347Manitoba .	43	3	3	49Sask	211	2	213Alberta . ..	41	1	1	43B.C	70	19	45	134479	371	83	933
Question by hon. member for Acadia- (Hansard, page 2610):
Will veterans be entitled to the V.L.A. grant when they settle on crown lands in the special areas of Alberta?
Answer: Yes. A supplementary agreement dealing specifically with the settlement of veterans in the special areas is now being studied by those ministers of the government of Alberta whose departments are concerned with this matter.

Question by hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough-(Hansard, page 2617):
Will the minister tell us how many departments there are in Ontario and just how an application goes through? Will he explain what causes the long delay?
Answer:	The province of Ontario, for
administrative purposes, is divided into two districts, eastern Ontario and western Ontario, with the district offices for each being in Toronto and London respectively. Under the Toronto district office, there are five regional offices and two subregional offices. In eastern Ontario, there are four regional offices. This does not cover the Port Arthur -Fort William area which is under the jurisdiction of Winnipeg district office and which area is administered by one regional office.
An application goes through in the following manner: the veteran makes application to a regional office for certification that he is qualified to receive the benefits of the Veterans Land Act. After checking on the vete^pn's eligibility as to sufficient war service and receiving replies from the references given by the veteran at the time of his application, the veteran appears before a regional advisory committee for qualification. Subsequent to being qualified for assistance under the Veterans Land Act, the veteran submits an application for assistance with respect to the particular property on which he desires establishment. Upon receipt of this application, an appraisal is made of the property by the department. If the appraisal indicates the property is suitable, action is taken towards its purchase. As soon as the director has obtained title to the property, it is then resold to the veteran by agreement for sale.
During consideration in committee, I undertook to indicate the average time taken for an application to go through after acceptance. Accurate statistics on this point are not maintained by the department but a check made during the month of September last of a mill run of 100 cases showed the following to be the situation:-from the date an application was approved until title was registered in the director, the average number of days which elapsed in western Ontario was 65, in eastern Ontario 100, in Quebec 99, and in the maritime provinces 37. In the prairie provinces and B.C., the average number of days was only 27 [DOT] 6. Members of the legal profession in the house will appreciate that this wide spread probably may be largely attributed to the different land registration systems which obtain in the provinces. There are, of course, other factors involved. Often there are defects in the vendor's title which cannot be remedied without some formal

application to a registrar of titles or to a probate court or the employment of a surveyor to determine the boundaries of the land to be conveyed. There is sometimes loss of time in searching for heirs or others who may have some interest in the land and who must sign the documents of release.
Question by hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, Hansard, page 2618:
If a veteran releases his interest in a property to the director by way of quit claim deed and a loss of $300 is incurred in the resale of the property, would that loss in any way affect the amount of rehabilitation grant? Would that $300 be deducted from his rehabilitation grant or would he get his full rehabilitation grant as if he had never made application under V.L.A.?
Answer: Ordinarily if there is a loss incurred in establishing a veteran under the V.L.A., it does reduce the veteran's re-establishment credit.
Where a loss exceeds $50, the matter is examined by a district rehabilitation review board who may, after consideration of the circumstances involved, recommend that all or part of the loss be written off.
After consideration of the case at the district level, it may be further reviewed by a head office departmental committee who report to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
552. Hospital accommodation and facilities, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $7,387,835-$5,309,662.
Howard Charles Green: This is the hospitalization item. Earlier in the session the suggestion was made that hospitalization might be provided for the men of the merchant navy without the amendment of any statute because of the wide terms of the act which set up the Department of Veterans Affairs. That act gives the department power to help those who were associated in the war. It is not restricted in the same way as the Pension Act. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether consideration has been given to providing hospitalization for these unfortunate men? I would point out to him that, to all intents and purposes, it was practically impossible for a man in the merchant navy to qualify for a pension on the ground of disease. Even to qualify on the ground of injury he had to trace the injury to enemy action.
It is practically impossible for a man to qualify because of diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and so on. I know personally of quite a few sad cases where young lads have developed tuberculosis, obviously because of their service at sea with the
Supply-Veterans Affairs Canadian merchant marine. Yet they cannot get any pension and they cannot get hospitalization. They are in civilian hospitals now under provincial social assistance. I think they get either $3 or $5 a month. It is a most unfair situation, and I should like to know whether the department is giving consideration to extending hospitalization benefits to the men of the merchant navy.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: So far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned, I am informed that it is possible for merchant seamen to be admitted to D.V.A. hospitals upon the request of the Department of Transport whose wards they are generally considered to be.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Department of Transport not make the request that these men be provided with hospitalization? I am glad to hear that D.V.A. is prepared to give them hospitalization if requested to do so by the Department of Transport. Yesterday we had an announcement from the Prime Minister to the effect that the provisions for giving vocational training to merchant navy veterans were to be extended. Can we not get some assurance from the government that the Department of Transport will now take steps to request the Department of Veterans Affairs to give hospitalization to these men?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to commit the Department of Transport. I can only speak of that which I know, and on a proper request our hospitals will give hospitalization under these conditions.


Clarence Gillis: That assurance is nothing new. That has been the hitch right along. That is why over the years we have tried in the house and in the veterans affairs committee to have the same privileges extended to the merchant marine as were provided for the armed services. Unfortunately under the regulations of the Department of Transport they are in the position that the merchant navy is a civilian organization. The Department of Transport will not request hospitalization for merchant service personnel unless injury arose out of, or was directly connected with enemy action. In other words, if you were hit by a torpedo and had a very obvious hole in you, then you could get hospitalization or pension. Otherwise you cannot. Unless the government is prepared to change the regulations that now bind the departments of transport and veterans affairs, no benefits will accrue to the merchant service, from the statement the parliamentary assistant has just made.

Supply-Veterans Affairs Mr. Green: Is the willingness of the Depart- 3. How many have been granted such assistance? ment of Veterans Affairs to provide hospitali- Answer: 2,444.
zation for the men of the merchant navy a in other words fewer than one in ten new development, or has the Department of 0f the veterans receiving the war veterans Veterans Affairs taken that position through- allowance have been given any assistance out?	whatever from this special assistance fund.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: At the moment they are on exactly the same basis as any other department. In our hospitals we treat persons who are sent to us on the responsibility of another department. Previously, of course, those who had a pensionable disability were admitted as of right. Under the regulations of our department there is the same general willingness to treat anyone who is sent to us by another responsible department.


Howard Charles Green: Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South is correct when he says this does not mean anything, because the Department of Veterans Affairs has taken the same position throughout. We apparently are not getting any further ahead so far as providing hospitalization for these men is concerned.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: So far as I know, the Department of Veterans Affairs has not taken any position at all beyond the fact that it does not lie in our mouth to direct what another department shall do. If they arrive at our hospitals these facilities are there. We can scarcely go beyond that. An example of cooperation between our department and the Department of Transport was the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. These questions are not dead. In our department nothing is ever finished. As the minister said when it was referred to earlier this session, it is a matter of consideration. There is no conclusion to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
929. War veterans allowance board-administration-further amount required, $11,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with war veterans allowance. As the committee knows, the present position is that the maximum war veterans allowance which can be paid to a single man is $40.41 a month, and the maximum for a married man is $70.83 a month. In addition to that there was a vote in the sum of $500,000 which provided for further assistance. It was called a special assistance fund. On November 8 I had the answers to some questions concerning this fund, as follows:
1.	How many veterans were in receipt of war veterans allowance as of October 31, 1949?
Answer: 25,918.
2.	How many of such recipients have made application for assistance from the special assistance fund?
Answer: 3,174.
[Mr. Gillis.J


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Nothing like one in ten have asked for it.


Howard Charles Green: The reason more have not asked for it is the restrictions. That fund can be used only in the case of a recipient of war veterans allowance who is drawing the full amount. If he is getting a partial allowance then under the regulations he has no right to ask for help from this special fund. Another reason that more veterans have not asked for it is that to get any help they have to go through a second means test, which they bitterly resent. As the committee knows, they have to pass a means test to qualify in the first place; then before they can qualify for further assistance they have to pass another means test. I have here the instructions sent out by the department to their officers for completing applications for this special assistance, and I am going to read paragraph 13:
Consultation with social service division may be indicated in completing this paragraph. Entitlement of all members of the family group should be explored, particularly those of dependents. For example, the wife may be seventy years or over and thus entitled to old age pension, which generally carries with it the right to medical and hospital care, and it might be in the veteran's interest to go on single rate and his wife on old age pension. Again, there may be an unmet health need for which a resource is available in the community.
That paragraph illustrates the tragedy about this whole special assistance fund; namely, that the veteran probably will be better off if he can get on the old age pension, or if he can get his wife on it. Surely that is not the way Canada wants to treat her veterans. I am sure the Canadian people would disagree violently with a policy of that kind. These recipients of the war veterans allowance were front line men. If they had not seen action they could not qualify, except for a small percentage with disability pensions who did not get to the front line areas. Practically all these veterans were Canada's fighting men of the first great war; and eventually, mind you, the men of the second world war will qualify in the same way. That is the actual position. In some cases today these men are better off not to take the war veterans allowance and they go on the old age pension. I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun of November 12 of this year entitled "Burnt out and burnt up." This was written the day after Armistice day. The newspaper office is

within a short distance of the Vancouver war memorial, and these older veterans had been attending the parade, as they usually do. The editorial points out:
They are today In a worse position than old age pensioners. Both are supported from public funds. Why in the name of all that is reasonable should those who made special sacrifices for their country be subsequently penalized? Surely the least that could be done is set the WVA rate at a figure equal to the OAP, even if the former may qualify before age seventy.
It goes on to point out:
Needy veterans now get $40 a month war veterans allowance; their wives $30-a total of $70.
Actually the total for man and wife is $70.83.
The veteran, if sick, can get treatment in a DVA hospital with $15 deducted from the pension for each month, but wives and dependents are compelled, from their meagre income, to pay into B.C.'s provincial hospital insurance fund.
A man and wife together on OAP get $100 monthly in British Columbia and are entitled to provincial hospitalization while exempt from premiums. But a veteran's wife and children, under this ridiculous system, are penalized and can be haled into court and fined for non-payment of hospital premiums out of their pittance.
Then it further says:
Some wives of older veterans are voluntarily abandoning their $30 WVA allowance to claim an old age pension. Obviously, however, only a few of them are old enough to do so.
I realize that this special assistance fund was brought in as a temporary measure, but I suggest to the government that the time has now come when the situation can only be met by increasing the war veterans allowance by statute. Just a few weeks ago the Canadian Legion made representations to the government. They also made representations to members of the house on December 5, in which they asked that the war veterans allowance be increased from $40 to $50 monthly for a single veteran and from $70 to $85 monthly for a married veteran. I do hope action of that kind will be taken at the next session. I am sure every veteran member of the House of Commons, regardless of party, would support that suggestion.
Then I should like to say a word about the group of men called the imperial veterans. Year in and year out we have been urging that they be made eligible for the war veterans allowance, but as yet they have not been granted that entitlement. The Legion deals with their position also and points out that since Newfoundland has come into confederation the imperials in that province have been made eligible for Canadian war veterans allowance, and quite properly so. We ask that this right be extended at the next session to the imperials living in the other provinces of Canada. Personally I would hope that all the men who served in 45781-199
Supply-Veterans Affairs the forces of the King and who have been here for a period of years would be made eligible. I believe we should also include those who served in the forces of France and Belgium, who were our allies in the first war. The Legion points out that a survey was made this year by the Department of Veterans Affairs to ascertain the number of imperials who would benefit and that there are only 2,311 known cases who would become eligible. In their brief they suggest that it could very well be assumed that the total would not be in excess of 3,000. So I hope that at the next session these men will be made eligible.
There is also the question of the treatment of the merchant navy veterans. I need not repeat tonight what I have said about them before, but their situation is very unfair.
It all adds up to this. We do not believe we will get any of these improvements unless a special committee is set up next session. Even then we may not get all the improvements, but certainly past experience has shown that there is unlikely to be any veterans legislation amounting to much unless there is a special committee of the house on veterans affairs. We have not had one this session. We have in the house a very large number of returned men of both the recent war and the first war. I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he can give us an assurance tonight that next session a special committee on veterans affairs will be set up.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: As to the special committee, to deal with the last point first, on different occasions this session the minister indicated that the question was under advisement. I do not understand the last speaker when he says we will not get veterans legislation until we have a committee. The history of this government, and of this parliament prior to this government, has been the exact opposite with one exception, on every occasion legislation has been introduced into the house which has been sent to a committee for consideration. The only exception of which I am aware was in 1946. Because of the magnitude of the task, special powers were given to the committee, and it was invited to make suggestions.
If the hon. member means the setting up of a committee which would meet and advise this department or the government in matters concerning veterans affairs, I for one do not' expect it. Certainly, I should not support it. On the other hand, if he means that, when changes are being made in veterans legislation, the government will continue the practice it has been following since 1936, namely, referring the bill to a
3138	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs select committee of the House of Commons,
I should hope that practice would be continued.


Howard Charles Green: No, I asked for a special committee at the next session to consider the problems of the veterans; I did not make it subject to the government introducing legislation. I have asked for a special committee to consider veterans affairs.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I can only speak for myself, of course, but such a committee would be contrary to parliamentary procedure and I would not expect it. I cannot speak for my minister.


Howard Charles Green: What' does the parliamentary assistant mean by saying it would be "contrary to parliamentary procedure"?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No such committees are ever set up.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly, they are. We had a committee on atomic energy during this session.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I cannot go further than to say this. If I understood my hon. friend correctly, then the minister has given the only answer that can be given, that the matter would be considered before the next session. So far as this session was concerned, he was not prepared to do it. I was simply asking my friend to define what he meant by "committee" and he has done that.


Clarence Gillis: I believe I can speak for the other two members of our group in connection with this matter that' was raised by the member for Vancouver-Quadra. In order to save time, I merely say that I agree with him. Our opinions have already been put on the record during this session. I do not want to get into an argument at this time, but I do not agree with the parliamentary assistant that these committees are contrary to parliamentary procedure.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Subject to that definition; I was not making a statement, I was asking a question.


Clarence Gillis: We have had three committees of this house who have done a good job with regard to veterans legislation. The parliamentary assistant knows quite well that the bills that went to these committees from this house did not come back looking like the bills that went in. The amounts were jacked up and deadlines were shifted. I think it is in the interests of this house and the veterans that such a committee be set up.
I am rising at this time for the purpose of bringing another matter to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. It is so late


in the session that we can do nothing about it now, but the government can think about it during the recess. It has to do with veterans grants. There is one bad spot in the administration-I do not mean the personnel. Many veterans in this country did not draw their credits. They are leaving them on deposit against' the time when they might want to establish a home. When a veteran passes away, and I have two particular cases brought to my attention which I took up with the departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs, that money cannot be used to pay funeral expenses. These boys met a tragic death. In one case, the father had to transport the body practically across the country and there was a lot of expense attached to it. When he checked with the department as to whether the credits standing in the boy's name could be used for the purpose of assisting with the burial expenses, the answer was no.
I suggest the department should consider cases such as those, in which there are extenuating circumstances. The credits should accrue to the estate. I quite understand such a regulation early in the war, but under the circumstances I have described, in which the boy had credits standing in his name when he died, those credits should be paid to the estate. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to think about that and take it up with his officials.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I note what the hon. gentleman has said, and in passing I might say that I think those credits can be paid to a wife or dependent mother of the deceased. Perhaps if we could let this item stand, Mr. Chairman, until we complete the other items, I could come back to it and possibly make a statement in connection with it which might clarify matters for all members.
Item stands.
932. Hospital accommodation and facilities- further amount required, $250,356.


Howard Charles Green: This is not directly concerned with this item, but' perhaps the parliamentary assistant would tell us whether anything can be done for the Canadian nurses who went to South Africa, under an agreement with the South African government, and apparently were not paid t'he amount of money they had been promised. I believe representations have been made to the government about these cases. The matter was brought to the minister's attention when the estimates were last under consideration. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether that situation has been investigated, and whether anything can be done?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: As my hon. friend well knows, these nurses were enlisted and sent to South Africa where they served in a civilian capacity. According to the South African government, they were not considered as members of the armed forces.
On their return a special act was passed by parliament which gave to them most of the rehabilitation grants and benefits, not all of them. I know something of their present difficulty, and it is a dispute with respect to whether or not they have received those moneys they expected they would get at the time they made their contract with the South African government. So far as we are concerned, we have no knowledge of that. We gave them the benefits parliament has conferred, and it is clearly outside the scope of our concern.


Howard Charles Green: Could representations not be made by the Canadian government to the South African government?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I could not answer for the government. Such representations would have to be made through the Department of National Defence, through whose offices those girls were recruited.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
929. War veterans' allowance board1-administration-further amount required, $11,000.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: I should like to read a short statement relative to the subject matter of item 929, and the discussion that took place on that item. I am reading it on behalf of the minister, who is unavoidably absent. I should like to make a statement in regard to this matter, upon which the government has now reached a decision. It is the intention of the government at the next session to seek amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, with the following purpose in view, that former members of any of His Majesty's forces other than Canadian forces or of any of the forces of His Majesty's allies participating with Canada in wars ending on or before November 11, 1918, who have been domiciled in Canada for twenty years, may be made eligible for the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act, provided they otherwise qualify under those provisions and regulations.


Howard Charles Green: That would be extremely helpful. I hope that it will be made retroactive, certainly to the time of this announcement. I think that would be only fair to these men, because the amendments to the act may not go through for a good many months yet. Surely, with this announcement, the parliamentary assistant can give us the assurance that a special committee will be set up at the next session of the house.
45781-1991	,	*
Supply-Legislation


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The parliamentary assistant, just having given hon. members more than he had formerly anticipated he would be able to do, is not going to commit himself to anything. Having no responsibility, he is not prepared to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary
assistant answer one question about this if he can? Will this legislation include widows of imperial veterans and the other veterans referred to in the statement he made?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The answer to that question is
yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
164. General administration-estimates of the Clerk, $800,730.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose it would be appropriate on this first occasion, when his estimates are before us, to congratulate His Honour the Speaker on this phase of his work. It is, I would imagine, a rather onerous responsibility to have charge of the administration of this part of this building and of the large staff, but we know he will do a good job. My questions are in effect questions that I have asked before. I shall merely put them to His Honour hoping that he can either answer them favourably now or indicate to me that consideration will be given to these points in the near future.
First of all, as most hon. members are aware, the stenographers who work for us have felt for some time that an increase in pay was coming to them. They have made representations, and representations have been made on their behalf during this very session. I am sure we should all like to know whether favourable consideration is being given to these representations. I believe it is quite some time now since their last increase, and I am sure that the facts of the case warrant their request.
My second question would have to do with a long-range question that I have asked a number of times; it is whether consideration will be given to providing some sort of pension arrangements for stenographers and other employees of the House of Commons who are not included in pension plans. It seems to me that in this day and age it is unfair that some people should work the number of years that they do and not have the chance to participate in any pension plan at all. I realize one of the problems involved in all this is that we want, and I think rightly so, to keep the employees of the House of Commons as our employees rather

Supply-Legislation
than government employees. That means that there are certain points that must be watched.
My third question-and I think I have only one more after that-has to do with the interim period between the time this session prorogues and the time the next session begins. Usually there is a fair length of time between sessions and there seems to be nothing to do but let the sessional employees find such other work as they can, even though some of us may not think that is altogether fair; as a matter of fact, I think they should be put on an annual basis. In this instance the period between the end of this session and the beginning of the next is just long enough to get rather cold and hungry through not having any income, but it is not long enough to get other employment. I am wondering whether there is any possibility of some of the house employees getting temporary employment at least when the dominion-provincial conference is in session here in Ottawa; in fact I understand it is to meet here in this very building.
Then my last question relates to the experience that House of Commons sessional employees have had in the past a number of times of finding their employment cut off rather abruptly. I remember one year when the house prorogued about one o'clock at night, and some of the stenographers and others who had gone home at six o'clock that afternoon did not know that the session was over. When they arrived at the building the next morning they found that their names were not on the list and that they were through for that session. When members stay here a few days after the session ends in order to clean up their work, it is usually arranged that their stenographers, if necessary, are kept on.
I wondered if we could have a bit of a change in that policy and if some universal and more acceptable plan could be adopted so that these employees are not cut off too abruptly. I make that plea particularly at this time because it is not a very good Christmas present to have your pay suddenly cut off about two weeks before Christmas. Those are four questions which I should be glad to have answered by His Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the administrative duties that fall to the lot of the Speaker, I should like to say that the administration of the building is directly under the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms. I might say that it has been a pleasure for me to work with

these two officials this year; and I think all hon. members will agree that they have given good service to the house.
The Clerk of the House has informed me that a petition has been handed to him, signed by a great many members, requesting that the question of an increase in pay should receive the careful consideration of the officials of the house.
I might say that the Clerk has already had a conference with me, and we felt that the amount involved, if an increase were given, would be such that it probably should not be decided upon by myself and the officials. I might say that if an increase were granted to the stenographers, it would probably also apply to the amanuenses in the house and to other employees holding positions similar to the stenographers. All I can say at this time is that I can assure hon. members that the matter is receiving our careful attention.
A number of members have pointed out to me that some stenographers have been here much longer than others and that the matter of seniority should be considered. Other members of the house have pointed out and have written to me referring to the fact that some stenographers are much more efficient than others, and have suggested that there might be a test as to efficiency, in order that such efficiency might be assessed.
I mention these points so that hon. members will know that the matter is receiving our careful consideration. Another question has to do with pensions. This matter is also receiving the attention of officials of the house. There are some complications. I understand it would have to be considered by the Department of Finance, and in any event is a matter which would have to be taken up with the commission on internal economy.
There is a difficulty which has been pointed out that the stenographers and other parttime employees are only part-time employees, and are not working the year round. If a pension plan were put into effect, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act a lot of employees who have been here a number of years would have to pay in a considerable sum of money in order to get any great advantage from the plan. However, if it were put into effect, employees who are coming on at this time would eventually benefit from it. I mention this to assure hon. members again that the matter is receiving our consideration.
The question of employment during the intervening period between sessions has also received consideration, particularly by the Clerk of the House. It is possible a number of stenographers may be required at the time

>f the dominion-provincial conference. The Ilerk has already made inquiries regarding his, and if stenographers are required at that ;ime he will do all in his power to see that hose stenographers who are around Ottawa md have been employed in the house will be ;iven an opportunity to obtain employment luring that conference.
The fourth question raised by the hon. mem-3er for Winnipeg North Centre was with [DOT]espect to the termination of employment of itenographers and, I might say, other sessional ;mployees of the house when the house jrorogues today. As he has pointed out on >ehalf of the sessional employees, their ervices have been abruptly terminated. The Tlerk, myself and the Sergeant-at-Arms have :onsidered this matter, and we have decided hat in view of the fact that it is the Christmas ;eason and that the interval between sessions vill probably be brief, all sessional employees vill be given seven days' pay as a bonus. Those in the restaurant being monthly em->loyees will be paid to the end of the month. I hink I have answered all the questions asked >y the hon. member.


Mr. Richard (Oiiawa East):: Mr. Chairman,
do not wish to prolong this discussion. I hink all hon. members agree that the tenographic staff are entitled to a raise at his time, and I am satisfied that Your lonour will look into this matter immediately md that at the next session there will be an mprovement in that regard.
I had hoped that a greater number of the taff could be kept between sessions. My experience has been that we are rather under-taffed in the interval between sessions, both n the stenographic pool and in the regular taff of clerks, constables and others.
Here again, of course, our judgment may lot be as good as that of Your Honour, the >ergeant-at-Arms and the Clerk of the louse who, after all, are doing a wonderful ob. I only suggest that this matter be looked nto so that a greater number of the sessional imployees may be retained between sessions.
I have only one further remark to make.
would bring to the attention of the house he fact that these gentlemen who are on the taff, in this chamber, in the past few weeks, iave been working longer hours than usual. They are entitled to our thanks and, if lossible, they should be entitled to some emuneration. I am thinking of the page >oys, those who head the page boys, and the ither staff in this chamber. We have to be iere and we are paid to be here. But they vere never intended to be here for as long as hey have been for the remuneration they are eceiving at the present time.
Supply-Mines and Resources
Let me conclude my remarks by saying that I am sure all hon. members extend to them best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES Indian affairs branch-
231. Grants to residential schools, $2,470,017.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at some point I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would answer the question left over from last night as to who pays the 25 per cent erstwhile provincial share of old age pensions in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Mr. Maybank:: If convenient, I should like to make a statement on that at the close of the estimates, if that would be satisfactory?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge wanted me, when this branch was before the committee, to say a word for him. In what I shall say I shall be brief. He had to leave for Edmonton last night to attend to other business, or he would have been here to speak for himself. He wanted me to say to the committee that he was prepared, had he been able to stay, to press for three things on behalf of the Indians.
He feels strongly that the old age pension as an unchallengeable right should be granted to all Indians in Canada. Secondly, he wished me to say that the grant should establish a claims commission before whom the various tribes of Indians might bring in any claims they might have arising out of the nonfulfilment of treaty undertakings by the government. He states there are a good many such claims based upon such things as perpetual fishing and hunting rights, which have now passed out of any possibility of fulfilment within the areas allotted to these Indians. He states the government should be meticulous in its fulfilment of contractual obligations to the Indians, or that in the alternative full compensation should be made to them for any losses they might sustain.
A further request of the hon. member is that a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate be set up to consider Indian affairs, such committee to sit continuously until Indian problems have been dealt with satisfactorily.
I believe that in what I have said I have discharged my duty on behalf of the hon. member.


Ralph Maybank: I can only say that I thank the hon. member for his suggestions. They are matters which will, be considered in the interval between this session and the next.

Supply-Mines and Resources
Immigration branch-
234. Administration of the Immigration Act, $646,775.


Howard Charles Green: There are two questions I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant. One, which I began to ask last night, has to do with repatriates who were brought back on the Gripsholm. I do not know how many trips that ship made with Canadian repatriates from the Far East, but quite a number were brought back during the war. I understand the policy of the department has been to charge these people for their passage and I should like to speak in connection with one case.
I received a letter a week ago from a Canadian woman who was a nurse in Hong Kong during the attack on that city. Her husband, also a Canadian, served with the Hong Kong volunteers. Both were taken prisoner when the Japanese captured the city. The wife was transferred to Stanley camp and was brought back on the Gripsholm in November, 1943. The husband was sent to Osaka, Japan, and was not released until the end of the war. They lost everything they had and both came back in poor health due to malnutrition and beriberi.
The husband has recently been in Shaugh-nessy military hospital in Vancouver and has just resumed his occupation with the merchant marine. A claim has been made against these people for $883 for the wife's passage on the Gripsholm. These people have explained to the immigration branch that they have put in a claim to the Hong Kong government and they offered to pay the Canadian government whatever they received. The Hong Kong authorities say that they cannot pay anything and the imperial government has taken the same position. The wife points out in her letter:
We cannot understand why this loss, our active service and our long harrowing experiences in the prison camps should not be considered sufficient service rendered to Canada and the empire, and why we are not allowed to settle down and rebuild our lives without this threat of prosecution from our own country. My husband and I are both native born Canadians and he is considered to be a Canadian veteran by the Department of National Defence and as such has been adjudged entitled to veterans benefits and treatments.
They received a letter dated December 1, 1949, from the Department of Justice, Ottawa, reading as follows:
Dear Sir:
I do not appear to have received a reply from you to my letter of October 26 concerning the claim of the Department of Mines and Resources. This is, therefore, to advise you that unless your remittance in full of this claim is received within two weeks of the date of this letter, I will have no alternative but to recommend that legal action be instituted.
Yours truly,



W.D.J.,

[Stage Direction]
Assistant Deputy Minister
Surely that policy is not right. Thes people who were in the hands of tb Japanese suffered during the war as did n other Canadians. It was only the bad case that were allowed to come back on tb Gripsholm. They lost practically everythir and yet the department is trying to collei for the cost of their passage. I sugge: that those costs should be absorbed by tb country and I think the Canadian peop] would wish to have it done that way. Th particular case is a very deserving one an I hope the claim will be dropped. Can tb parliamentary assistant tell us just what : the policy with regard to these claims?
Ralph Maybank: I cannot answer if the hoi member means whether or not the claii will be dropped. That is something thi has to do with policy. The Canadian goverr ment provided subsistence for Canadians i enemy territory and also the cost of the: repatriation to Canada when this could t effected. In accordance with the usui practice, these Canadians signed undei takings to repay cost of subsistence an repatriation.
In the Far East the United States we the protecting power until that countr entered the war. After December, 194 Switzerland became the protecting power.
Between August, 1942, and December, 194 the S.S. Gripsholm brought from the Far Eai two parties of Canadian repatriates, totallir 288 souls. The total cost of maintenance an repatriation of these Canadians was $227,51
I shall ask the minister to give speci; attention to the particular case mentions by the hon. gentleman and I think that : about as far as any person could go, sittin as we are in committee in the dying houi of the session.


Howard Charles Green: I shall be glad to give tb parliamentary assistant the letter I hav referred to. I do hope that these people wi not be hounded any further.
Another question I have to ask has to d with the admission of Japanese to Canad; Here are certain questions I asked and tb answers I received in a return table yesterday:
1.	Have any persons of the Japanese race comic within one of the following categories, (a) thoi who were in Japan throughout the war; (b) tho: who were sent to Japan on exchange during tt war; (c) those who went to Japan after the w: under the repatriation scheme of the Canadia government, been given permission to return 1 Canada?
Answer: (a) yes; (b) no; (e) yes.
2.	How many in each category have been give such permission?
Answer: (a) 165; (b) see 1 (b) above; (c) 36

The custom before the war was for Japanese to send their children to Japan. According to i report made by the R.C.M.P. shortly after Japan struck there were about 1,500 children n Japan whose parents were still living in Janada. Many of the male children served n the Japanese forces although they had been Dorn in Canada. Now we are told that 165 of hese people have been given permission to *eturn to Canada. I do not know how many ire men or how many are women or how nany actually served in the Japanese forces. \ determined drive is being made at the iresent time by the Japanese Canadian Association to bring back to Canada all rapanese now in Japan who were born in his country. I have an editorial from the few Canadian, which is the publication of hat association, in which they say:
There is an estimated 3,000 Canadian born Nisei t present in Japan. Just exactly how many of hem are actually seeking to return is not known ut the number is quite substantial.
Therefore the 165 may be only the fore-unner of a very much larger movement. I uggest to the government that it will have a decide on a policy on this question. I hink it is going very far to allow the re-entry ito Canada of men who have served in the srces against us. Yet that would appear to e the present position. So far as the rirty-six who were repatriated, who went ack after the war with the Canadian govern-lent paying the expenses, I do not know 'hether or not they are the children of arents who signed for repatriation. The overnment is faced with a plan to get as lany as possible back. X suggest that there ill have to be some policy adopted.


Ralph Maybank: With reference to the
lirty-six, it may be said that they are people hose parents were sent back under circum-ances which the committee, and particularly le hon. member, will recall. For example, would include a boy of eighteen. He did 3t wish to go back at the time but he had to ) back. He was not yet a person in the res of the law, being still in his minority.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the age limit for those *questing repatriation was sixteen.


Ralph Maybank: Whatever the age was. At e first opportunity he sought to come back, :ing a Canadian-born person. That is the pe of individual making up the thirty-six.
5 to the other question, I can assure the >n. member it will be carefully considered, id particularly the remarks he has made night.


Howard Charles Green: As yet no definite policy has en adopted by the government?
Supply-Mines and Resources


Ralph Maybank: It is a definite enough policy that those who are Canadian-born, and against whom there is no charge of disloyalty, would have the right to come back.


Howard Charles Green: Even though they served in the Japanese forces?


Ralph Maybank: They have all been carefully screened in that respect, and I would say it is certainly not within the knowledge of the department that any of them are in that class. The hon. member has indicated that some served in the war. It may be so, but that would be something tending to bar their admission. We have no definite knowledge of. any such thing.


Howard Charles Green: The editorial attempts to justify the bringing back of those men who served in the forces on the ground that they were conscripted, and therefore had to serve. I hope the government will not adopt the policy of allowing the re-entry into Canada of men who fought against us in the war.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Have we finished with the Department of Mines and Resources?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: 826 was the last item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary assistant give the answer that he promised to give?


Ralph Maybank: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre inquired on Friday evening, the 9th of December, 1949, about the financial arrangements for the payment of old age pensions in the Yukon territory. Old age pensions in the Yukon territory are administered under the provisions of the old age pensions ordinance of the Yukon territory, enacted by the Yukon territorial council, and assented to on the 8th of April, 1949.	There is an agreement dated the
31st day of July, 1949, between the government of Canada, represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the government of the Yukon territory, represented by the commissioner of the Yukon territory, which provides for the payment of pensions by the territory under and subject to the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, being chapter 156 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended. The provisions of the agreement dated the 31st July, 1949, became effective on the first of July, 1949. This replaces an earlier agreement dated the 9th of April, 1949, which became effective the first of April, 1949.
Under the terms of the agreement the territory, in the manner prescribed by the dominion act and regulations thereunder, will deal with an application for pension made by any person who is resident in the Yukon

Supply-Justice
territory and, if satisfied that such person is properly and lawfully entitled to receive pension under the conditions specified in the dominion act and regulations, pay a maximum pension of $480 yearly, such maximum pension to be reduced under certain conditions specified in the agreement. This agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the Yukon territory was approved by order in council P.C. 3922, dated the 10th August, 1949. The old age pensions ordinance of the Yukon territory is administered by a board known as the old age pensions board. The board consists of three members, who are the territorial treasurer and two members appointed by the commissioner in council. Under the agreement the dominion government provides 75 per cent of the pension and the territorial government the balance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the parliamentary assistant know the source of the funds from which the territorial government pays that balance?


Ralph Maybank: They raise their own money from various sources, trapping licences, and that sort of thing.



DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
121. Departmental administration, $256,281.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, in the atmosphere of Christmas that is beginning to descend on the house I regret that it is necessary to return once again to a subject that is unfortunately out of harmony with the season we are approaching, and undoubtedly out of harmony with the general sentiments expressed here by most members on this occasion in regard to what they hope may be the atmosphere of the season ahead. Nevertheless, I do not think it is possible to allow the remarks the Prime Minister made yesterday to pass without comment. I would have dealt with them immediately if these items had not been interrupted just after the Prime Minister had spoken.
Dealing with the explanations which had been made by the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister made certain statements that seem to leave an extraordinary impression as to the attitude of the government toward its responsibilities under the Combines Investigation Act, and, in fact, under other acts passed by this parliament. Referring to what had taken place and the remarks which had been made earlier, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2988 of Hansard:
The failure to make a report public is not a continuing offence as the leader of the opposition suggests. You cannot continue the offence.

Then after further remarks he said this: ... it was not done, as the leader of the oppositior suggested, by deliberate omission or by a plat for holding back the report. The question o publication did not arise at all before the fiftee: days had expired.
Just before he made those remarks th< Prime Minister had said:
. . . what has been done was done inadvertentl; by pressure of time.
First of all may I point out that what wa: done was not done inadvertently by pressuri of time. In the detailed explanation givei by the Minister of Justice as to what ha< occurred he explained that the commissione under the combines act had referred thi report to him, with a memorandum indicatin, the date by which it should be made public The act is clear. No discretion of th minister was involved. It was the duty o the minister not only to see that the report wa made public, but certainly to do nothing tha would prevent its being made public.
It is certain, of course, that what has bee: done cannot be undone and cannot be changec It never can. Our task as members of thi house is to consider what should be done as result of what has happened and what can not be changed. It was not inadvertence. Th question of publication was not one fc discretion. The minister was informed, an this was not made public until more tha ten months after it had been completed. 1 was not made public because the ministe had decided it was not going to be mad public, for reasons that had nothing to d with pressure of time or inadvertence.
The suggestion of the Prime Minister is the once a law has been broken it cannot b broken any more; and if by inadvertence th time has passed within which somethin should be done, then that is all that ca happen. If this principle were applied to th income tax requirements, then if for an reason someone failed to file an income ta return he might just as well go ahead an not only continue to fail to file it but n< make the payments required under the ac
What is involved here is not just tl question of failure to make public. A numbi of other results would have flowed fro: making the report public as soon as th; could be done, whether or not it was withi the fifteen days. If the report had been mac public at any time within three months of tl date required by statute, the previous parlii ment still would have been sitting and tl house could have dealt appropriately with tl information that was made available. Secon if the report had been made public with: five months of the date required by statu the public would have had an opportuni

>f knowing the facts in this particular case >efore passing judgment at the polls. Third, f the report had been made public within en months, then others might have launched xrosecutions if they thought that was the proper course, based upon the evidence :ontained in the report.
This is no mere case of a technical breach >f the statutory requirements, as was :uggested by the Minister of Justice in his extraordinary statement yesterday. This was rot a mere breach of the requirement to ;able a report, such as there was in the case if the report of the maritime commission. There was a breach of the statutory require-nent in that case; but, important though it vas that the members of this house should lave known what the maritime commission ;aid, within fifteen days of the opening of ;he session, which was required by statute, there can be no suggestion that in that nstance the circumstances were similar. This vas not just a case of a technicality, or of nadvertence.
The action of the government in this case lid these things: First, it denied to the public nformation the public was entitled to have ast January. Second, it denied to parliament nformation that the members of parliament should have had while sitting here as representatives of the people. Third, it denied to the voters information they had a right to have before being called upon, under the processes of democracy, to pass judgment upon what had taken place. Fourth, it denied the possibility of prosecution of the milling companies by any provincial attorney general or by any individual.
Those were the consequences which flowed from this act. It was not just a case of some delay in the information being made available. These were the direct results not of inadvertence but of the deliberate act of the government itself. It is important to go back to the time when the act in its present form was introduced. Because he was the man responsible for bringing in the act at that time, I should like to quote briefly from the words of the prime minister of Canada of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, as they appear at page 2605 of Hansard for May 8, 1923:
What is the power of the Criminal Code to prosecute some particular person or group of persons in comparison with the power of spreading broadcast throughout the land accurate and true information with regard to a situation which is inimical to the public interest, and which the people themselves are certain to be concerned in remedying? Take it as respects legislation. How is parliament to know what is the best course to take in the matter of legislation unless it gets true and accurate information?
Parliament was not permitted to know, at a time when parliament could have acted in
Supply-Justice
relation to the subject matter of this report. By the deliberate and calculated act of the government, the time lapsed within which any prosecution could be launched by anyone.
At a later date, dealing with the question of publication of reports, Mr. Ilsley has this to say, as reported at page 3473 of Hansard of 1935.
An intolerable condition exists when we permit the making of expensive and important inquiries into alleged combines and have the reports kept secret.
I think that sums up the situation. An intolerable situation exists when any report of an inquiry of this kind is held back and not made available to the members of parliament, who have a duty and a right to act with knowledge of what that report contains. I do not think a more flagrant violation of this or any other act passed by parliament could possibly be conceived. It still seems that the Minister of Justice, the members of the government, and many of the members of this house fail to recognize that this is no technicality. This is no mere procedural problem, nor is it just a case of inadvertence. They fail to recognize that a fundamental issue is involved here; that what has happened cannot be changed.
If that fundamental principle is to be respected, then something must be done. If we were asked what is the real guarantee of our liberty, I think that the most of us who have studied our constitutional history would answer: the equality of every Canadian under the law. If we were asked how that equality under the law can be assured, we would surely answer that the rule of law must be respected by every Canadian, from the Prime Minister down to the humblest citizen; that is the simple but unescapable issue before us. A law of this parliament has been broken, and deliberately broken, by the Minister of Justice. While it is true that the government has concurred in and must share the responsibility, as Minister of Justice he is charged with the enforcement of law. He stands in a special position in relation to the enforcement of this or any other law.
The Minister of Justice has broken this law, and that fact cannot be changed. For that reason, respect for the laws of this parliament and the enforcement of those laws can be restored only when the present Minister of Justice ceases to occupy that position.


Mr. Noseworihy:: I wish to agree in principle with all that has been said by the leader of the official opposition. I have been interested in this subject, because for a great many years it was my duty and my privilege

Supply-Justice
to hold up before young Canadians in this country the high standard of the British parliamentary system, British law and justice. It is because this incident which we are discussing now seems to me to undermine the whole structure of the British parliamentary system that I feel concerned about it.
I regret very much that the Minister of Justice has, by a series of circumstances over which he may or may not have had any control, become involved in this situation. It is not my wish that any hon. member of the Liberal party, or any other party, should find himself in such a position.
The leader of the official opposition has just pointed out that it is not simply a failure to comply with the regulations. What I cannot forgive the Minister of Justice for- or for that matter the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the Prime Minister, because both have accepted responsibility for the course of action followed-is not their failure, because of the pressure of time, to make this report public, but the fact that those gentlemen sat through a whole session of parliament, which lasted for three months, knowing that they were withholding information. They failed to take parliament into their confidence. Following that, they went before the country in a general election, and withheld from the public, until they were safely back in office, the information which the public should have had. A series of byelections were held, also, before the information was revealed. That is not fair, either to parliament or to the people of Canada.
In my humble opinion there is only one course that the Minister of Justice can take if he has any regard for the maintenance of our laws, if he has any respect for the responsibility of a cabinet or cabinet ministers to parliament, and that is for him to tender his resignation to the governor general. So far as that goes, I can see very little difference between the conduct of the Minister of Justice and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister. Both have openly-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, oh.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I may say to the Liberal backbenchers that this is no laughing matter. Even the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice laugh, as though this were an everyday occurrence. I am giving my opinion as one who has some regard for the rights of parliament and respect for the laws of our country. I say this, Mr. Chairman, that if any other member of this House of Commons had followed the same course and deliberately flouted legislation passed by this parliament, the Minister of Justice could follow no other *ourse. if he were to fulfil his duties, than

to have that member unseated. I submit that is the only course that the Minister of Justice can follow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, a
reference has been made to the backbenchers on this side of the house. I do not consider myself a backbencher, but I want to assure my junior friend, who has lately become a member of this house, that I have every confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe they are great Canadians, doing their best on behalf of all Canadian citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want to say a few words. As a matter of fact, I shall do it in words better than I myself might use, by giving just a few quotations from volume I of Macaulay's "History of England". I quote this from page 25:
The principle that the King of England was bound to conduct the administration according to law, and that, if he did anything against law, his advisers and agents were answerable, was established at a very early period, as the severe judgments pronounced and executed on many royal favourites sufficiently prove.
Then on page 26:
We have been taught by long experience that we cannot without danger suffer any breach of the constitution to pass unnoticed. It is therefore now universally held that a government which unnecessarily exceeds its powers ought to be visited with severe parliamentary censure, and that a government which, under the pressure of a great exigency, and with pure intentions, has exceeded its powers, ought without delay to apply to parliament for an act of indemnity.
We feel that this government exceeded its powers when it made the decision not to carry out the provisions of subsection 5 of section 27 of the Combines Investigation Act, and we feel that we have done precisely what is set out in that passage. We have endeavoured to visit on this government, in the only way that is open to us-and that is by speaking sternly and strongly on the floor of the house-severe parliamentary censure. We tried to do it in other ways but were prevented from doing so, hence we are doing it in this way.
I go on and draw a parallel to the last of the sentences I just read. Macaulay says that if a government, under the pressure of a great exigency and with pure intentions, has exceeded its powers, it ought without delay to apply to parliament for an act of indemnity. In this case there has been no evidence to prove that there was a great exigency; there has been no evidence that satisfies us that there were pure intentions; and I submit that Macaulay was right, that if there had been established a great exigency and pure intentions it was the British parliamentary practice, and it was the

lanadian thing, for the ministers concerned d apply to parliament, in spirit at least, for n act of indemnity. I submit that not only ras the law of parliament broken, and broken eliberately, but that parliament has been ffronted and flouted by the attitude which regret the ministers concerned have taken l connection with this matter. Macaulay oes on, at page 27, to say:
Our forefathers might indeed safely tolerate a ing in a few excesses; for they had in reserve a neck which soon brought the fiercest and proudest ing to reason, the check of physical force.
Then Macaulay goes on to point out how it ! the genius of our parliamentary set-up that re have got away from the use of force to le rule of law; but he says, in developing re necessity for maintaining the rule of law, nd I quote now from page 28:
As we cannot, without the risk of evils from [DOT]hich the imagination recoils, employ physical >rce as a check on misgovernment, it is evidently ur wisdom to keep all the constitutional checks n misgovernment in the highest state of efficiency,
>
watch with jealousy the first beginnings of ncroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, ven when harmless in themselves, to pass unchal-:nged, lest they acquire the force of precedents.
I share the view expressed by the leader f the opposition that it is unpleasant, in the ying moments of a session, a couple of weeks efore Christmas, to raise this issue. As a latter of fact, it was reopened yesterday torning by the Minister of Justice. Even at nat, and though I had this book on my desk, was for a few moments thinking that I rould not speak on it again tonight until he protests that were made on this side f the house were greeted with laughter from he other side. This is every bit as serious s the stern words I have quoted from iord Macaulay's "History of England". I ertainly hope that this sort of thing will ot happen again, and I trust that the Cana-ian people will not soon forget the way i which the law was broken, and the way a which those who have broken the law ,ave not only refused to apply to parliament or an act of indemnity, have not only efused to throw themselves on the mercy of he house, but still insist that they had the ight to do the unlawful thing they did.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
132. To provide for the revision, classification and onsolidation of the public general statutes of anada, $75,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have word as to just what the expectation is as o when the revision will be completed, or /hat progress is being made?


Mr. Garson:: About a year and a half to wo years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Justice
138. Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and livestock; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $6,107,490.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice there is a decrease in this item. While I would be the last one in the world to object to a decrease, I should like to have from the minister a word on the operation of the penitentiaries and whether he feels that everything is being done that can be done to implement what I think is the more humane and enlightened administration that is being given by the new commissioner.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I might say to my hon.
friend that the explanation for the reduction in the amount of the estimate is that we follow the practice of including in our current estimates items for what my hon. friend might regard as capital construction, and also for machinery. The reduction in those items accounts for the net reduction in the amount of the estimate. There is no actual reduction in the amount of money currently expended on the prisoners' welfare.


Clarence Gillis: Under the present penitentiary regulations, prisoners suffering from a communicable disease or one that requires active treatment are paroled out to an institution. On the other hand, there have come to my attention recently cases in which prisoners who were sentenced were suffering from a communicable disease, and in which the penitentiary authorities refused to admit them. Recently there were brought to my attention two cases, from Halifax, of veterans who got into difficulties, who were sentenced to two years' imprisonment and who required active treatment for t.b., but the penitentiary would not take them in. There was quite a bit of difficulty in having the matter resolved. I think the minister's department should consider amendment of the regulations to provide for the establishment of some central institution in Canada to which prisoners of that type may be sent. While this crime may not have been very serious, it was bad enough. What happens when a man is sentenced for murder, manslaughter or some other serious crime of that nature? In Canada if he is sentenced to a penitentiary, there is no place which will accept him. I know there must be a lot of cases across the country because in the last eight months I have run across three of them. Has this been brought to the minister's attention, and is the department considering any remedial action?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This matter has arisen in a minor way from time to time, but there has been no concerted effort upon the part of

Ways and Means
the provinces, who are the interested parties -because the expense of this treatment falls upon, them-to request that we should do this. In point of fact, in view of the total convict population of our penitentiaries, the treatment of tuberculosis by us would be a much more expensive way of providing such treatment for those who are suffering from it than to let them take their treatment in provincial institutions.
As my hon. friend, I am sure, realizes, there has to be a certain volume of cases before they can be handled at a reasonable unit cost. Even taking the whole of our cases in the penitentiaries, it is not sufficient to enable us to make a provision whereby we could keep our unit cost at a reasonable level. For that reason we have not, up to the present time at any rate, considered that it was necessary that we should provide facilities such as my hon. friend has mentioned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is
being done for the John Howard societies? Are they being assisted in what the minister considers an adequate fashion?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps the best way to answer the question is to give the exact amounts paid to the John Howard societies. They are as follows:
John Howard Society of British Columbia .. $2,000
John Howard Society of Alberta	 1,000
John Howard Society of Saskatchewan		500
Canadian Welfare Association, Winnipeg ...	2,000
John Howard Society of Ontario	 5,000
La Societe d'Orientation et de Rehabilitation
Sociale	 3,000
La Societe de Readaptation Sociale, Quebec 500
John Howard Society of Quebec	 1,500
Canadian Penal Association	 2,000
John Howard Society of Vancouver Island 500 Salvation Army	 2,000


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

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


Douglas Charles Abbott: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, the sums of $440,983,724.09, $7,485,744.34 and $56,546,333.34, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion, agreed1 to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 224, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1950.


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


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I ask unanimous consent of the house to table the answer received from the premier of Ontario to the letter I tabled a couple of days ago in connection with the dominion-provincial -conference? At the same time I inquired whether there was any other correspondence with the premiers that had not yet been tabled, and I find that there was the letter to which my letter to Premier Douglas was the answer, and two letters from Premier Duplessis which I should also like to table. The letters thus tabled so far will constitute all the correspondence that has been had with the premiers in that regard up to the present time.
Perhaps to follow what has been done on previous occasions hon. members would wish to have these letters printed as an appendix to Hansard of today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the letters shall appear as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of further correspondence, see appendix, page 3169.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to do anything about the Senate amendments to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act? When we passed the motion to sit tonight I think it was agreed that there would be unanimous consent to deal with this bill this evening.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am told that the Senate amendments have not been printed, and hon. members have not had an opportunity of seeing them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members could find out quite easily what the amendments are, because all the Senate did was to strike out the first two sections. There is nothing left
Mr. Garson.]

but the third section. I must be careful in what I say, but I want to protest against what was done over there.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps under the circumstances it might be well to let the bill stand for further consideration.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am informed that the reason for the amendments made by the Senate was that there was no one available to answer questions they put with respect to the extent of the immovable property now producing revenue for the society. I am told that the intention was to delete that clause, because they could not get the information required and there was no. urgency about the other provisions of the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: That very effectively kills the bill for this session, and it will have to be re-introduced at the next session. It is most unfortunate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other action taken by the Senate was to cut out the section that provided for such changes as were necessary to bring Newfoundland into the Canadian Red Cross. It seems to me that the action taken over there was rather high-handed.


George Alexander Drew: I think it is obvious that the desires of the Red Cross would not be satisfied if we adopted the bill in its amended form.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is my understanding. It would probably better suit their convenience to have whatever amendments they wish made to their act included in the one bill, and not have the bill introduced by the member for Mount Royal, in its emasculated form, adopted at this time.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, December 10, 1949.
Sir:
1 have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at nine o'clock p.m. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



SITTING SUSPENDED

Major James William Coldwell: If there is no more business to be done, and if we must wait until nine o'clock for the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, should not we recess? 45781-201
The Royal Assent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think we should be here a few minutes before nine o'clock, because we may receive a message from the other place informing us that the supply bill we have just sent over has been passed. I think we should receive the message before the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod summons us to the other place.	[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: With unanimous consent, the sitting of this house is suspended until 8.45 p.m.
At 8.20 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 8.45 p.m. this day.



SITTING RESUMED


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber. In the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of John Henniker Torrance.
An act for the relief of Edith Harriet Black Hambly.
An act for the relief of Margaret Reid O'Connell.
An act for the relief of Alton Charles Bray.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Gertrude Macartney Dorken.
An act for the relief of Louise de Forest Mac-Alpine.
An act for the relief of Jessie Fraser Blaiklock Stewart.
An act for the relief of Alice Lafond Burnham.
An act for the relief of Muriel Annie Elizabeth Hicks Kurtzman.
An act for the relief of Robert Walsham Herring.
An act for the relief of Leta Helen Butler Waller.
An act for the relief of Violet Blodwyn Young Murdoch.
An act for the relief of Joseph Tannenbaum.
An act for the relief of Isabel Christine MacLean Robinson.
An act for the relief of Marie Annette Vallieres Handfield.
An act for the relief of Nicholas Kouri.
An act for the relief of Viateur Fortier.
An act for the relief of Lois Elizabeth Rolph.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Dunn Landry.
An act for the relief of Arthur Joseph D'Avignon.
An act for the relief of Jessie Gwendolyn Paul Giroux.
An act for the relief of Celia Maria Gabrielle de Costa Baxter.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Beattie Harrison.
On act for the relief of Rosaline Laham Anber.
An act for the relief of Anna Starzynski Sztafimy.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Claire Dickison LeMieux.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Brown
Bailey.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Lome Bradbury Ashton.
An act for the relief of Harry James Seaban.
An act for the relief of Julia Seram Odenick.
An act for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Howat Brammall.
An act for the relief of Francis Gilmer Tempest Dawson.
An act for the relief of Imelda Poirier Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Joseph Charles Paul Emile Chales.	.
An act for the relief of Robert Mason Watson.
An act for the relief of Catherine Alexandra Mackenzie Mitchell.
An act for the relief of Irene Filion Piimeau.
An act for the relief of Mary Jean Strachan Taylor.
An act for the relief of Edna Kate Folley Dickenson.
An act for the relief of Gerald Geoffrey Racine.
An act for the relief of Yvonne Marshall Balfry Corbin.
An act for the relief of Colleen Ethel Thornhill Clark.
An act for the relief of Leith Albert Anderson Baldwin.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeanne Martin.
An act for the relief of Irene Emily Katerelos Stones.
An act for the relief of Margaret Helen Milne Ward.
An act for the relief of Lizzie Brogden Hibberd.
An act for the relief of Eric Jeffery Burn.
An act for the relief of Agnes McIntosh McKillop McBride.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Audrey Beau-clerk Quinlan.
An act for the relief of Thelma Blanche Collins Geick.
An act for the relief of Thora Beckingham Lock.
An act for the relief of Hugh William Lloyd.
An act for the relief of Linda Emilia Wilen Robitaille.
An act for the relief of Brina Paskin Warshaw.
An act for the relief of Thomas Hanusiak.
An act for the relief of Loretta Waugh O'Dell.
An act for the relief of Marie Rita Plante Boyer.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Waxman Sherman.
An act for the relief of Laura Cohen Kaminsky.
An act for the relief of Annie Marion Lesnichuk Krushelniski, otherwise known as Annie Marion Lesnichuk Krush.
An act for the relief of Marjorie May Smart Birmingham.
An act for the relief of Anna Sandberg Goldbloom, otherwise known as Anna Sandberg Gold.
An act for the relief of Olive Frances Harper Morrison.
An act for the relief of Delphis Brousseau.
An act for the relief of Gladys McCarrick Bonnemer.
An act for the relief of Bernice Beverly Corry Cohen.
An act for the relief of Bessie Zinman.
An act for the relief of Marion Lillian Gargan Thomson.
An act for the relief of Mary Piekos Rynski.
An act for the relief of Victor Chryssolor.
An act for the relief of Blanche Ruth Serokey Smith.
An act for the relief of Raymonde Belanger Skaife.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Gwendolen Tobi Hearns.
An act for the relief of Ruby Muriel Keith Gray.
An act for the relief of Laurel Jeanne MacGregor Thomson.
An act for the relief of Edith Sara Hamilton Warlund.
An act for the relief of Donald Duncalf Birch-enough.

An act for the relief of Joan Gertrude Fox Corbett.
An act for the relief of Richard William Henry Wark.
An act for the relief of Eileen Dorothy Richards Turner.
An act for the relief of Janey Beryl MacPhail Shuttle worth.
An act for the relief of Edith Cohen.
An act for the relief of Ida Lindy Angel Katzman.
An act for the relief of Marian Latora Glenden-ing Joncas.
An act for the relief of Eva Nerenberg Anger.
An act for the relief of Josephine Teweson Paul Bero.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Ross Erskine.
An act for the relief of Jeannette Mathilda Seymour Oswald.
An act for the relief of George Bennett Gagnon.
An act for the relief of Bertha Rudolph Holzberg.
An act for the relief of Lillian Elizabeth Moore Bowen.
An act for the relief of Laurence Bouchard Pappini.
An act for the relief of Nana Rosenberg Taube.
An act for the relief of Cecile de Mers Asheim.
An act for the relief of Elsie Margaret Harding Lewin.
An act for the relief of Raymond Webster Elliott.
An act for the relief of Hazel Wilma Drysdale Warnecke.
An act for the relief of Ruby Rabinovitch Friedgut, otherwise known as Ruby Rabinovitch Freygood. '
An act for the relief of Mildred Carmen Mitchell James.
An act for the relief of Bessie Birenbaum Abrams.
An act for the relief of Grace Elsie Mills Johnson.
An act for the relief of Robert Ewen Stewart.
An act for the relief of Mary Cecilia Helliwell Glassco.
An act for the relief of Betty Malca Stillman Shugar.
An act for the relief of Tessie Charow Hersh.
An act for the relief of Cicely Manley Sampson.
An act for the relief of Paul Paquette.
An act for the relief of Joseph Simon Adelard Barrette.
An act for the relief of Edith Daisy Steer Catto.
An act for the relief of Gwen Pollock Harris.
An act for the relief of Sonia Eagle Davies.
An act for the relief of Evelyne Louis Steinwold.
An act for the relief of John Gilbert Speak.
An act for the relief of Chesna Laing Shapiro.
An act for the relief of Edith Turcotte.
An act for the relief of Irene Brodwin Miller.
An act for the relief of Jean Ruth Montgomery Loiselle.
An act for the relief of Joseph Charles Michel Emery.
An act for the relief of Lyla Almina Wharry Johnston.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Helen Glass Nixon.
An act for the relief of Olga Hetmanchuk Dorval.
An act for the relief of Grace Melina Cotton Crawford.
An act for the relief of Thomas Gillespie Shields.
An act for the relief of Czerna Berger Borodow.
An act for the relief of Freda Tippett Hart.
An act for the relief of Rebecca Rosa Jacobs Bershadsky.
An act for the relief of Etta Valerie Sherwin Sperber.
An act for the relief of Sandy Douglas Carbone.
An act for the relief of Hellen Isabel Dawson Parlee.
An act for the relief of Violet Emma Woodhall Brownridge.
An act for the relief of James Samuel Hatton.

An act for the relief of Anne Denburg Hershco-vich.
An act for the relief of Ruth Baranoff Clark.
An act for the relief of Viateur Longpre.
An act for the relief of Evalina May Carter O'Connell.
An act for the relief of Borys Zaryn.
An act for the relief of Alice Dorothy Rolisom Cransky.
An act for the relief of Shirley Patricia Susan Oakes Rowlands.
An act for the relief of Margaret Adeline Bodley Cabana.
An act for the relief of Mary Letinetsky Nemeroff.
An act for the relief of Nora Helen Jarrett McCaffrey.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Karaszi Bergeron.
An act for the relief of John Albert Roberts.
An act for the relief of Leslie Ernest Tulett.
An act for the relief of Ernest Tonegawa.
An act for the relief of Rene Walsh.
An act for the relief of Sara Tepper Prupas.
An act for the relief of Joseph Wilfred Melanson.
An act for the relief of Muriel Johnson Binnie ^Keates.
An act for the relief of William Campbell James Meredith.
An act for the relief of Lillian Steinberg Heitner.
An act for the relief of Clayton George Allison.
An act for the relief of Louis Kasper.
An act for the relief of Arthur Colpron.
An act for the relief of Berengere Pare Fuller.
An act for the relief of Enid Dorothy MacRae Gauley.
An act for the relief of Guy Merrill Desaulniers.
An act for the relief of Margaret May Lester Rajotte.
An act for the relief of Odette Therese Gabard Coupal.
An act for the relief of Ella Maxine Shover Logan.
An act for the relief of Bernard Rivet.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Campbell Westover.
An act for the relief of Mildred Blanche Tilson Bell.
An act for the relief of Ruby Anderson Edwards.
An act for the relief of Vera Marguerite Abraham Allen Richey.
An act respecting The British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada and Newfoundland.
An act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
An act to amend The Export and Import Permits Act.
An act respecting the Application of a National Trade Mark to Commodities and respecting the True Description of Commodities.
An act to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act.
An act respecting the Incorporation of Pure-bred Live Stock Record Associations.
An act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
An act to authorize the granting of a subsidy to the government of the province of British Columbia in aid of the construction of an extension to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.
An act to encourage and assist in the construction of a Trans-Canada Highway.
An act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An act to amend The National Housing Act, 1944.
An act to amend The Surplus Crown Assets Act.
An act to amend The Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
An act to amend The Judges Act, 1946.
An act to establish the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
An act to amend the Customs Act.
45781-201£
The Royal Assent
An act to amend The Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947.
An act respecting the Acquisition of the Temis-couata Railway.
An act respecting the Department of Resources and Development.
An act respecting the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
An act to amend the Salaries Act.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend The Veterans Land Act, 1942.
An act to amend The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act respecting the Inspection of Fish and Marine Plants.
An act respecting Bankruptcy.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways System during the calendar year 1949, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to amend The Industrial Development Bank Act.
An act respecting the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
An act to amend The Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947.
An act to encourage the Construction and Conversion of Vessels in Canada.
An act to assist Producers of Coal in the Atlantic Maritime Provinces.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act respecting Forest Conservation.
An act to amend The Income Tax Act and the Income War Tax Act.
To these hills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name, the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, bycommand of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the
[Stage Direction]
Prorogation of Parliament twenty-first parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
Since the opening the present session of parliament you have approved measures required for the discharge of the constitutional responsibilities of our nationhood. As a result the Supreme Court of Canada will shortly become the final court of appeal for Canada.
In response to your address the parliament of the United Kingdom has amended the British North America Act to vest in the parliament of Canada the power to make amendments to the constitution of Canada in matters which are exclusively of federal concern.
Early in the new year a conference with representatives of the provincial governments will be held for the purpose of working out a satisfactory procedure for making within Canada such other amendments to the constitution as may from time to time be required.
Our country continues to take an active part in the proceedings of the United Nations. Despite that organization's present inability to solve the major political problem confronting mankind, the United Nations has succeeded in coping with menacing situations in many parts of the world. At the current session of the general assembly, Canada was elected to the economic and social council.
It is gratifying that the agencies under the North Atlantic treaty have been established and are undertaking the tasks which have been assigned to them.
My ministers are giving constant attention to the defence needs of Canada. The consideration of the measure to consolidate existing legislation respecting our defence forces has not been completed. This measure will be re-introduced at your next session.
The real foundation of the ability of the nations of the north Atlantic community to defend themselves lies in their continued economic strength and stability. Canada is co-operating with other nations, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, in seeking solutions to the difficult economic problems which still confront the democratic world.
The revaluation of currencies in western Europe and the sterling area made it necessary to alter the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar.
You have approved important amendments to the National Housing Act designed to maintain the present high volume of housing construction.
Legislation has also been enacted to enable the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces for sharing the cost of construction of a trans-Canada highway.
Provision has been made for three new departments to replace the Department of Reconstruction and Supply and the Department of Mines and Resources. These will be the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Resources and Development, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which will also be responsible for the administration of Indian affairs.
A special parliamentary committee examined into the operations of the atomic energy control board.
During the session measures have been enacted respecting forest conservation; the application of a national trade mark and the true description of commodities; the establishment of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation; assistance
in the production of coal in the Atlantic maritime region; encouragement of the construction of ships in Canada; the disposal of surplus crown assets. Amendments have been made to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act of 1939; the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; the Industrial Development Bank Act; the Criminal Code; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; the Judges Act of 1946; the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; the Export and Import Permits Act; and the Veterans Land Act of 1942. The fish inspection legislation has been revised. The Combines Investigation Act has been strengthened and a complete revision has been made of the Bankruptcy Act.
The government has announced a new policy respecting grants to municipalities in which there is an exceptional concentration of federal property.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for all essential services for the current fiscal year. The budget resolutions, providing for substantial reductions in taxation, have been approved and the necessary legislation has been enacted.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
As you return to your homes, I should like to extend to you and through you to those you represent my best wishes for the Christmas season and to express the hope that Divine Providence will continue to bless our people with prosperity and happiness in the New Year.
This concluded the first session of the twenty-first parliament.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
31.	Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,500,000.
32.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $500,000.
33.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,700,000.
34.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
35.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $60,000.
36.	To reclaim and to prevent the flooding of valuable agricultural lands in the valley of the Lillooet river, near Pemberton, B.C., $312,000.
37.	Land reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $917,500.
38.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
39.	Emergency protection and reclamation of maritime dikelands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $50,000.
40.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, and necessary surveys in connection therewith, $400,000.
41.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under regulations to be approved by the governor in council, $100,000.
42.	Agricultural Products Act-to provide for losses incurred in respect of the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products under the Agricultural Products Act, including authority for the Minister of Finance, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, from time to time, to pay amounts in

Supply
the aggregate not exceeding $40,000,000 out of any unappropriated money in the consolidated revenue fund as recoverable advances, $100,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
43.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $4,750,000.
44.	Agricultural lime assistance, $410,000.
45.	Dairy products board, $22,022.
46.	Meat board, including quality premiums on A and B1 grade hog carcasses, $5,877,133.
47.	Special products board, $24,000.
Administration service-
746.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $24,500.
Science service-
747.	Science service administration - further amount required, $165,000.
748. Animal and poultry	pathology-further amount required, $35,000.
749.	Botany and plant pathology-further amount required, $18,000.
750.	Agricultural chemistry-further amount required, $6,000.
751.	Agricultural entomology-further amount required, $136,000.
752.	Forest entomology-further amount required, $491,570.
Experimental farms service-
753.	Central experimental farm-further amount required, $58,900.
754.	Branch farms and stations and illustration stations-further amount required, $540,870.
Production service-health of animals-
755.	To provide for payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $1,815.
756.	To provide for payment of compensation for turkeys that died while under quarantine for suspected avian pneumoencephalitis (Newcastle disease) , $9,248.
757.	Live stock and poultry-further amount required, $20,000.
Marketing service-
758.	Dairy products-further amount required, $25,000.
759.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $227,866.
760.	Marketing of agricultural products-further amount required, $25,000.
Special-
761.	To reclaim and to prevent the flooding of valuable agricultural lands in the valley of the Lillooet river, near Pemberton, B.C.-further amount required, $58,000.
762.	Amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1948-49, $3,473,295.
763.	To provide for a grant to the federated women's institutes of Canada, $2,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
764.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, including outstanding claims under the feed grain payment policy-further amount required, $12,000,000.
Science service-
666.	Plant protection-further amount required, $9,325.
Demobilization and reconversion-
667.	Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $250,000.
668.	Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $25,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
413.	Departmental administration, $468,107.
414.	Commodities branch, including assistance in the development of markets and the procurement of supplies, and contributions as detailed in the estimates-a proportion formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $753,324.
415.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for loss of furniture and effects, under regulations approved by the governor in council, $2,125,495.
416.	Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $267,210.
417.	Economic research and development branch, including the conducting of investigations and reporting upon commercial relations and foreign tariffs, and the development of Canadian industry, and a contribution of $8,400 to the international customs tariffs bureau-a proportion formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $536,960.
Exhibitions-
418.	Exhibitions generally, including a contribution of $1,000 to the international bureau of exhibitions, $328,832.
419.	Canadian international trade fair, 1949, including authority to refund from revenue deposits received for contracts for space (revote $115,000), $624,000.
Standards division-
420.	Administration, including administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $92,850.
421.	Electricity and gas inspection services, including administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, $483,800.
422.	Laboratory, $40,460.
423.	Weights and measures inspection services, $553,860.
424.	To provide for expenses of the industrial defence board, $92,780.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
425.	Administration, $193,235.
426.	Statistics, including contribution of $6,291 to the Inter-American Statistical Institute, $3,032,875.
427.	Census of population, including a contribution of $3,146 to the Inter-American Statistical Institute committee on the 1950 census of the Americas, $569,836.
Wheat and grain division-
428.	Salaries and other expenses, $43,640.
429.	To hereby authorize the Canadian wheat board to buy rapeseed and sunflower seed from producers at a price of six cents per pound for the best grade f.o.b. local shipping point and at appropriate prices for other grades during the period commencing on August 1, 1948, and ending on July 31, 1949; to sell rapeseed and sunflower seed so purchased or the -*il extracted therefrom as directed by the Minister <£ Trade and Commerce; to enter into such contracts as the said minister may direct for the carrying out of any of these operations, $1.
Supply
[Stage Direction]
Canada Grain Act-
430.	Administration, $117,835.
431.	Operation and maintenance, including inspection, weighing, registration, etc., $2,157,643.
432.	Canadian government elevators, including equipment, $919,411.
Special-
433.	To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses incurred in purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, etc., on behalf of the Department of National Defence under chapter 51, statutes of 1947, $900,000.
Fraser Valley diking board-
434.	To provide for payments by the government of Canada under the agreement dated July 22, 1948, between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, establishing the Fraser Valley diking board-formerly under Department of Finance, $3,000,000.
.Demobilization and reconversion-
435.	Emergency import control-salaries and other expenses-formerly under Department of Reconstruction and Supply, departmental administration, $252,295.
436.	To provide for the liquidation of contracts, including commitments of previous years related to the acquisition of assets operated by the Department of Reconstruction and Supply or an agency of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply; and for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses-formerly under reconstruction and supply, $400,000.
437.	To provide for production and transportation subsidies on steel and iron under such terms and conditions as may bo approved by the governor in council-formerly under reconstruction ana supply, $7,750,000.
438.	To provide for research and development of jet engines and aircraft-formerly under reconstruction and supply, $1,500,000.
B-General-(formerly under reconstruction and supply) -
Dominion coal board-*
439.	Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $94,100.
440.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $4,500,000.
National research council-
441.	Salaries and other expenses of the national research council, $8,908,969.
442.	Expanded research on the utilization of farm crops (revote), $135,000.
443.	Applied (industrial) chemistry building, $750,000.
444.	Grant to the Royal Society of Canada, $8,000.
445.	New waterline for Montreal road laboratories (revote $125,000), $150,000.
446.	Maritime regional laboratory (revote $140,000), $478,000.
447.	Electrical engineering and radio laboratory- purchase of site and preliminary plans, $175,000. Atomic energy control board-
448.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $76,020.
449.	Researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $150,000.
450.	Chalk River project-capital and operating expenses, $6,056,670.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
451.	Administration and operation of Canadian Arsenals Limited-formerly under demobilization and reconversion, $2,900,000.
452.	To provide for the cost of replacement, repair, reconditioning and salvage of essential buildings, machinery and equipment destroyed by fire at the Dominion Arsenals plant of Canadian Arsenals Limited, $1,300,000.
A-Department-
713.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for loss of furniture and effects, under regulations approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $41,332.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
714.	Census of population-further amount required, $30,300.
B-General-National research council-
715.	Salaries and other expenses of the national research council-further amount required, $10,000.
A-Department-Exhibition commission-
898.	Exhibitions generally-further amount required, $30,000.
899.	Canadian International Trade Fair, 1950, including authority to refund from revenue deposits received for contracts for space, $422,000.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
900. Administration-further	amount required, $1,602.
901.	Statistics-further amount required, $85,076.
902.	Census of population-further amount required, $60,000.
Wheat and grain division-
903.	To authorize such payments to the Canadian wheat board out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary to assure a return to the Canadian wheat board on sales of wheat for use in Canada equal to the prices received by the Canadian wheat board under the Canada-United Kingdom wheat contract, $1.
904.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in the international wheat council for the crop year 1949-50, $25,577.
Canada Grain Act-
905.	Operation and maintenance, including inspection, weighing, registration, etc.-further amount required, $18,668.
Special-
906.	To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses incurred in purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, etc., on behalf of the Department of National Defence, under chapter 51, statutes of 1947-further amount required, $75,000.
907.	Fraser valley diking board-to provide for payments by the government of Canada for certain dike reconstruction and improvement desirable to protect the works already undertaken in the main program under the agreement dated July 22, 1948, between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, establishing the Fraser valley diking board, $1,125,000.
B-General-National research council-
908.	Salaries and other expenses of the national research council-further amount required, $25,390.
909.	Supersonic wind tunnel building and equipment and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $30,000, $275,000.
Atomic energy control board-	.
910.	Chalk River project-capital and operating expenses-further amount required, $375,000.
936. To provide for the purchase and storage of, and incidental expenses in connection with, strategic reserves of materials, $1,293,375.

[Stage Direction]
326.	Departmental administration, $264,135. Architectural branch-
327.	Branch administration, $373,105.
328.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $8,711,199.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-
329.	Maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $11,289,644.
Nova Scotia-
330.	Dartmouth public building-addition and alterations (revote $15,000), $29,000.
Dominion-public building-(revote), $25,000.
Halifax-accommodation for customs (revote),
[Stage Direction]
Halifax customs building-improvements and elevator (revote $21,000), $25,000.
Halifax-postal station at Armdale	(revote),
[Stage Direction]
Halifax-office building, $150,000.
Kentville public building-addition and alterations, $15,000.
Kingston-public building (revote $23,000), $53,500. New Brunswick-
331.	Andover-customs and immigration buildings (revote $40,000), $100,000.
Fredericton-public buildings-site and preliminary work towards construction of building (revote $73,500), $150,000.
Moncton public building-addition and alterations (revote $50,000), $150,000.
North Head public building-addition and alterations (revote $25,000), $32,000.
Sackville public building-addition and alterations,
[Stage Direction]
Saint John public building-addition and alterations, $500,000.
St. Leonard-customs and immigration buildings (revote $50,000), $100,000.
St. Stephen-public building-(revote $20,000), $50,000.
Sussex public building-addition and fittings (revote $27,000), $35,000.
West Saint John-terminal building for customs and immigration (revote $200,000), $675,000.
Prince Edward Island-
332.	Charlottetown-public building (revote $100,000), $150,000.
Summerside-public building (revote $50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Maritime provinces generally-
333.	Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $100,000, $535,000.
Quebec-
334.	Armstrong customs and immigration building (revote), $50,000.
Baie Comeau-public building (revote), $90,000.
Chandler-public building (revote $25,000), $71,000.
Cowansville-public building (revote $50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $100,000, $900,000.
Donnaconna-public building (revote $35,000), $91,500.
Supply
Drummondville-public building (revote), $146,000.
Granby public building-addition, alterations and improvements (revote $15,000), $30,000.
Joliette public building-addition (revote), $50,000. Lacolle (Blackpool)-building for customs, $190,000.
Levis-public building, $100,000.
Maniwaki public building-addition and alterations (revote $14,000), $39,000.
Masson-public building (revote $35,000), $50,000. Matane public building-addition, alterations and improvements (revote), $40,000.
Mont Joli-public building (revote $50,000), $140,000.
Montmagny-public building (revote $50,000) ,
[Stage Direction]
Montmorency village-site for public building,
[Stage Direction]
Montreal-building for British and foreign mail (revote $255,000), $400,000.
Montreal-Longueuil postal station-addition and alterations (revote $37,000), $50,000.
Montreal- Mount Royal postal station, $60,000. Montreal-Notre Dame de Grace postal station- addition and alterations (revote), $56,000.
Montreal-postal station "B" (revote $350,000), $450,000.
Montreal-postal terminal-addition (revote $95,000), $500,000.
Montreal-St. Henri postal station-site (revote), $25,000.
Montreal-site for Youville postal station, $50,000. Noranda-public building (revote), $70,000.
Quebec-marine stores building-elevator (revote $16,000), $25,000.
Rimouski-public building (revote $55,000), $75,000. Rock Island customs and immigration building- addition to site (revote), $60,000.
St. Felicien-public building, $10,000.
St. Georges de Beauce-addition to public building site (revote), $15,000.
St. Henri de Levis-public building (revote $25,000), $40,000.
St. Jerome-public building, $50,000.
Ste. Therese de Blainville-public building-addition and alterations (revote), $25,000.
Sherbrooke-public building (revote), $200,000. Thetford Mines public building-addition, alterations and repairs (revote $60,000), $130,000.
Three Rivers public building-addition (revote $45,000), $200,000.
Val d'Or-public building (revote $70,000), $253,000. Ontario-
335.	Barrie-public building (revote), $80,000. Belleville-public building (revote $52,000), $100,000. Brantford public building-elevator	(revote),
[Stage Direction]
Chapleau-public building (revote $25,000), $91,500. Chatham-public building (revote $50,000), $150,000. Cornwall-public building (revote $50,000), $150,000. Delhi-public building (revote $25,000), $120,000. Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $100,000, $900,000.
Dundas public building-addition and alterations (revote $20,000), $40,000.
Fergus public building-addition and alterations revote $29,000), $55,000.
Fort Erie customs building-addition and alterations (revote $50,000), $75,000.
Geraldton-public building (revote $24,500), $120,000.
Hamilton-office building (revote $100,000), $300,000. Little Current-public building (revote $50,000), $142,500.
Ottawa-additions to mines and resources sites on Booth and Le Breton streets (revote $33,000), $200,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Ottawa-building for Department of Veterans Affairs (revote $100,000), $300,000.
Ottawa-Central Experimental Farm-accommodation for staff (revote $6,500), $10,000.
Ottawa-Central Experimental Farm-insecticide building, $35,000.
Ottawa-departmental office building (revote $175,000), $350,000.
Ottawa-East Block-improvements, $200,000.
Ottawa-fuel research laboratory-alterations and improvements (revote), $50,000.
Ottawa-improvements to heating in Woods and Canadian buildings (revote $70,000), $85,000.
Ottawa-laboratory accommodation for Department of Mines and Resources, $110,000.
Ottawa-toward accommodation for Department of Mines and Resources, $50,000.
Ottawa-new supreme court building-rehabilitation, completion and furnishing (revote), $200,000.
Ottawa-records storage building-alterations and improvements, $340,000.
Ottawa-testing laboratory for Department of Public Works (revote $50,000), $223,000.
Pelee Island-building for Department of National Revenue (revote $5,000), $16,000.
Pembroke-public building (revote $25,000), $100,000.
Peterborough-public building (revote $50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Picton-public building-addition and alterations (revote), $25,000.
Port Arthur-public building-purchase of site (revote), $50,000.
Port Colborne-public building-addition and alterations (revote), $26,000.
Sault Ste. Marie-public building, $265,000.
Sudbury-public building site (revote), $165,000.
Tecumseh-public building (revote $31,000), $35,000.
Toronto-city delivery building-extension, restoration, mechanical equipment and addition to site (revote $150,000), $300,000.
Toronto-postal station on St. Clair avenue (revote $85,000), $125,000.
Toronto-postal station "E" (revote $30,000),
[Stage Direction]
Welland-public building-addition, fittings and improvements (revote $50,000), $250,000.
Manitoba-
336.	Brandon public building-addition and alterations (revote), $30,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $50,000, $205,000.
Flin Flon-public building (revote $100,000), $184,000.
Grandview-public building (revote), $49,000.
Pine Falls-public building (revote $35,000), $40,000.
Winnipeg-postal accommodation at Canadian
National Railways station (revote $75,000),
[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg-public building-site (revote), $150,000. Saskatchewan-
337.	Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $50,000, $250,000.
Ituna-public building (revote), $25,000.
Langenburg-public building, $20,000.
North Portal-building for customs and immigration (revote $65,000), $115,000.
Prince Albert public" building-addition and alterations (revote), $120,000.
Regina-accommodation for the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, $200,000.
Rosetown-public building (revote), $25,000.
Saskatoon-public building-addition and alterations, $150,000.
St. Walburg-public building (revote $20,000), $70,000.
Alberta-
338.	Chief Mountain-customs and immigration building (revote $75,000), $120,000.
Coutts-buildings for customs and immigration (revote $133,000), $175,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $50,000, $205,000.
Edmonton-addition and alterations to South Edmonton postal station (revote), $45,000.
Edmonton-postal terminal (revote $50,000), $400,000.
Edmonton-public building (revote $80,000), $150,000.
Leduc-public building (revote), $25,000.
Macleod-public building (revote $25,000), $60,000.
Peace River public building-local improvements (revote) $8,500.
Red Deer-public building (revote $50,000), $100,000.
British Columbia-
339.	Abbotsford-public building, $91,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $50,000, $400,000.
Douglas-buildings for customs and immigration (revote), $120,000.
Haney-public building (revote $47,000), $132,000.
Huntingdon-buildings for customs and immigration, $10,000.
Kingsgate-customs and immigration building (revote) , $100,000.
Ladner-public building, $80,000.
Langley prairie public building (revote $75,000), $129,000.
Nanaimo-public building, $50,000.
North Vancouver-postal station, $225,000.
Ocean Falls-public building (revote $40,000), $75,000.
Osoyoos-customs and immigration buildings (revote $40,000), $100,000.
Smithers-public building (revote), $25,000.
Vancouver-Alvin estates building-purchase, alterations and extension (revote $800,000), $1,100,000.
Vancouver-Begg building-purchase, alterations and extension (revote $380,000), $620,000.
Vancouver-post office building site (revote $250 -000), $350,000.
Vancouver-Addition and alterations to postal station at Sea Island airport, $17,000.
Vancouver-building for customs, $100,000.
Victoria-public building (revote $50,000), $350,000.
White Rock-public building (revote $25 000) $65,000.
Generally-
340.	Dominion immigration buildings-repairs, improvements, etc., $125,000.
341.	Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance and repairs, $50,000.
342.	Experimental farms and science laboratories_
replacements, repairs and improvements to buildings $350,000.	'
343.	Building for national film board (revote) $25,000.
344.	London, England-clerk's table for the new British House of Commons (revote $7,500), $9,400.
345.	National capital planning service. $125,000.
346.	National printing bureau (revote $440,000), $600,000.
347.	Public buildings generally-repairs, alterations, fittings and improvements and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $200,000, $1,000,000.
348. Veterans' hospitals-repairs, improvements and alterations, $175,000.

Engineering branch-
349.	Branch administration, $327,655.
350.	Engineering, including salaries of engineers, clerks, etc., $1,306,903.
Dredging-
351.	General superintendence, $16,440.
352.	Maritime provinces, $1,595,510.
353.	Ontario and Quebec, $1,759,090.
354.	Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $417,240.
355.	British Columbia and Yukon, $701,440.
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.-
356.	Champlain graving dock, $314,313.
357.	Esquimau graving dock, $127,460.
358.	Esquimau old dry dock, $9,000.
359.	Lome graving dock, $364,646.
360.	Selkirk-repair slip, $6,750.
361.	Locks and dams, $377,370.
362.	Snagboats, $98,841.
Maintenance and operation of roads and bridges-
363.	Burlington channel bridge, $56,970.
364.	Kingston, LaSalle causeway, $166,756.
365.	New Westminster bridge, $51,245.
Generally-
366.	Construction, repairs and improvements- harbours and rivers, $82,958.
Nova Scotia-
367.	Anderson's Cove-breakwater repairs (revote $6,000), $20,000.
Arrow Point-breakwater extension, $24,000. Aspotogan-wharf, $6,500.
Babin's Cove-(Arichat)-breakwater, $20,000. Baddeck-wharf reconstruction (revote $50,000) $55,000.
Ballantyne's Cove-breakwater repairs (revote $42,800), $46,000.
Battery Point-breakwater extension (revote) $20,000.
Bay St. Lawrence-harbour repairs and improvements ((revote $100,000), $211,500.
Black Point-wharf repairs and improvements, $48,000.
Boudreauville-breakwater wharf extension, $8,000. Breen's Pond-breakwater replacement (revote $52,000), $55,000.
Broad Cove-Groyne extension, $8,000.
Broad Cove Marsh-harbour improvements, $38,000. Cape John-breakwater (revote), $50,000.
Capstick-breakwater reconstruction (revote $59 -400), $70,000.
Chapel Cove-groyne extension, $8,000.
Chester Ironbound-breakwater extension (revote $26,000), $28,000.
Clarke's Harbour-dredging, $85,000.
Comeauville-groyne, $6,000.
Cook's Beach-harbour protection, $12,000.
Cow Bay (Port Morien)-breakwater reconstruction and dredging (revote), $155,000.
Crescent Beach-improvements and extension to beach protection, $7,500.
Digby-repairs to piers, $30,000.
Dingwall-dredging, $130,000.
Dover-wharf extension (revote), $27,000.
Drum Head-wharf replacement (revote $161,500) $173,000.
East Ferry-breakwater replacement (revote $60 -000), $70,000.
Eastern Passage-dredging (revote $47,000), $50,000. Fall's Point (Woods Harbour)-wharf extension (revote), $115,000.
Ferry landings at Tiverton, East Ferry, Freeport and Westport (revote), $300,000.
Supply
Gabarus-breakwater wharf replacement, $135,000.
Glace Bay-breakwater reconstruction, $126,000.
Grand Etang-pier extension (revote), $10,000.
Hampton-breakwater repairs, $63,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new work to be undertaken, $755,000.
Ingonish Beach-wharf reconstruction, $38,000.
Ingonish Ferry-wharf repairs and improvements (revote), $30,000.
Iona-wharf improvements, $13,000.
John Vogler's Shore-breakwater extension, $12,000.
King's Bay-breakwater replacement, $65,000.
Larry's River-breakwater extension, $7,000.
Little Anse-breakwater replacement (revote), $206,000.
Little Harbour-breakwater wharf, $20,000.
Little Harbour (L'Ardoise)-breakwater extension $21,000. '
Little Judique Ponds-breakwater repairs, $21,000.
Liverpool-wharf (revote), $35,000.	[DOT]
Livingstone Cove-wharf reconstruction (revote $60,000), $72,000.
Lower East Pubnico-wharf improvements, $14,000.
Lunenburg (Battery Point)-breakwater reconstruction (revote $10,000), $60,000.
McDonald's Cove-breakwater extension, $35,000.
Malagash-wharf extension, $38,000.	'
Margaree Harbour-breakwater extension, $61,000.
Mauger's Beach-replacing protection of Halifax harbour (revote $10,300), $12,000.
Mill Cove-breakwater extension (revote), $55,000.
Neil's Harbour-breakwater repairs (revote) $135,000.
New Glasgow-wharf repairs (revote), $28,500.
New Harbour-wharf replacement, $42,000.
North Sydney-breakwater repairs (re'vote $6,000) $24,000.	T '
North Sydney-towards wharf and shed, $150,000.
North West Cove (Scatari island)-breakwater reconstruction (revote $70,000), $83,000.
North West Cove (Tancook)-breakwater extension (revote), $35,000.
Owl's Head-wharf extension, $12,000.
Parker's Cove-breakwater repairs, $68,000.
Peter de Grat-breakwater, $6,500.	'
Pictou towards restoration of harbour facilities $200,000.
Pleasant Bay (The Ponds)-pier reconstruction, $25,000.
Point Michaud-breakwater replacement, $20,000.
Port Felix-wharf replacement (revote $20,000). $23,000.
Port Hawkesbury-wharf repairs (revote), $50,000.
Port Maitland towards breakwater reconstruction and extension (revote $23,500), $180,000.
Port Mouton-breakwater replacement, $50,000.
Pugwash-wharf repairs (revote $75,500), $307,000
Seal Harbour-dredging (revote), $58,000.
Seaside (Harbour View)-breakwater replacement (revote $24,500), $35,000.
Shad Bay-wharf replacement (revote $11 000) $12,000.
Short Beach-breakwater repairs (revote), $85 000.
Sydney Harbour (South Bar)-to purchase property, $13,000.
Wadden Cove-breakwater replacement (revote $13,500), $15,000.
Willow Cove (Port Mouton)-dredging, $45,000.
Windsor-shear dam reconstruction and extension. $16,000.
Yarmouth Bar-towards breakwater reconstruction (revote $100,000), $200,000.
Prince Edward Island-
368.	Alberton-to take over and reconstruct wharf $11,000.
Anglo Rustico-wharf, $10,000.
Annandale-boat basin (revote), $6,000.
Canoe Cove-breaks rater repairs (revote $18,000), $23,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Charlottetown-towards wharf reconstruction and improvements (revote $238,000), $350,000.
Fishing Cove (Cape Egmont)-wharf and breakwater (revote $47,000), $88,000.
Graham's Pond-breakwater repairs, extension and protection block, $27,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $35,000, $125,000.
Launching Pond-boat harbour (revote), $57,000.
Little Sands-wharf reconstruction (revote $70,000), $90,000.
North Lake-reconstruction of breakwaters (revote $71,000), $75,000.
Souris-breakwater repairs-(revote $50,000), $58,000.
Souris-railway wharf-towards reconstruction and dredging, $200,000.
Summerside-railway wharf-repairs to wharf and reconstruction of shed (revote $84,000), $113,000.
Summerside-to take over and reconstruct Holman's wharf (revote), $20,000.
Tignish-repairs to breakwaters, $65,000.
Tracadie harbour-towards breakwater reconstruction, $50,000.
Wood Islands-harbour improvements (revote $11,000), $25,000.
New Brunswick-
369.	Barachois-wharf improvements and dredging (revote $25,000), $29,000.
Blue Cove-breakwater repairs (revote $40,000), $60,000.
Botsford-breakwater extension (revote $50,000),
[Stage Direction]
Buctouche-dredging (revote $31,000), $115,000.
Burnt Church-wharf repairs (revote $25,000), $50,000.
Campbellton-dredging (revote), $10,000.
Caraquet-towards harbour improvements and repairs (revote $100,000), $160,000.
Cape Bald-towards replacement of breakwater approach, $100,000.
Chockfish-wharf (revote), $11,000.
Cocagne Bar (Cormierville)-breakwater wharf (revote $25,000), $26,000.
Escuminac-breakwater repairs (revote $21,300), $22,500.
Grande Anse-pier repairs, $90,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $65,000, $200,000.
Little Shippigan-wharf extension (revote $70,000), $85,000.
Mace's Bay-breakwater (revote $100,000), $189,000.
Malloch's Beach-breakwater extension (revote $65,000), $83,000.
Neguac Church-wharf extension (revote $50,000), $61,000.
North Head (Grand Manan)-towards wharf,
[Stage Direction]
Petit Rocher-breakwater repairs (revote), $141,000.
Pointe du Chene-repairs to wharf and breakwater, $74,000.
Richibucto-wharf improvements, $135,000.
Richibucto Cape-repairs and improvements to harbour works (revote $3,500), $7,500.
St. Andrews-wharf improvements (revote $100,000), $260,000.
St. Mary's (Shippigan Island)-towards breakwater, $150,000.
Seal Cove-breakwater (revote $100,000), $334,000.
Seal Cove-repairs to breakwaters (revote), $19,500.
Shippigan - Savoy landing - towards wharfage facilities subject to an agreement to be entered into with the provincial government as to division of costs (revote), $205,000.
Stonehaven-breakwater repairs and improvements (revote $30,000), $36,000.
Tracadie-wharf (revote), $21,000.
Welchpool-wharf replacement (revote $133,000), $143,000.
Quebec-
370.	Baie Comeau-wharf improvements (the agreement made by the Minister of Public Works on the tenth day of January, 1949, with Quebec North Shore Paper Co., for payment of an annual amount until 1989, in lieu of wharfage dues and tolls is hereby ratified, notwithstanding the Government Harbours and Piers Act, c. 89 of R.S.C. 1927) (revote $318,000), $500,000.
Baie de la Trinite-dredging (revote), $141,000.
Baie des Sables-wharf extension (revote $43,000), $230,000.
Baie Ste. Catherine- towards wharf reconstruction, $150,000.
Barachois de Malbaie (Bridgeville)-jetty reconstruction (revote), $114,000.
Blanc Sablon-wharf (revote $125,000), $300,000.
Boischatel-wharf reconstruction, $63,000.
Cap Chat-wharf extension (revote $85,000), $310,000.
Cap Sante-wharf reconstruction (revote) $9,000.
Chandler-wharf reconstruction, subject to construction by the Gaspesia Sulphite Co. (revote $210,000), $370,000.
Chateau Richer-wharf repairs, $27,000.
Cloridorme-wharf (revote $50,000), $270,000.
Deauville (Little Magog Lake)-wharf, $15,000.
Entry Island, M.I.-wharf (revote $32,000), $40,000.
Ferme Neuve-wharf, $9,500.
Forestville-shed on wharf, $7,000.
Gascons (Anse a Mercier)-wharf extension, $59, 000.
Grandes Bergeronnes (Pointe a John)-wharf extension, $53,000.
Grande Entree-breakwater (revote $47,000), $115,000.
Grande Riviere-reconstruction of harbour works and dredging (revote $284,000), $359,000.
Grande Vallee-jetty reconstruction, $23,000.
Grande Vallee-towards deep water wharf (revote $50,000), $300,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of service, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments againts future years in the amount of $125,000, $600,000.
Iberville-wharf reconstruction, $27,000.
L'Anse a Beaufils-jetty extension, $38,000.
L'Anse a Brillant-harbour improvements, $14,000.
L'Anse au	Griflon-reconstruction of jetties.
[Stage Direction]
La Sarre-wharf, $6,300.
La Tabatiere-wharf extension (revote $39,000), $46,000.
Les Eboulements-wharf improvements, $23,000.
Levis-towards reconstruction of wharf (revote $200,000), $350,000.
Marsouins-towards wharf extension, $200,000.
Matane-towards breakwater reconstruction, $200,000.
Matane-towards wharf reconstruction (revote $100,000), $350,000.
Mechins-towards wharf extension, $250,000.
Mont Louis-wharf repairs, $33,000.
Montmagny-wharf reconstruction (revote), $57,000.
Natashquan-wharf reconstruction and improvement (revote $173,000), $188,000.
Newport (L'Anse a Blondel)-breakwater, $36,000.
North Temiskaming bridge-improvements, $20,500.

Norway Bay-wharf replacement, $57,000.
Notre Dame du Portage-wharf reconstruction and extension (revote $50,000), $170,000.
Paspebiac harbour repairs and improvements (revote $19,000), $37,500.
Petit Gaspe-wharf extension, $11,000.
Petite Riviere Est-harbour improvements, $31,000. Point Basse, M.I.-breakwater wharf replacement (revote $113,000), $120,000.
Pointe au Pere-wharf repairs, $44,000.
Port Daniel-fishing harbours (revote $50 000)
[Stage Direction]
Quebec, Inner Louise basin-wharf repairs (revote), $30,000.
~agUGneau whnrf extension and improvements, $105,000.
0OQ1ChelieU river~dredginS (revote $177,000), $200,-
Rimouski-towards wharf reconstruction (revote $280,000), $720,000.
Riviere au Renard-wharf repairs and improvements, $22,000.
Riviere au Tonnerre-dredging (revote), $60,000
Riviere Colombier (Anse Noire)-wharf enlargement (revote $30,000), $36,000.
Riviere des Mille lies-dredging (revote), $40,000.
Riviere Ouelle (Pointe aux Orignaux)-wharf reconstruction (revote $100,000), $155,000.
Riviere Pentecote-redredging (revote), $90,000.
Riviere Whalen (Cap des Hosiers)-fishing harbour (revote $105,000), $306,000.
Ruisseau Chapados-harbour improvements (remote $55,000), $60,000.
Ruisseau LeBlanc-breakwater reconstruction (rerote $95,000), $98,000.
Ste. Anne des Monts-wharf reconstruction and extension (revote $680,000), $1,030,000.
St. Francois du Lac-wharf repairs (revote), $32,-
st- Jean, I.O.-wharf reconstruction (revote $5,000), 513,000
St. Jean Port Joli-towards wharf reconstruction >75,000.
St. Joachim de Tourelle (Anse des Quinze Collets) -breakwater, $30,000.
St. Joseph d'Alma-wharf reconstruction (revote 518,400), $35,000.
St. Michel de Bellechasse-wharf repairs (revote 552,000), $58,000.
53.550SoiLt6H™OOrePairS and im-DTOVements <-vot< Tadoussac (Anse Tadoussac)'-towards wharf reconstruction, $200,000.
Vercheres-harbour repairs and improvement! .revote $30,000), $157,000.
Ville Marie-wharf, $31,000.
Ontario-
371.	Amethyst Harbour-wharf, $11,000.
Belleville-harbour improvements, $23,000.
Britt-wharf (revote $8,600), $12,000.
Brockville-breakwater reconstruction (revote)
98.000.	' Burditt Lake (Clearwater Lake)-wharf, $8,000. Byng Inlet-wharf (revote), $7,300.
Charlton-wharf, $5,400.
Christian Island-wharf extension (revote $10,300)
12.000.	'
Cockburn Island-reconstruction of harbour works
revote $56,000), $61,000.
Collingwood-harbour reconstruction and im->rovements (revote $100,000), $265,000.
Dawson's Point (New Liskeard)-wharf, $7,000. Dryden-wharf (revote), $10,000.
Port William-dredging (revote $60,000), $486,000. Fort William-wharf, $35,000.
Goderich-redredging and repairs to harbour rorks (revote $30,000), $148,000.
Gore Bay-wharf extension, $39,000.
Supply
Hamilton-harbour improvements (revote $630,000), $1,000,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $75,000, $350,000.
Honora-wharf replacement (revote $3,500), $8,000.
Island Grove-wharf (revote), $23,000.
Lion's Head-wharf repairs, $25,000.
Macdiarmid-breakwater replacement, $25,000.
Matachewan-wharf, $6,000.
Meaford-repairs to harbour wall, $30,000.
Michipicoten-dredging, $80,000.
Midland to Parry Sound-towards dredging inside channel (revote $152,000), $162,000.
Millhaven-wharf enlargement, $21,000.
New Liskeard-breakwater wharf, $8,000.
Nipigon-wharf extension and dredging (revote) $57,000.	'
Oshawa-redredging, $150,000.
Ottawa (Rideau river)-repairs to walls (revote $56,400), $59,000.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements (revote). $105,000.
Pelee Island-wharf reconstruction (revote $50 -000), $80,000.	'
Penetanguishene-harbour improvements (revote $22,000), $35,000.
Port Arthur-dredging (revote $160,000), $165,000.
Port Arthur-breakwater, $500,000.
Port Bruce-reconstruction of pier (revote $38 -000), $65,000.
Port Burwell-reconstruction of pier (revote $24 -000), $325,000.	'
Port Colborne-breakwater repairs (revote $24 -000), $85,000.	T
Port Dover-repairs to west pier, $51,000.
Port Lambton-harbour improvements, $35,000.
Port Maitland-repairs to harbour works, $35,000.
Portsmouth-wharf reconstruction, $96,000.
Port Stanley-towards pier reconstruction, $100,-
Salmon Point-breakwater extension (revote $17 -100), $23,000.	9 '
Sand Point-wharf repairs (revote $39,000), $43,000 Sioux Narrows-wharf, $9,000.
South Baymouth-harbour improvements (revote $52,000), $65,000.
Squaw Bay-wharf replacement, $19,000.
000^eHa ^Amherst Island)-wharf enlargement, $12,-
Stokes Bay-wharf repairs, $29,000.
Tobermory-warehouse	and	lighting	on	wharf,
[Stage Direction]
Toronto-harbour	maintenance	(revote	$15,000),
$59,000.	*
Toronto-harbour improvements (revote $310 000) $560,000.	v	''
Trenton-wharf extension, $20,000.
Wallaceburg-extension to wharf and warehouse (revote $31,500), $38,000.
Waupoos-Waupoos Island wharves, $17,600. Wheatley (Muddy Creek)-fishing harbour (revote $37,000), $80,000.
Whitby-repairs to harbour works (revote), $50,-
Manitoba-
372.	Assiniboine river-diking and cut off (revote $34,000), $78,000.
Athapapuskow Lake-wharf, $6,000.
Gimli-breakwater reconstruction, $35,000. Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $60,000. Hnausa-jetty reconstruction, $26,000.
Hnausa-wharf reconstruction (revote), $39,000. Lac du Bonnet-wharf reconstruction, $35,000.
St. Andrews-river breakwater (revote), $41,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
St. Andrews lock and dam-improvements to bridge (revote $35,000), $106,000.
The Pas-wharf reconstruction (revote), $24,000. Winnipegosis-wharf and haulout slip (revote $9,000), $11,000.
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-
373.	Alberta Beach, Alberta-wharf repairs (revote), $24,000.
Bell Rock (Fort Smith), Northwest Territories- wharf (revote $119,000), $215,000.
Cold Lake, Alberta-towards harbour improvements (revote), $23,000.
Fort Fitzgerald, Alberta-wharf repairs and extension, $60,000.
Fort Franklin, Northwest Territories-wharf repairs and extension (revote), $22,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $25,000.
Hay River, Northwest Territories-wharf, $57,000. Waskesiu Lake, Saskatchewan-harbour improvements (revote $28,000), $37,000.
Waterways, Alberta-reconstruction of wing dams (revote), $23,000.
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories-wharf (revote $8,000), $9,000.
British Columbia and Yukon-
374.	Alert Bay-wharf, $79,000.
Arrow Park West-wharf reconstruction, $24,000. Balmoral-wharf (revote), $14,000.
Bear River, Bedwell Sound-float, $7,000.
Beaton-wharf reconstruction, $20,000.
Bella Coola-scow grid and loading platform, $26,000.
Blubber Bay-wharf reconstruction, $51,000.
Bull Harbour (Hope Island)-float, $8,000.
Campbell River-fishing harbour (revote $100,000), $275,000.
Campbell River-wharf replacement (revote), $77,000.
Chemainus-harbour improvements (revote), $10,000.
Comox-*wharf replacement (revote $100,000), $132,000.
Davis Bay (Wilson Creek)-breakwater and float (revote), $17,000.
Dodge Cove, Digby Island-wharf, $23,000.
Fraser river-towards improvements (revote), $605,000.
Fraser river (Kirkland Island)-replacement and extension of channel protection (revote $13,000), $200,000.
Fraser river and Vancouver harbour-dredging (revote $82,000), $525,000.
Gambier Island (Camp Georgia)-wharf (revote), $24,000.
Half Moon bay-wharf repair and improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $75,000, $425,000.
Lewes river, Yukon-towards taking over, reconstructing and maintaining dam (revote), $37,000.
Lyall Harbour-wharf repairs and improvements, $13,000.
Nanaimo-dredging (revote $60,000), $593,000. Nanoose bay-breakwater, $88,000.
New Westminster-wharf reconstruction and im>
provements (revote $125,000), $176,000.
Okanagan flood control project-towards dominion government's share of cost-(revote $25,000), $500,000.
Port Alberni-dredging (revote $40,000), $85,000. Port Alberni-harbour improvements (revote $376,000), $460,000.
Port Clements-wharf repairs (revote), $38,000.
Prince Rupert-roadway and renewal of fishermen's floats (revote), $72,000.
Prince Rupert (Fairview Bay)-breakwater (revote $75,000), $250,000.
Qualicum Beach (French Creek)-boat harbour, $75,000.
Robert's Creek-wharf repairs and improvements (revote), $54,000.
Ruskin-wharf replacement (revote), $8,000. Sandspit-wharf renewal (revote), $75,000.
Sechelt-wharf repairs and improvements (revote) , $56,000.
Shawnigan lake-wharf and floats, $15,000.
Snug Cove-floats, $8,000.
Sointula-breakwater and floats, $62,000. Squamish-wharf repairs and improvements, $30,000.
Stewart-wharf repairs (revote), $50,000.
Tofino-harbour repairs and improvements (revote $20,000), $34,000.
Trail-landing (revote), $8,000.
Ucluelet West-improvements, $20,000.
Vananda-wharf replacement (revote), $57,000. Victoria-dredging-(revote $121,000), $165,000. Zeballos-wharf replacement, $124,00.
Generally-[DOT]
375.	Fraser river-50 per cent of cost of investigations to be carried out by the dominion-provincial board Fraser river basin, $85,00.
376.	Protection works generally-to provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures, $500,000.
General-
377.	National Gallery of Canada, $186,785.
378.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $5,000 to be expended upon any one work, $300,000.
379.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $500 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $300,000.
380.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years anc for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1949-50, $100,000.
Architectural branch-*
704.	Maintenance and operation of dominior public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc.- further amount required, $1,000,000.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-N e wf oundland-
705.	Dominion public buildings-construction, purchase, repairs and improvements, $750,000. Generally-
706.	Dominion immigration buildings-repairs, improvements, etc.-further amount required, $40,000
Engineering branch-
707.	Engineering, including salaries of engineers clerks, etc.-further amount required, $255,000.
Dredging-Newfoundland-
708.	Construction, repairs and improvements-harbours and rivers, $575,00C
Newfoundland-
709.	Harbours and rivers generally-construction repairs and improvements, $1,000,000.
855.	Departmental administration-further amoun required, $4,000.
Architectural branch-
856.	Branch administration-further amount re quired, $6,000.

857.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, including rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc.-further amount required, $400,000.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Nova Scotia-
858.	Barrington Passage-public building, $25,000.
Dartmouth public building-addition and alterations-further amount required to complete, $42,000.
Dingwall-accommodation for customs, $9,000.
Dominion-public building-further amount required to complete, $15,000.
Halifax-eastern air command buildings-alterations, improvements and repairs-to complete (revote $45,000), $97,500.
Halifax-customs building-improvements and elevator-further amount required to complete, $15,000.
Halifax-federal building-improvements and repairs (revote $17,400), $65,000.
Halifax-postal station at north end-to complete (revote $6,000), $13,500.
Kentville public building-addition and alterations -further amount required to complete, $7,000.
Liverpool-public building, $25,000.
Pictou public building-improvements and repairs, $32,500.
Shelburne public building-improvements and repairs, $30,000.
Sydney public building-improvements and repairs, $26,000.
Truro-public building, $50,000.
Wolfville public building-improvements and repairs, $30,000.
Yarmouth-public building, $25,000.
New Brunswick-
859.	Centreville customs and immigration building -addition and alterations, $8,500.
Clair-improved accommodation for customs and immigration, $25,000.
Fredericton-public building-site and preliminary work towards construction of building-further amount required, $100,000.
Sackville public building-addition and alterations -further amount required to complete, $6,000.
St. Andrews public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Saint John customs building-addition and alterations, $50,000.
Saint John-purchase of and alterations to building to accommodate unemployment insurance commission, $200,000.
St. Stephen-public building-further amount required, $25,000.
Sussex public building-addition and fittings-further amount required to complete, $18,000.
Prince Edward Island-
860.	Charlottetown - public building - further amount required, $50,000.
Quebec-
861.	Bonaventure-public building, $15,000.
Chicoutimi-public building, $50,000.
Coaticook public building-addition, alterations and improvements-to complete (revote $4,000), $8,000.
Cowansville-public building-further amount required, $25,000.
Disraeli-public building, $25,000.
Donnacona-public building-further amount required to complete, $4,500.
Granby-public building, $50,000.
Joliette - public building - addition - further amount required, $25,000.
Jonquiere-public building, $25,000.
Lachute public building-addition and alterations, $28,000.
Supply
Lacolle (Blackpool)-building for customs-further amount required, $300,000.
La Malbaie-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Malartic-public building, $50,000.
Masson-public building-further amount to complete, $45,000.
Matane public building-addition, alterations and improvements-further amount required, $90,000.
Mont Joli-public building-further amount required to complete, $40,000.
Montmagny-public building-further amount required, $80,000.
Montmorency village-public building and site- further amount required, $25,000.
Montreal-customs building-alterations and improvements, $56,000.
Montreal-Longueuil postal station-addition and alterations-further amount required to complete, $15,000.
Montreal-Delorimier postal station, $25,000.
Montreal - postal terminal - addition - further amount required, $270,000.
Montreal-postal terminal-parcel storage system -to complete (revote $9,100), $25,000.
Montreal-St. Henri postal station and site-further amount required, $50,000.
Montreal-Youville postal station and site-further amount required, $50,000.
Phillipsburg-customs and immigration buildings, $25,000.
Princeville-public building, $25,000.
Quebec-marine stores building-elevator-further amount required to complete, $8,000.
Quebec-old post office building-elevators-to complete (revote $32,700), $35,000.
Roberval public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
St. Felicien-public building-further amount required, 25,000.
St. Henri de Levis-public building, further amount required to complete, $13,000.
861.	St. Jerome-public building-further amount required, $25,000.
St. Raymond public building-addition and alterations, $20,000.
Sherbrooke-public building-further amount required, $250,000.
Thetford Mines-public building-addition, alterations and repairs-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Three Rivers-public building-addition-further amount required, $100,000.
Val d'Or-public building-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Ontario-
862.	Agincourt-public building, $17,000.
Barrie-public building-further amount required, $70,000.
Beamsville-public building, $25,000.
Bowmanville - public building - addition and alterations, $25,000.
Burlington-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Chapleau-public building-further amount required to complete, $55,000.
Colborne-public building, $25,000.
Cornwall-public building-further amount required, $50,000.
Delhi-public building-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Englehart-public building, $25,000.
Fergus-public building-addition and alterations -further amount required to complete, $65,000.
Fort William customs building-addition, alterations and improvements, $25,000.
Geraldton-public building-further amount required to complete, $18,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Kenora public building-addition, alterations and improvements (revote), $18,000.
Kingston-new public building, $25,000.
Little Current-public building-further amount required to complete, $38,000.
London-alterations to postal accommodation in C.N.R. station, $25,000.
Markdale-public building, $25,000.
Niagara Falls-customs building, $25,000.
North Bay public building-addition to site, $60,000.
Oshawa-public building, $25,000.
Ottawa-additions to mines and resources sites on Booth and Le Breton streets-further amount required, $300,000.
Ottawa-addition to physical metallurgy laboratory (revote $12,000), $50,000.
Ottawa-building for Department of Veterans Affairs-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Ottawa-central heating plant-addition, alterations and improvements, $50,000.
Ottawa - East Block - improvements - further amount required, $200,000.
Ottawa-mechanical shop and stores building for Department of Mines and Resources, $50,000.
Ottawa-National Research	Council-improvements and repairs-to complete (revote $7,400), $13,000.
Ottawa-new supreme court building-rehabilitation, completion and furnishing-further amount required, $100,000.
Ottawa-Royal	Canadian Mint-addition and
alterations, $50,000.
Ottawa-storage accommodation at Uplands airport, $25,000.
Pelee island-building for Department of National Revenue-further amount required to complete, $4,000.
Port Arthur-public building and site-further amount required, $100,000.
St. Thomas-public building, $75,000.
South Porcupine-public building, $75,000.
Tecumseh-public building-further amount required, $15,000.
Terrace Bay-public building, $25,000.
Tillsonburg-public building-addition and alterations. $25,000.
Timmins-public building, $50,000.
Toronto-postal station "D"-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Toronto-postal station "B", $100,000.
Windsor-addition and alterations to Walkerville postal station, $25,000.
Manitoba-
863. Beausejour-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Brandon-new public building-addition	and
alterations, $50,000.
Boissevain-public building-addition and alterations, $30,000.
Emerson-buildings for customs and immigration, $25,000.
Killarney-public building, $25,000.
Pine Falls-public building-further amount required to complete, $75,000.
Shoal Lake-public building, $25,000.
St. Vital-public building-addition and alterations-to complete (revote), $8,000.
Swan River-accommodation for the postal service, $25,000.
Winnipeg-postal station "F"-addition and alterations (revote $20,000), $30,000.
Winnipeg-public	building and site-further
amount required, $100,000.
Saskatchewan-
864.	Balcarres-public building, $25,000.
Eston-public building, $25,000.
Humboldt-public building-addition and alterations, $42,000.
Ituna-public building-further amount required to complete, $15,000.
Langenburg-public building-further amount required, $15,000.
Melfort-public building-addition and alterations,
[Stage Direction]
Moose Jaw-public building-addition and alterations, $35,000.
Prince Albert-public building-addition and alterations-further amount required, $100,000.
Regina-post office building-alterations and improvements, $40,000.
Regina-purchase of and alterations to old Merchants Bank building, $75,000.
Rosetown-public building-further amount required to complete, $118,000.
Saltcoats-purchase of and alterations to building for postal purposes, $5,500.
Saskatoon-purchase, additions and alterations to London building for Department of Veterans Affairs, $175,000.
Shaunavon-purchase of and alterations to building to accommodate post office and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $30,000.
St. Walburg-public building-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Swift Current-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Tisdale-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Weyburn-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Alberta-
865.	Banff-public building, $25,000.
Bonnyville-public building, $25,000.
Edmonton-addition and alterations to South
Edmonton postal station-further amount required to complete, $35,000.
Edmonton-postal terminal-including mail handling equipment-further amount required, $250,000.
Grande Prairie-public building, $50,000.
Leduc-public building-further amount required, $75,000.
Lethbridge-customs building, $50,000.
Lethbridge-public building-elevator, $25,000. British Columbia-[DOT]
866.	Duncan-public building-addition and alterations, $27,000.
Langley Prairie-public building-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
New	Westminster-public	building-addition,
alterations and improvements, $100,000.
North Vancouver-postal station-further amount required to complete, $25,000.
Ocean Falls-public building-further amount required to complete, $48,000.
Pacific Highway-customs building, $25,000.
Penticton-public building-addition and alterations, $45,000.
Prince George-public building-addition and alterations, $25,000.
Smithers-public building-further amount required, $25,000.
Vancouver-Begg building-purchase, alterations and extension-further amount required to complete, $200,000.
Vancouver-post office building and site-further amount required, $550,000.
Vanderhoof-accommodation	for government
telegraph service, $6,000.
Victoria astrophysical observatory-repairs, alteration and improvements-to complete (revote), $10,000.
Yukon and Northwest Territories-
867.	White Horse-public building, $50,000.
Yellowknife-public building, $50,000.

Generally-
868.	Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance and repairs, further amount required, $30,000.
869.	Experimental farms and science laboratories -replacements, repairs and improvements to buildings-further amount required, $100,000.
870.	National printing bureau-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Engineering branch-
871.	Engineering, including salaries of engineers, clerks, etc.-further amount required, $53,500.
Dredging-
872.	Maritime provinces-further amount required, $109,120.
873.	To provide for payment to Canadian National Railways in full and final settlement for all damages arising from the accident which occurred in May, 1946, at Yarmouth, N.S., when unloading public works pontoons, $22,284.
874.	Ontario and Quebec-further amount required, $11,700.
875.	British Columbia and Yukon-further amount required, $95,020.
Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, etc.-
876.	Locks and dams-further amount required, $14,000.
877.	Snagboats-further amount required, $18,360. Maintenance and operation of roads and bridges-
878.	Towards international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, N.B., and Calais, Me., the state of Maine to pay a like amount (revote), $10,000.
879.	Generally-further amount required, $31,000.
Construction, repairs and improvements-harbours and rivers-
Nova Scotia-
880.	Auld's Cove-towards wharf replacement, $15,000.
Brule-wharf extension, $13,000.
Cape John-breakwater-further amount required to complete (revote), $20,000.
Cheticamp Beach-quay wall (revote), $11,500. Cow Bay (Port Morien)-breakwater reconstruction and dredging-further amount required to complete, $20,000.
Eastern Passage-towards breakwater repairs and extension, $20,000.
East Port Le Hebert-icebreak, $13,000.
Hall's Harbour-wharf, $10,000.
Lunenburg-towards dredging, $75,000.
McDonald's Cove-breakwater extension-further amount required to complete, $15,000.
New Glasgow-wharf repairs-further amount required to complete (revote), $35,000.
New Harbour-breakwater, $17,000.
New Haven-breakwater repairs and improve- ' ments, $25,000.
Port Joli-wharf repairs and pier, $14,000.
Tittle Channel-towards dredging, $15,000.
Upper Blandford-breakwater, $58,000.
Prince Edward Island-
881. Canoe	Cove-breakwater repairs-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken-further amount required, $10,000.
Launching Pond-boat harbour-further amount required to complete, $12,000.
Skinner's Pond-towards boat harbour, $50,000. Souris-breakwater repairs-further amount required to complete, $12,000.
Supply
Summerside-to take over and reconstruct Holman's wharf-further amount required (revote $4,000), $5,000.
Wood Islands-harbour improvements-further amount required to complete, $5,000.
New Brunswick-
882.	Chockfish-repairs to breakwaters, $26,000.
Escuminac-towards breakwater, $25,000.
Ingalls Head-towards icebreak, $10,000.
Maisonnette-towards wharf replacement, $10,000.
Point Sapin-towards breakwater extension, $20,000.
Richardson-wharf reconstruction, $25,000.
Saint John (Courtenay bay)-towards redredging, $250,000.
Stonehaven-breakwater repairs and improvements-further amount required to complete, $11,000.
White Head-towards wharf extension, $15,000.
Quebec-
883.	Bagotville-wharf reconstruction-to complete payments (revoteJ, $33,000.
Baie	Comeau-wharf	improvements-further
amount required to complete, $230,000.
Baie des Sables-wharf extension-further amount required to complete, $11,000.
Baie St. Paul-towards harbour improvements, $50,000.
Bell River (portage 35)-wharf, $5,500.
Blanc Sablon-wharf-further amount required to complete, $25,000.
Grande Riviere-reconstruction of harbour works and dredging-further amount required, $35,000.
Grande Vallee-deep water wharf-further amount required to complete, $120,000.
L'Anse du Ruisseau-harbour improvements, $6,700.
La Tabatiere-wharf extension-further amount required to complete, $20,000.
Les Escoumains-wharf repairs-to complete (revote), $7,000.
Miguasha-towards improvements to wharf and breakwater, $30,000.
Mont Louis-towards wharf extension, $50,000.
Newport (Riviere des Ilots)-towards replacing fishing harbour, $75,000.
Papineauville (Pentecost bay)-improvements (revote $8,500), $28,500.
Paspebiac-harbour repairs and improvements- further amount required, $50,000.
Petit Gaspe-wharf extension-further amount required to complete, $17,000.
Pointe au Pere-wharf repairs-further amount required to complete, $16,000.
Port Daniel-fishing harbour-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Quebec-to complete payments on intercepting sewer (revote), $56,400.
St. Joachim de Tourelle-landing pier, $6,500.
St. Simon Est-wharf extension, $24,000.
Taschereau-wharf, $9,500.
Ontario-
884.	Belle River-reconstruction of training wall, $19,000.
Elsas-wharf, $7,000.
Fort William-dredging-further amount required to complete, $116,000.
French River-water control improvements-the province of Ontario to pay half the cost, $182,000.
Gogama (Lac Minisinakwa)-wharf, $6,500.
Grand River conservation scheme-contribution towards the cost of preliminary plans, test drilling, etc., in connection with the proposed Luther Marsh dam, $3,000.
Hamilton-harbour improvements-further amount required, $425,000.
Killarney-wharf and warehouse, $19,000.
Little Current-towards dredging channel, $100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Midland to Parry Sound-dredging inside channel -further amount required to complete contract, $22,000.
Montreal River (Mowatt's Landing)-wharf replacement, $20,000.
Oshawa-redredging-further amount required to complete, $10,000.
Owen Sound-towards harbour wall, $100,000.
Port Arthur-breakwater-further amount required, $530,000.
Port Credit-harbour improvements, $152,000.
Port Stanley-pier reconstruction-further amount required to complete, $40,000.
Salmon Point (East lake outlet)-breakwater and dredging, $90,000.
Sandfield-wharf, $8,000.
Sarnia-pier extension and mooring clusters, $28,600.
Thornbury-towards reconstruction of pier, $50,000.
Toronto-harbour improvements-further amount required to complete, $275,000.
Vermilion Bay-wharf, $12,000.
Wikwemikong-wharf, $7,000.
Manitoba-
885.	Assiniboine river-diking and cut off-further amount required, $38,000.
Grassy Narrows (Hecla island)-wharves, $12,000.
Rabbit Point-wharf, $24,000.
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-
886.	Cold Lake,Alberta-harbour improvements- further amount required to complete, $37,000.
Dore Lake, Saskatchewan-wharf, $11,000.
Fort Franklin, Northwest Territories-wharf repairs and extension-further amount required to complete, $7,000.
Waskesiu Lake, Saskatchewan-harbour improvements-further amount required to complete, $13,000.
Waterways, Alberta-reconstruction of wing dams -further amount required, $27,000.
British Columbia and Yukon-
887.	Alice Arm-wharf reconstruction, $32,000.
Allison Harbour-float and shed, $11,000.
Crescent-wharf, $11,000.
Fraser lake-wharf reconstruction, $23,000.
Fraser river-towards improvements-further amount required, $652,000.
Fraser river and Vancouver harbour-dredging- further amount required, $123,000.
Fraser river (Kirkland island)-replacement and extension of channel protection-further amount required, $35,000.
Gambier Island (Camp Georgia)-wharf-further amount required to complete, $26,000.
Ganges-towards harbour repairs and improvements, $25,000,
Gibson's Landing-wharf improvements, $15,000.
Gibson's Landing-dredging (revote $17,000), $22,000.
Half Moon Bay-wharf repairs and improvements -further amount required to complete, $20,000.
Harrison Hot Springs-float and approach, $13,000.
Horseshoe Bay-wharf improvements, $16,000.
Kamloops-wharves, $14,000.
Keat's Island-pierhead replacement (revote ($12,000), $15,000.
Madeira Park (Pender harbour)-floats, $7,000.
Minstrel Island-wharf repairs and improvements, $15,000.
Nanaimo-wharf repairs and improvements-to complete, $6,000.
Nelson-floating wharf, $15,000.
Phipps Point-(Hornby island)-wharf improvements, $25,000.
Port Alberni-dredging-further amount required, $35,000.
Port Clements-wharf repairs-further amount required to complete, $8,000.
Port Renfrew-towards wharf reconstruction, $25,000.
Redonda Bay-float and approach, $22,000.
Robert's Creek-wharf repairs and improvements -further amount required to complete, $17,000.
Robert's Creek-towards harbour improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Sechelt-wharf repairs and improvements-further amount required to complete, $15,000.
Squamish-towards assembly wharf, $100,000. Steveston-towards fishing harbour, $25,000. Stewart-wharf repairs-further amount required to complete, $14,000.
Sturdies Bay (Galiano island)-wharf extension, $18,000.
Victoria-dredging-further	amount required,
[Stage Direction]
William Head quarantine station-breakwater repairs, $22,000.
General-
888.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1949-50-further amount required, $50,000.

[Stage Direction]
314.	Salaries of staff and allowances, $115,065.
Privy council office-
315.	General administration, $151,485.
Federal district commission -
316.	Maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings, Ottawa, and improvements to the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission, $270,500.
317.	Expenses of the national capital planning committee, $100,000.
318.	To authorize payment of the second instalment to a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
Privy Council Office-
850.	General administration-further amount required, $3,000.
851.	To provide for expenses of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, $93,525.

[Stage Direction]
Auditor general's office-
48. Salaries and expenses of office, $550,081.
71.	Departmental administration, $1,326,285.
72.	Bank inspection (Inspector General of Banks' office), $27,920.
73.	Royal Canadian Mint, including Canada's assay office, Vancouver, B.C., $1,065,000.
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
* 74. Superannuation and retirement acts, administration, $200,402.
75.	Government's contribution to the superannuation fund, $5,100,000.
Public debt charges-
76.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc., $386,400.
Miscellaneous grants and contributions-
77.	Canadian General Council of Boy Scouts, $15,000.
78.	Canadian Council of the Girl Guides Association, $9,000.
79.	Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, $2,000.
80.	Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, $2,025.

81.	Canadian Writers Foundation, $4,000.
82.	Grant toward expenses of the empire press union conference to be held in Ottawa in 1950,
[Stage Direction]
General-
83.	To provide for expenses of the tariff board,
[Stage Direction]
84.	To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office, $10,459,000.
85.	Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1943, and Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, administration, $39,631.
86.	The Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, and
The Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, 1946-administration, $52,795.
87.	Foreign exchange control board-administration, $252,700.
88.	Telephone service at Ottawa, $415,000.
89.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board for salaries, reclassifications, increases and other pay list items, $20,000,000.
90.	Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be subject to approval of the treasury board and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $80,000.
91.	To provide for the government's contribution, as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $950,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Wartime prices and trade board-
92.	Administration, $2,986,825.
93.	Commodity prices stabilization corporation, $5,000,000.
94.	Advances to the Canadian wheat board for payments in respect of flour or food containing wheat for human consumption in Canada, $6,000,000. Employees plan-
95.	For purchase of Canada savings bonds-administration, $89,710.
96.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for replacement of bonds lost in mails and for reimbursement of accounts incorrectly charged with repayments, $2,500.
97.	To provide for expenses of the cabinet committee on dominion-provincial relations, $30,000.
98.	To provide for the payment of premiums on government of Canada sterling securities, $10,000.
99.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous losses arising from the sale or distribution of war savings stamps, war savings certificates, victory bonds or Canada savings bonds, $3,000.
100.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses and for the temporary provision of recoverable advances for working capital purposes and for the readvancing of any such advances repaid, $1,000,000.
Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors-
118.	Office of the secretary to the governor general, including the salary of the secretary to the governor general at $7,600 additional to salary authorized by E.S.C. chap. 182, $114,905.
Insurance-
119.	Departmental administration, $271,834.
120.	Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention, $21,285.
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
669.	Government's contribution to the superannuation fund-further amount required, $300,000.
Supply
Public debt charges-servicing of public debt-
670.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc.-further amount required, $10,800.
Subsidies and special compensation to provinces- subsidies to provinces-special compensation to provinces-
671.	To authorize payments hereafter required to be made under an agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Newfoundland pursuant to term 27 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, estimated amount required for fiscal year 1949-50, $4,845,000.
General-
672.	To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office-further amount required, $103,000.
673.	To authorize and provide for payment in such amount as may be necessary in respect to those matters supplementary to the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, specified in paragraph XXIII of the note dated December 11, 1948, of the prime minister of Canada to the chairman of the Newfoundland delegation, entitled "statements on questions raised by the Newfoundland delegation during the negotiations for the union of Newfoundland with Canada", tabled in the House of Commons on the 27th day of January, 1949 $5,500,000.
Superannuation and retirement benefits
[Stage Direction]
780.	Superannuation acts, administration-further amount required, $7,645.
Public debt charges-
781.	Servicing of public debt-commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc.-further amount required, $50,000.
Miscellaneous grants and contributions-
782.	Contribution towards the expenses of the Halifax bicentenary celebrations, $50,000.
General-
783.	To provide for final expenses of the commission appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into prices and related subjects, as recommended by the special committee on prices, including authority, notwithstanding section 17 of the Civil Service Act, to pay honoraria in a total amount not exceeding $3,600 to permanent civil servants who did special work for the commission, subject to the approval of the civil service commission and the treasury board, $18,000.
Comptroller of the treasury-
784.	To provide for the expenses of the Comptroller of the Treasury's office-further amount required, $50,000.
785.	To authorize payment to Norman Bell of compensation at the rate of $18 per week in respect of injuries received while employed in the overseas office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, $936. Insurance-
791.	Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention-further amount required, $2,900.
Federal district commission-
852.	Maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings, Ottawa, and improvements to the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission-further amount required, $34,000.
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-
938. To provide for administration of the program respecting grants to municipalities in lieu
[Stage Direction]
Supply
of taxes on crown property outlined in the House of Commons on November 14, 1949, including initial grants and other payments to be made in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $300,000.
939. To confirm and to authorize the doing by His Majesty during the period from July 1 to December 31, 1949, of acts and things that were required to be done by him in accordance with the agreement between His Majesty and the corporation of the city of Ottawa (entered into under the authority of chapter 27 of the statutes of 1945) which expired on June 30, 1949, as if the agreement were in effect to December 31, 1949 and for that purpose to authorize payment of the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars as if it were the amount payable for that period under clause one of the agreement; the payment to be made on or before December 31, 1949, upon delivery to His Majesty by that corporation of a release of all claims in respect of services rendered by the corporation to His Majesty to and including December 31, 1949, if the minister of public works is satisfied that the said corporation has done all acts and things that it would have Jpeen required to do had the said agreement been in effect to December 31, 1949, $250,000.

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
551.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits including out of work allowances, university and vocational training including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, awaiting returns allowances, temporarily incapacitated allowances and unemployment insurance contributions, $28,850,000.
552.	Hospital accommodation and facilities, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $7,387,835, $5,309,662.
553.	Campaign stars and medals, including cost of distribution, $2,026,000.
554.	To provide for payment to the Netherlands government of that amount by which war service gratuities paid at Canadian rates by the Netherlands government from January 22, 1946, to the end of July, 1946, to Dutch war veterans domiciled in Canada prior to enlistment exceeded the amount that would have been paid to these veterans had the gratuities been computed at the normal rates applicable in the Netherlands, $150,000.
731.	District administration-further ^jnount required, $41,800.
732.	Veterans' welfare services-further amount required, $67,260.
733. Treatment services-further amount required, $458,475.
734.	Canadian pension commission-administration expenses-further amount required, $68,500.
735.	Veterans bureau-further amount required, $11,470.
736.	War veterans' allowance board-administration-further amount required, $5,750.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
737.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $925,000.
738.	To authorize and provide for the continuation of payments by the Canadian pension commission, as from the date of union of certain Newfoundland awards arising out of world wars I and II which are not payable under the Pension Act or the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, $75,000.
739.	War veterans' allowances-further amount required, $150,000.
740. Hospital and other	allowances-further amount required, $90,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
741.	To provide for the cost of administration of
Veterans' Land Act; Soldier Settlement and British family settlement-further	amount required,
[Stage Direction]
742.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities-further amount required, $3,000.
743.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 35 of the Veterans' Land Act, 1942 (as amended by order in council P.C. 2122, dated 13th April, 1945), and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Mines and Resources under section 35 of the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, as amended (P.C. 1550 of 18th April, 1946)-further amount required, $464,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
744. Post discharge rehabilitation	benefits- further amount required, $150,000.
Loans and investments-veterans affairs-Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
745.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refund of surplus to veterans (section 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $560,000.
Veterans Affairs-Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
561.	To provide for protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $55,000.
562.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refund of surplus to veterans (section 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $27,440,000.
927.	Prosthetic services-further amount required, $124,500.
928.	Veterans bureau-further amount required, $3,500.
929.	War veterans' allowance board-administration-further amount required, $11,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
930.	To authorize and provide for necessary remedial work, to be approved by the governor in council, on houses constructed on properties sold under the Veterans Land Act, under individual firm price contracts, to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible, $30,000.
931.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council in each case, for the completion of necessary remedial work to houses and services constructed under the 1945 building program, $110,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
932.	Hospital accommodation and facilities-further amount required, $250,356.

Veterans Affairs-Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
937. To provide for protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans- further amount required, $40,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
160.	The Speaker of the Senate-allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Members of the Senate-
161.	General administration, $306,617.
House of Commons-
162.	The Speaker of the House of Commons- allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
163.	Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons-allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500.
164.	Members of the House of Commons-general administration-estimates of the Clerk, $800,730.
165.	Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $475,690.
166.	Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $10,000.
167.	To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year. $56,000.
168.	To provide for an annual allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
General-
169.	Printing of parliament, including salaries of staff of the joint distribution offfce, $265,428.
Library of parliament-
170.	General administration, $125,348.
Pensions and other benefits-
171.	Pension to the unmarried sister of the late Colonel Harry Baker, M.P., $700.
The Senate-*
799.	To provide for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the first session of 1949 to members of the Senate for days lost through absence caused by public business, by illness, or on account of death. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $5,000.
800.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the first session of 1949, which commenced on January 26, 1949, and ended on April 8, 1949, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on April 8, 1949, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during that session, $5,000.
Supply
House of Commons-
801.	To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official business, or order of the house, or on account of death during the first session of 1949-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the Revised Statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $9,475.
802.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons who attended the first part of the first session of 1949, which commenced on January 26, 1949, and ended on April 8, 1949, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on April 8, 1949, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during the session, $15,500.

[Stage Direction]
Education-
230.	Indian education, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $200,000, $4,157,433.
231.	Grants to residential schools, $2,470,017.
232.	Grant to provide additional services to Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
233.	Fur conservation-formerly included under special estimates, $351,795.
Immigration branch-
234.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $646,775.
235.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, $3,161.812.
236.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $1,307.416.
Demobilization and reconversion-mines, forests and scientific services branch-
237.	Payments to Royal Canadian Air Force and commercial companies for air photography, and to defray the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, $1,240,000.
238.	Construction and equipment of an extension to the metallurgical laboratories. Booth street. Ottawa, including consulting, engineering and design fees, $80,000.
Immigration branch-[DOT]
689.	Field and inspectional service, Canada-further amount required, $136,040.
Demobilization and reconversion-mines, forests and scientific services branch-
690.	Payments to Royal Canadian Air Force and commercial companies for air photography, and to defray the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys-further amount required, $100,000.
Education-
823.	Indian education-further amount required, $585,467.
824.	Grants to residential schools-further amount required, $150,000.
Immigration branch-
825.	Administration of the Immigration Act-further amount required, $21,000.
826.	Field and inspectional service, Canada-further amount required, $226,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
121.	Departmental administration, $256,281.
122.	Remission service, including remuneration to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force (to be expended under order in council, and not to exceed $1,600) for assistance to this service, and an amount of $17,100 to reimburse the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force the amounts disbursed by them in ordinary pay and allowances to their men on loan to this service, $109,347.
123.	Administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, $10,000.
124.	Expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
125.	Annual contribution to the Canadian law library, London, England, $750.
126.	Administration, $104,372.
127.	Administration, $76,155.
128.	Yukon territorial court-administration, $5,000.
129.	Payments or gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
130.	Combines investigation branch, $199,200.
131.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $38,346.
General-
132.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada, $75,000.
133.	To provide for the revision of the Criminal Code, $50,000.
134.	To provide for expenses in connection with espionage prosecutions, $35,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
135.	To provide for expenses of commission of inquiry into Japanese property claims, $65,000.
136.	To provide for expenses in connection with prize courts, $2,000.
B-Penitentiaries-office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
137.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $25,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $227,926.
138.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and livestock; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $6,107,490.
139.	To provide for the construction, by contract, of a power plant at Collin's Bay penitentiary, Ontario, $315,000.
140.	To provide for the acquisition and development of property for the establishment of a new penal institution in the province of Quebec, $200,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
141.	William Tatton, $564.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
392.	General administration, $297,007.
393.	Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $13,647,074.
394.	Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $1,331,070.
395.	Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $189,677.
396.	Grant to the chief constables' association of Canada, $500.
Pensions and other benefits-
397.	To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty, $36,000.
398.	Pensions to families of members of the Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty:-
Mrs. Mary Emma Bossange, $457.
Mrs. Margaret Johnson Brooke, $840.
Mrs. Margaret Cox, $411.
Mrs. Victoria Desjardins, $411.
Mrs. Georgina Harrison, $677.
Mrs. Letitia Kennedy, $424.
Mrs. Nora Jean Massan, $300.
Mrs. Margaret Nicholson, $548.
Mrs. Catherine Mildred Ralls, $676.
Mrs. Doris Freda Sampson, $816.
Mrs. Madelaine Mary Shoebotham, $810.
Mrs. Eunice Wainwright, $603.
399.	Pension to Basil Burke Currie, $685.
400.	Pension to Annie A. Greer, $254.
710. Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses- further amount required, $344,825.
A-Department-
792.	Supreme Court of Canada-administration- further amount required, $9,000.
793.	Combines investigation branch - further amount required, $9,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
Office of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries-
794.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and livestock; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries-further amount required, $428,000.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
894.	General administration-further amount required, $5,200.
895.	Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses- further amount required, $894,046.

Appendix
Appendix


[Stage Direction]
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec
Quebec, November 9, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Mr. Prime  Minister@: The members of the executive council of the province have learned from your letter of November 7, which was delivered to my office yesterday afternoon, that the opening session of the dominion-provincial conference which "will consider means to amend the constitution of Canada" will be held in Ottawa on the 10th of January, 1950, at 10.30 a.m.
I presume that the precise place where the sessions of the conference will take place will be determined in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
M. L. Duplessis
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, November 15, 1949
Hon. Maurice Duplessis, M.L.A.,	.
Premier of Quebec,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 9th instant inquiring as to the exact place where the sittings of the proposed constitutional conference would be held. The government will arrange to hold the opening meeting in the centre block of the parliament buildings, and all the premiers will be advised in advance of the precise room and other arrangements.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, November 29, 1949
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your recent letter confirming the January 10 date for the dominion-provincial conference to consider a method of amending
the constitution of Canada. It is felt here that different techniques may be required for different matters. If this be so, it would be difficult to consider the question of amendment in a general way. I would therefore be very much obliged if you could send me the proposed agenda. I am certain you will understand the difficulty with which we are faced in trying to do preparatory work before knowing what items are coming up for discussion and what the method of procedure will be. I note, too, that a preliminary meeting of constitutional experts, in advance of the main conference, is not to be held. This fact necessitates our having a proposed agenda as soon as possible.
Trusting you will be able to assist us by forwarding an agenda to us at your earliest convenience, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL Ontario
Toronto, December 8, 1949
Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have your letter of the 7th instant.
My feeling is that the reduction of the subject matter of the conference opening January 10 to an agenda of procedure is not necessary. I think better progress will be made if the question of procedure in the conference is left until the conference itself convenes. These matters can then be considered and settled. If in the meantime any of the other provinces have suggestions to make in this regard, I should be glad indeed if you would advise me. My feeling at the moment is that a formal agenda is not necessary.
Concerning your proposal that a general provincial conference should be held early in the autumn of 1950, possibly in September or October, I am in agreement. In this case the situation is quite different and there are many matters which the various provinces will probably be anxious to have discussed. In this case an agenda of subject matters should be prepared in advance, although I believe as much of the procedure as possible should be left to the conference itself. I shall be glad to discuss this matter with you at any time.
Yours very truly,
Leslie M. Frost



END OF SESSION