1949-11-26

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That votes Nos. 51 to 70 inclusive, of the main estimates 1949-50, and Nos. 766 to 779 inclusive, of the further supplementary estimates 1949-50, approved and reported upon on Saturday, November 26, by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred back to the committee of supply.


Mr. Graydon:: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of procedure, is this motion not premature before the report of the standing committee on external affairs has been concurred in by the house? It has been presented only today, and I should think until there is concurrence the estimates should not be referred back to the committee of supply. I am not positive of that. Perhaps the Prime Minister has some clear idea as to what the procedure is.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It appeared to us it would not be proper to ask for concurrence in the report, because the report approves these estimates, and approval is subject to the right of the committee of supply to vote all public moneys. Concurrence in the report by the house would deprive the committee of its jurisdiction. It follows that the proper procedure is to refer the items back to the committee of supply before the house concurs in the report of the standing committee on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Colin Gibson (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 210, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Gleason Belzile (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The bill is 45781-I46i
a simple one, involving no outlay of money. In the original bill passed in 1944 it was stipulated that the amount that could be lent was $25 million. Of that amount, up to $15 million was limited to loans in the higher category of $200,000 and up. The amount of $15 million has been almost entirely used up. The bill seeks to provide that the aggregate amount of such loans be increased from the $15 million provided for in the original act up to the $25 million.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Bernard Rivet. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Campbell Westover.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Mildred Blanche Tilson Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Ruby Anderson Edwards.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Vera Marguerite Abraham Allen Richey. - Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Siewart (Winnipeg North):: In
the absence of the Minister of Finance I would address this question to the Prime Minister. If the premier of Manitoba sends a letter to the Minister of Finance similar in content to that received from the premier of Saskatchewan, will the government consider suspension of the pending rental increases in Manitoba?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The policy of the government has been clearly stated in the correspondence which has been tabled. The government of Saskatchewan has expressed its intention of exercising rent control as from a date not later than April 1 next, and has requested that the announced changes be not put into effect in that province in order that they might start from the situation as it exists at the present time. It is the policy of the government to comply with any such request that may come from any of the ten provinces.

New Departments


Mr. Coldwell:: Have any other requests been received so far?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not to my knowledge.



NEW DEPARTMENTS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolutions:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a Department of Resources and Development with a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the duties, powers and functions as therein set out, a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council, and the necessary officers, clerks and employees to be appointed in the manner authorized by law, with provision also for the transfer of members of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources or the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to the new department.
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a Department of Mines and Technical Surveys with a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the duties, powers and functions as therein set out, a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council and the necessary officers, clerks and employees to be appointed in the manner authorized by law, with provision also for the transfer of members of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources or the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to the new department.
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a Department of Citizenship and Immigration with a presiding minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, with the duties, powers and functions as therein set out, a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council, and the necessary officers, clerks and employees to be appointed in the manner authorized by law, with provision also for the transfer of members of the staff of the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of the Secretary of State to the new department.
He said:	I understand the Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has discussed these three resolutions with the leaders of the various groups in the house, pointing out that they really involve only one matter and that it might be convenient if they were considered in committee at the same time. If there is no objection, I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee to consider these three integrated resolutions, dealing with the setting up of three new departments.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the fact that we are merging the three resolutions in order to expedite the matter, it might be well for the Prime Minister to make his statement before the Speaker leaves the chair; then we can discuss these matters in committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that is the wish of the house, I have no objection. I thought possibly in the course of my statement some
[Mr. St. Laurent.)
questions might arise which I could answer immediately, but I can make my statement now, and the questions can be asked and answered when the house is in committee.
The main reason for legislation this session in this respect is the necessity of making some permanent provision for the functions now performed by the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. Hon. members will recall that this was one of the measures foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. It was thought at first that the Department of Reconstruction and Supply might be simply dismantled and its existing functions transferred to other departments of government, and in fact that process was under way after the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) assumed his present portfolio. Several of the functions which had appertained to the Department of Reconstruction and Supply were subsequently transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
A year ago, when the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) was appointed, most of the remaining functions which that department had inherited from the Department of Munitions and Supply were transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the functions left in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply were largely those inherited from the original department of reconstruction which had been set up in 1944, plus ministerial responsibility for housing and for tourist activities.
It was understood when the present minister was appointed that the department was a stopgap, as it were, and that at an early day there would be a redistribution of departmental functions. When we began to give consideration to the appropriate departments to which the remaining functions of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply might be transferred, it appeared that the department which had the most closely related functions was mines and resources. That department, however, already was rather unwieldy, and the government concluded that it would not be reasonable simply to add further functions to that department, including what was becoming the heavy ministerial responsibility in respect of housing. It was then decided to redistribute the functions of the two departments in the way we felt would contribute most to efficient administration and expeditious service to the public. There were two branches of the Department of Mines and Resources each of which was obviously capable of providing the focus or nucleus for a new department, They were the mines branch and the immigration branch. As a matter of fact there had been a department of mines previously,

which in 1936 was combined with the department of the interior to become the Department of Mines and Resources.


Mr. Green:: It never had a separate minister, did it?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: I would not like to say, because that department went back to 1907, and I would not care to make a positive assertion about the whole of the forty-two years. As the hon. member knows, the Geology and Mines Act provided for the creation of a department of mines. That was a statute of 1907, which has never been repealed; but the sections which provided for the setting up of a separate department of mines were repealed in 1936 when the Department of Mines and Resources was created, and those functions were transferred to mines and resources at that time.
There has been a growing feeling, particularly among those interested in mining, that the importance of the mining industry and of the government's relations with that industry was such that there might well be a minister of the crown devoting most of his time to this field of mines and mining. Then, of course, there are certain surveys of a technical nature carried on by the government, in particular the geological survey, which are closely related to the development of mining. Moreover it was felt that the other technical surveys, such as geodetic, topographical and hydrographic, now administered by the Department of Mines and Resources, would be likely to be more expeditiously administered if included in the department which had the responsibility for the geological survey, and that having these together in a well-integrated department would be more likely to do away with overlapping.
In this connection it is worth noting that the union with Newfoundland added to the territory of Canada the island itself and the large area of Labrador as well, which will add considerably to the territorial scope of the activities of the proposed Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
On more than one occasion in this house there was expressed a growing feeling that the immigration branch had very little relationship to the other activities of the Department of Mines and Resources. It was almost an orphan, perhaps in very good company but not in a company that had any special reason for being interested in its activities. The increasing importance and complexity of immigration required more attention from both the minister and the deputy minister than it was humanly possible to give to the immigration branch, included as it was with the numerous other branches of the Department of Mines and Resources. I am sure
New Departments
that many hon. members have felt that, on occasion, it took more time than appeared to them to be necessary to have matters dealt with in the immigration branch when they had to receive the personal attention of the minister or deputy minister of the Department of Mines and Resources.
It has also been apparent for some time that the relationship between the citizenship branch, under my colleague the Secretary of State, and the immigration branch, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines and Resources, should be as close as possible. The citizenship branch is designed to bring to full citizenship as many as possible of those who immigrate to this country. The scope of the citizenship branch has been expanded since the passing of the citizenship act. It was felt that uniformity of policy and treatment was more likely to be achieved if one minister had the responsibility for both immigration activities and the activities pursued by this branch of the government to bring those immigrants as quickly as could reasonably be expected to full citizenship. It was felt, too, that having these two branches of administration in the one department would be more apt to avoid possible overlapping of services.
Once the decision had been reached to recommend the establishment of a Department of Citizenship and Immigration, it was considered that the minister responsible for this department should, in addition, be given the responsibility for the Indian affairs branch. I believe it is the policy of all members of the house to attempt to have the Indian affairs branch administered in such a way as to bring the original inhabitants of Canadian territory to citizenship as quickly as that can reasonably be accomplished. It was felt that it would have some psychological effect to say that these three activities dealing with human beings, and which are designed to bring those human beings to the status of full citizenship as rapidly as possible, were under the one head. Having citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs in the one department would indicate that the purpose of the activities of that department was to make Canadian citizens of those who were born here of the original inhabitants of the territory, or those who migrated to this country.
It is not intended, of course, that the hospitalization of the Indians will be transferred from the Department of National Health and Welfare to the new department. It is felt that it creates a good psychological effect to leave the impression that the health of the Indians is a matter which is of the same concern to the public as the health of those who enjoy full citizenship in Canada. Once the limits of those two departments were charted, it

New Departments
became clearer than ever that the most important remaining activities of the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, including the administration of the National Housing Act, trans-Canada highway and so forth, were concerned with a single purpose, namely, the physical development of the various aspects of our national heritage.
As those who were here at the time will remember, the purposes of post-war reconstruction were defined by my predecessor, Mr. King, when he introduced the bill to establish the reconstruction department on April 17, 1944, as involving the re-employment of nearly two million Canadians whose activities had been channelled to war activities during the last terrible war; the conversion of wartime industries to peacetime industries; the recovery of markets which had been dislocated during the war period; the restoration of railways, highways, and other capital equipment which had deteriorated during the war; the development of civil aviation; the planning of public works and services and the development of projects to provide alternative employment while wartime industries were being converted to peacetime purposes; the encouragement of new housing, both urban and rural, and the improvement of existing housing. Many of these objectives were the primary responsibility of other departments, and many of them have already been achieved.
The original reconstruction department was to be mainly concerned with co-ordinating the activities of all the departments, but it was to have a special responsibility for the planning of public projects and services, and the development of projects. Later, the responsibility for housing was transferred from the Department of Finance to the department of reconstruction. The last two responsibilities, for public projects and housing, are the main continuing responsibilities of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. When the present minister accepted the portfolio in November, 1948, he also assumed responsibility for the encouragement and improvement of our important tourist industry. These activities-housing, and public projects and tourist promotion-will fit quite naturally into the activities to be taken over by the new Department of Resources and Development from the Department of Mines and Resources, such as jurisdiction relating to the forest resources of Canada, irrigation projects, and water-power developments not specially assigned to any other department.
I believe we must realize that the development of this country in population and in
[Mr. St. Laurent.1
utilized wealth is proceeding, and is apt to proceed. I believe we shall be making a valuable and necessary contribution to the future generation of Canadians by giving attention at once to proper forestry in Canada. This is a resource that can be renewed yearly. I was impressed by a book I read recently, entitled, "The Coming Age of Wood", by Mr. Glesinger, the chief forestry expert of the international FAO. In this book the author emphasizes, so far as it can be supported, his view that a great increase in the population of the world could still be provided with all its essential requirements if proper attention were given to the conservation and development of the forest resources, and if proper use were made of all the material that there is in a tree. According to the development of his theme, this result would be brought about not only from the utilization of the fibres in the tree, but also from the effect of good forestry on the control of the flow of rivers and streams, and on the prevention of the erosion of valuable top soil. The house will no doubt welcome the introduction of the bill, which is on the order paper at the present time, for enabling legislation to permit this government to enter into agreements with the provincial governments to assist in the development of proper forestry methods throughout the whole country.
The Department of Resources and Development would take over from the Department of Mines and Resources the national parks and various special development projects, as well as the control and management of the affairs of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and all federal crown lands not specially put under the control of other departments; and in general it would have the co-ordinating of all these activities in which the federal government can engage, either alone or in co-operation with the provinces, for the better development for the future Canada of the great natural resources with which Providence has so bountifully blessed this land.
The scope of this new Department of Resources and Development will be wide and varied. All its activities can properly be described as activities looking to the development of those resources. I can see no reason why it should not become a well-integrated department, and one in which, having all these activities, the services, skill and experience of the civil servants in one branch would be available for assistance in other branches. The broad objective of the government is to establish three departments with clearly-defined and closely-related functions and of manageable proportions.

We feel that this objective will be achieved by implementing the proposals we are now submitting.
To summarize, these departments will have the functions provided for in the Department of Mines and Resources Act, in the Geology and Mines Act, in the Department of Reconstruction Act and in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act. Under the bills which will be introduced, if the resolutions are adopted, the acts which I have just named will be repealed. These departments would also have the functions now in the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. The bills would provide that they come into effect on proclamation.
It will of course take some little time after the legislation is enacted to have the proper preparations made for the sorting out of these branches; but it would be the intention, as soon as the legislation is passed, to proceed at once to the sorting out of the branches and to the setting up of three departments at as early a date as that can be done. It may be that at the outset no new minister will be appointed, but that one minister will be charged with the responsibility for some one or other of these three departments, in addition to the functions he now discharges.


Howard Charles Green: Where does the film board go? Does it go to national defence?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The film board is not under a department. The film board is a board, and a minister is the chairman of that board. But it is not provided by any statute that it be in any one department.


Mr. Fraser:: It is like Topsy; it just grows.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It so happens that the
Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is at the present time chairman of the film board; but it is not as part of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply that he occupies that office, but by special appointment.


Howard Charles Green: I wonder what minister it will come under.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was going to suggest that it would be more appropriate if questions were reserved until the house goes into committee of the whole on the resolutions.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to make a few brief observations, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legislation envisaged by the three resolutions which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has described and explained.
New Departments
First of all, despite the suggestion at the conclusion of the Prime Minister's speech to the effect that this did not necessarily mean another minister of the crown-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not immediately.


Gordon Graydon: -I want to make it abundantly clear that we are not setting up these departments for the purpose of having two of them administered by one minister of the crown; I think the house ought to be fully aware of that fact. A review of similar situations in the past will indicate that a department is never left on the loose for very long without some ambitious minister or new member desiring to be at the head of it.
I think we may as well realize now that we are to have another cabinet minister. I thought the Prime Minister might have cut this Gordian knot; it would have been a simple matter. What he should have said is that all these resolutions and all these changes in departments mean that we want to get a minister from Alberta, and that we want to give him a good portfolio. I am in agreement with the Prime Minister on that score, but I do not think we should describe so many circles in trying to get a minister from Alberta. Alberta deserves a minister; it has been without one for too long. I must say this, however. In the performance of his duties Hon. James A. MacKinnon, who is now in the Senate, did a magnificent job, and I would be the first one to commend him. But, as all hon. members will agree, there is a need for a minister from Alberta, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that arrangements be made for one as soon as possible, so that there may be proper parliamentary representation in the government for that ever-growing province. If there is a province in Canada that has made real progress, particularly in recent years, it is Alberta. It has made tremendous strides.


Mr. Sinclair:: Politically, too.


Gordon Graydon: Yes. I know the hon. member is an expert on that, and I shall give him the field. But apart altogether from politics, because that may not be a good indication, the progress made by Alberta has been remarkable, and it should have representation in the cabinet. I do not think it is necessary, however, to take this circuitous route to get it.
When the Liberal government came into power in 1935 we had seventeen ministers of the crown. We now have twenty-one, and we are to have another, which makes twenty-two. Before the Prime Minister starts dividing up departments in order to squeeze in a man from Alberta he ought to consider the numerous

New Departments
applications he must receive every day from members of his own cabinet to be appointed to the other place. That would be an easier way to handle the Alberta situation than the cumbersome method that is being employed. I look across at the government benches and I see men who I am sure would welcome an appointment to the other place. Some of the appointments should not be delayed too long. Instead of making the cabinet bigger, it would be easier in the long run to do that and save the taxpayers a considerable amount of money; we could then have an Alberta minister without increasing the number of ministers.
Of course there is another problem. Every time a new department is set up, every time we have a new cabinet minister, inevitably parliamentary assistants start to come in. We started this in 1943. Many of the parliamentary assistants are such good men that I hesitate to say much about them, except that you can get too much of a good thing, and that is what I am attempting to advise the Prime Minister against at this time.
When the system of parliamentary assistants was instituted in 1943, we had seven. By the time we had arrived at the beginning of the last session we had crept up to twelve. I know it is down to ten now, but that is just a temporary shortage. I believe the supply is much greater than the demand, and I have no doubt the number will creep up again.
When we are speaking about cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants, we must remember that from 1936 up to the present time we have increased the total membership of the House of Commons by seventeen 

from 245 to 262. In that time we have increased the number of parliamentary assistants and cabinet ministers by fifteen. For practically every new member added to the total membership of the house a parliamentary assistant or a cabinet minister has been added. A halt will have to be called to this, because one of these days the public will be asking: Why the necessity for so many ministers and parliamentary assistants at this particular time.
I should like to say a word about the names that are used to describe the new departments. The government must have been at a loss to find suitable names when they were making these changes. To me they are cumbersome and difficult. I was interested in what the Prime Minister said about putting the Indian affairs branch in the new Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The Indians, with their numerous and justifiable claims, will wonder whether there is some significance in their being placed in the same department as displaced persons from
[Mr. Graydon.l
abroad, because they have on occasion suggested that they were displaced persons at home. These suggested names are following the general line. As I pointed out in a previous debate, the general terminology applied to our ministries has been cumbersome and clumsy, and also confusing. I should like to impress upon the government the necessity of making the change that was suggested witih respect to "Department of External Affairs".
It is a cumbersome name, and I hope that at the next session the government will change it.
I should now like to refer to the Department of the Secretary of State. What I have to say is no reflection upon the present genial Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), because these are not personal matters; they have to do with the departments. After all, the Secretary of State is not one of the overburdened ministers of the crown. I know that every minister feels he has too much to do, and perhaps more to do than any other minister. But there are some departments from which work could have been subtracted with a better result than from the Department of the Secretary of State. There are two or three departments that could readily be amalgamated, after a review by the government, thus avoiding an increase in the number of ministers. We are moving toward an unwieldy and cumbersome system of government when in peacetime we increase the number above that which prevailed during the war.
While this great move is being made by the government for additional help, it will at once be recognized how powerful was the argument made by some hon. members not so long ago on going into supply. They indicated that the opposition, no matter how small or large their numbers, are greatly hampered by the fact that they have not adequate facilities for research, and the like. In other words, with added parliamentary assistants, with added cabinet ministers, with heads of departments behind the ministers, the whole parliamentary debating system is loaded in favour of the government. I do not think it is quite fair; I do not think it is quite right. I am not suggesting that the opposition ought to have special favours. All I am asking is that at least the opposition be placed in a position to fulfil properly the functions which the government, parliament and the people expect it to fulfil.
In view of the complex structure of the many problems facing Canada today, there is need for specialized research and assistance in order that they may be properly debated in the house. I defy any member

or any minister of the crown, even the Prime Minister, to make an intelligent and comprehensive contribution to debates in the house without having the advantage of research. None of us has sufficient time to spend in research; the cabinet has not the time, nor have others who take prominent parts in the debates of the house. Some sort of arrangement should be made by which the opposition may be given technical assistance by way of research and the like in the preparation of their work in the house. I repeat that in my view the appointment of additional ministers is a step in the wrong direction. Changes could have been made in the cabinet, perhaps through transfer from one post to another, which would have served the purpose equally well, and would have permitted the appointment of a minister from Alberta without delay.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking I think the proposal made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the creation of three new departments is pretty much in line with what should be done. It seems to me only logical that we should have a Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to deal with the technical side of government administration, a Department of Resources and Development to deal with the planning of our development and the use of our resources, and a Department of Citizenship and Immigration to bring both immigration and citizenship into conformity with modern conceptions. To that extent we welcome this proposal.
What I was going to say, however, was that I do not think that should involve the appointment of a new cabinet minister or the enlargement of the cabinet. I have often felt that our present departmental arrangements are based upon a conception of government administration of long ago, and that no substantial changes have been made in the last forty or fifty, or perhaps even in the last eighty years, so far as departmental divisions of power and administration are concerned.
Governmental activities are entirely different now from what they were twenty-five, thirty, forty or fifty years ago. Instead of being merely an arbitrator in the economic life of the nation, or perhaps a sort of policeman, the government is engaged in all kinds of economic and social activities. Those of us who followed the developments during the war, and in the more recent period the development of atomic energy, if I may use that as an example, realize that more and more governmental activities are being pushed-not because of the thinking of the present generation, but because of economic and social necessities.
New Departments
It seems to me that hon. members generally, and the government particularly, should direct their thoughts to the reorganization of the departments so as to meet more effectively the needs of modern economic and social environment. This is true also of the House of Commons itself. Surely our committees need some reorganization. The obligation placed upon some committees is altogether too great, while other committees never meet. A reorganization of committees of the house should be undertaken, and at the same time some thought given to the reorganization of the cabinet itself, having in mind a reallotment of power so as to meet the modern needs of the present generation.
I think it is a sound idea to give young members an opportunity to receive training in departmental administration, and I am not quite as critical as is the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) about the appointment of ministerial assistants. Already the policy of the former prime minister of bringing in young men to assist the ministers has been largely justified, in the light of the ability of those who have come forward and in some instances have subsequently assumed the responsibilities of departmental administration.
This has been going on for generations in the British parliament. When one thinks of the number of parliamentary secretaries, under-secretaries and the like who have become part and parcel of the British administrative and parliamentary system, and when one realizes that they have gradually reached the stage where the public has had confidence in them, and where a prime minister, whether new or continuing, can look around among those young men and make a selection, I think that in the interest of government efficiency the policy adopted by this government in that connection has been justified by subsequent events.
In my view the placing of matters related to immigration and citizenship under one department of Department of Citizenship and Immigration is a wise move. I was, of course, an immigrant; it is now forty years since I came to this country. It is essential that people who come here as immigrants should be not only welcomed but also taught to value the citizenship of this country, and to have an appreciation of what Canada means to them. My own view is that in every way possible we should endeavour to make our newcomers conscious of their Canadian citizenship rather than of the citizenship they once held. If we do that, we shall build up a more unified country, with less difficulty among those comprising it, so that our population, while cosmopolitan

New Departments
in its origin, may be unified in its conception of Canadian nationality, and its pride in that nationality.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that our Indian population is to be encouraged more and more to assume its place in the life of our country. It has always struck me as strange that while in New Zealand, for example, large numbers of the Maoris have attained high office in the army and become members of parliament, and so on, and have thus played a great part in the public life of New Zealand, in Canada in relation to the Indians we have had very few instances of the kind. One recalls that many who in law have made real contributions to the life of this country-and there comes to my mind the name of a chief justice of Saskatchewan of a few years ago-in the church, in education and in other fields of endeavour, have had at least a fairly substantial admixture of Indian blood. Therefore it seems to me there is no reason why our Indian population should not be encouraged to take an active part in Canadian public affairs.
I was also interested to hear the Prime Minister speak of conservation, and his conception thereof in relation to the new departments that were being set up and their responsibility in that regard. I think we must give more consideration to this question than we have over the last number of years. I have read, for example, about this beautiful Ottawa valley, where the parliament buildings are situated, once upon a time having great forests of white pine which were cut down, shipped down the Ottawa river to the St. Lawrence and thence across the seas to provide masts for the great sailing ships of other days. Today you can drive from one end of the Ottawa valley to the other and you will have difficulty in finding stands of white pine of any size. They have gone, and their place has been taken by small scrub trees suitable only for firewood or pulpwood.
What is true of this valley is true of many parts of this country. In British Columbia I have seen great logs coming out of the forests on slings, the cutting down of trees and the accumulation of slash that remain. The wastefulness of generations gone by and of our generation is something for which posterity will condemn us. It is up to us to see to it that we provide for conservation.
I remember a short time ago I was driving through a section of Canada a newcomer to this country, from one of the Baltic states. I was asked why it was that there were no trees, why there were only stumps, and why it was that nothing grew here. I explained

that the trees had been cut down and nothing had been done to replace them. This person said to me: "For many years that has not been permitted in my country; the cutting of the trees is entirely under the supervision and control of the government". That is particularly true in countries such as Norway and Sweden. I know the difficulty. Whenever any province of Canada endeavours to put into effect a forest conservation policy, the outcry is made that they are interfering with so-called private enterprise. No matter whether we believe in private enterprise or some other sort of enterprise, one thing we owe to our own and to future generations is that there shall not be private exploitation and the denuding of our forest lands and our other resources in the interests merely of the present generation. In Norway, Sweden and the Baltic states forest conservation policies have been in effect for years.
The same applies of course to soils. I was born in a part of Great Britain where the land has been farmed for more than two thousand years, ever since the Phoenicians first came to the shores of the British isles. During the whole of that time crops have been reaped, and today the cropping of that same soil produces far better results than much of the newer soil of Canada. Soil conservation is something we should consider more than we have considered it in the past.
If the reorganization of departments foreshadows a more intelligent policy of dealing with our minority races, our forests and our soil, then it is to be welcomed. I am not convinced, however, as the hon. member for Peel is not convinced, that it is an extension of the number of cabinet ministers or the number of departments that is necessary. While welcoming the new divisions, I rather believe that the government should be considering the reorganization of governmental responsibilities among the cabinet ministers, and the reapportionment of administrative powers among even fewer cabinet ministers than we have today.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add to the debate a voice from this corner of the house. While we are largely in favour of these three resolutions, believing as we do that government administration should be facilitated to the greatest possible extent in order that government may be as efficient as possible; yet we do have some diffidence as to the need for three departments. It seems to me that one of them is justified, while perhaps there is not so much reason for the other two. I believe the resolution creating a special Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and perhaps

putting Indian affairs under that department, is a good move. I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he says that immigrants need to be trained in an appreciation of Canadian citizenship. Not only would the minister be responsible for the general process which takes place as one becomes a Canadian citizen, but also he would have a larger responsibility for the probationary period during which these newcomers to Canada learn something of the opportunities, freedoms and other advantages that Canada has to offer. We are very much in favour of the creation of that department.
We cannot be so enthusiastic about the necessity for the other two departments. My main reason for saying so is that, after all, the natural resources of Canada come under provincial jurisdiction. I recognize there are large areas in the Northwest Territories that geographically come under this government. I am afraid that in a good deal of the work carried on there is considerable duplication as between the government here and the government of the provinces. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said something about forestry in the Ottawa valley. I do not know who is responsible; it seems to me that would be a provincial matter, but his remarks should be directed to those who have the responsibility. Anything that is good, of course, should be continued, but we do have to protect the expenditures of this country to some extent, though I personally am not one of those who care to scrutinize every dollar. As a matter of fact my economic philosophy is one of spending rather than conserving. I believe in spending; that is what makes the wheels of industry go round. It seems to me the philosophy of thrift has been carried to the extreme. However, that is just an aside. With the taxation system under which we are living we have to guard expenditures, because in the final analysis this government is going to make the people pay for everything that is done.
I realize the significance of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said in respect to the economic and social life of a nation assuming greater and perhaps more important proportions, with the result that someone has to take charge somewhere. Thus it devolves upon the government to extend its administration, which might be the natural thing to expect. But I do not know that I altogether agree with that, for this reason. I believe there is a tendency among nations to build up and create a bureaucracy to do things for people which by their very nature, being
New Departments
human beings, they should be able to do for themselves. I believe the tendency toward bureaucracy exists because we have certain false conceptions with respect to society at large. Governments increase their number; their administration increases in machinery and personnel in the process of building up this bureaucracy. But the human race does not change. How does this all come about? I wonder if we have ever thought of that. Human nature does not change; it is the same as it always has been. We still wear hats of the same size; we still think with the same brains; we still eat three meals a day; we still sleep in beds; we still breathe the air; we get up in the morning about the same time; we go to bed perhaps a little later than our predecessors did. Human nature is the same; man is a free moral agent, and so on. Where does the difference come in? I think the difference arises from the fact that somehow or other there is a design somewhere to render men less free; and believe me, the more government increases-it is government here, government there, government somewhere else-the more that design will become clear. People talk in terms of government, government, government. Well, the more you talk in terms of government the less you can talk in terms of men being free. It might be well for us to reflect a little on this bit of philosophy.
Let me tell you what I think should be done if there is to be any increase at all in services. I believe the ordinary member of parliament should be given additional help. If government administration increases, or if there is to be an increase in administrative machinery, that must apply also to members of parliament. I am sure I speak for many hon. members. I happen to sit here at a sort of forty-five degree angle from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and sometimes I have occasion to look under his desk. I do not think he wears an oversize shoe, but I do not know how he finds a place for his feet among all the books and papers he brings down here and piles under his desk. Perhaps his personal staff should be increased by an extra messenger to carry down his books.
That is just a little sidelight, of course. Let us look at the tremendous machinery involved in carrying on the government. Let us look at the government reports that come to our desks. No member of parliament is able to read them all; there are not enough hours in the day. No member of parliament could read fast enough to be able to read everything that comes to his desk, even if he were to read for twenty-four hours a day.

New Departments
Here we have the Department of External Affairs, a tremendously responsible department these days, through which we have our connection with the United Nations. Foreign relations is a matter that is becoming more and more important. How much does the average member of parliament know about foreign relations? I am casting no reflection upon members of the house as such, but it is almost impossible to read everything that is issued by the United Nations, coming to us through the external affairs department, and become expert in those matters in addition to looking after our other work.
If the government finds that its increasing responsibilities are such as to require a greater number of ministers and staff and administrative machinery, how much more does that apply to members of parliament. Here we are packed up in little offices. We should have more office space; we should have special and personal research men who can go into these things and boil our work down for us, so that the stature of this house would be raised in the eyes of the public who sit in these galleries. It may be that there are not so many in the galleries this morning because I am speaking; but I believe the real reason why more people do not frequent parliament is that most people believe this is a pretty dull place. It should not be so, and it would not be so if each member of parliament had an adequate staff. I do not mean the mere sharing of a secretary; I mean a research man. I am thinking of someone who could give information about the various subjects taken up in the house, so that the member of parliament could study legislation which at times is very intricate. I sat in the house during the debate on the measures to abolish appeals to the privy council, the revision of the constitution' and the Combines Investigation Act; they were extremely involved. The members of the legal profession had quite a tournament at that time.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are just leaning over to tell me to come to order because I am straying from the subject. I shall return to the subject, but I am conscious of the fact that I cannot do all my work and be as expert as I should like to be because the government has not seen fit to give us adequate staff.
I am heartily in sympathy with the resolution respecting citizenship and immigration, but I think the other two-oh, we are not going to hold it up, because it is not that important-could well be put together.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: There are one or two observations, Mr. Speaker, which I had intended to make in committee, but which might be made at this time.
We had a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) which recalled to my mind a statement about the Prime Minister made by an old friend of his. It concerned the days when the Prime Minister used to appear in court. This man said the Prime Minister really did not have to argue; he just stated the facts of his case but stated them so persuasively that that ended the matter. I believe we have to be on guard against the persuasiveness and charm of the Prime Minister. When he tells us these things, it almost sounds as if they proved themselves.
I should like to make one or two comments which are really a sort of footnote to what the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said. The problem of the Prime Minister with respect to Alberta was clearly explained by the member for Peel, and he referred also to the more general problem of the Prime Minister with a huge and successful following who naturally feel they would like to profit in various ways from their electoral success. The Prime Minister, being what he is, finds himself sympathetic to them. His position reminds me of a few lines written by that great philosopher, W. S. Gilbert, who put his philosophy in rhymes which are easy to remember. The lines which I shall read, I suggest, depict in some fashion the position in which the Prime Minister finds himself at the moment:
There lived a king, as I've been told,
In the wonder-working days of old,
When hearts were twice as good as gold,
And1 twenty times as mellow.
Then, it continues:
He wished all men as rich as he (And he was rich as rich could be);
So to the top of every tree Promoted everybody.
The Prime Minister, as the member for Peel has already indicated, is in a quandary, in that he would like to make as many appointments as possible that would be pleasant to those who receive them.
It was perhaps a little unfortunate that this additional government expenditure should have been announced this morning, after we had heard from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that he was almost in a position to cut down the number of his staff by some thousands. Of course the Minister of National Revenue comes from Queen's university, and I am prepared to believe that, in many ways, he is in a

class by himself. Nevertheless I say it is a little disappointing, when we seemed to be in sight of a little economy, to be subjected to a cold douche the next morning. We find that, instead of economy, there is going to be a great deal of expenditure.
It is never popular to talk about economy.
I do not hold myself out as any authority, but I should like to read a word or two from the Winnipeg Free Press, to which I understand the government gives ear from time to time. Actually it is written about the trade situation, but there are a few words here which I think apply. The Free Press says this:
-Canada cannot afford to undertake many of the expensive projects which seemed possible before but are now clearly beyond our means.
This, of course, is not one of the projects which the Free Press had in mind-at least I do not think it was. Nevertheless it seems to me that economy is economy, and extravagance is extravagance. If in fact we are setting up a department which is not necessary-and I shall come to that in a moment- then we are in fact extravagant.
I remember a wise remark made by the head of a corporation whom I heard speaking to one of his colleagues who was proposing to add a new department to his firm. He said: "Now, that may be necessary, but do not fool yourself as to what you are doing; you are setting up a new kingdom, and the king will want to have as many subjects as possible." That is true. If it is true in business, where one has the acid test of the profit and loss account, how much truer is it in the public service, where there is no such test, and where the sky is the limit.
I am only going to say a word or two about the departments. I do not think anyone will quarrel about what the Prime Minister said as to the need for dealing with the various matters to which he referred. We hold up both hands for that. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister say that at one time the dismantling of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply had been considered. As I understood him, he gave an interesting reason for that when he said it had been thought that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) left reconstruction and supply to go to trade and commerce, he would take many of his functions with him. That, of course, is quite commendable, but I do not intend to pursue it further. I do wish to say that I am glad the Department of Reconstruction and Supply was not dismantled, and we all cordially approve of the minister who was appointed to it.
New Departments
This point is still left, however, as the hon. member for Peel has already indicated: There are three or four departments, such as defence, national revenue and finance, which have under their control a far wider range of matters, a far more impressive amount of business, than this new department will have. I entirely agree with what the member for Peel said about the Secretary of State. Surely part of this could have been left with him. If in the Department of National Defence there is this tremendous range of business which is dealt with by one minister with deputies, it cannot be suggested that these matters could not have been dealt with in the same way.
I have no desire to take more time than I have. The only point I want to make is that in my opinion this is an unnecessary extravagance. It could have been dealt with another way. However pleasant it may be to elevate a new person to the stature of a minister, what we are doing is setting up a kingdom which will eventually cost this country-and I make a conservative estimate -several tens of thousands of dollars per year.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that the Department of Mines and Resources should have a thorough psychoanalysis. I have always felt the name was a misnomer, because the department has little to do with either mines or resources. I have often tried to ascertain what the functions of the department are. The estimates of the department come to the house, generally, as those of a minister who has very little to do with the technical matters that are supposed to be handled by it, and the minister is looked upon in the house as just another supernumerary rendering an annual report. I have always felt that this department should have some kind of tightening up. Whether this is the proper way to do it or not, I am not prepared to say.
The arguments that new departments and new ministerial posts are not necessary do not impress me greatly, because anyone who thinks in those terms has not been keeping abreast of the times. You cannot compare the Canada of 1949 with the Canada of even 1939. We are living in a completely different age. The argument against a ministry of trade and commerce is ridiculous, because practically all trade on an international scale today is done between government and government, and it is necessary to have a department for that purpose. Our internal markets also are largely regulated by the government. Where would the apple growers, the wheat growers or the fish industry be if

New Departments
it were not for the fact that a government board is buying up their surpluses and marketing them on an international scale? Whether we like it or not, that is the development; if we are to keep up to date, business will have to be done in that way.
The government is in business, whether some people like it or not. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the extent to which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken the government into business, and rightly so. In the last three or four weeks he has been kicked around in this house a good deal, but I think he has done an excellent job in the field of protecting certain essential services in this country for the people of Canada. I have in mind Trans-Canada Air Lines for example. I do not think we would have T.C.A. if it were not for the fact that we had in the Minister of Trade and Commerce a fairly stubborn person who believed that we should have it. The radio is another example. The measure of public control is, I think, largely due to his activities. Then there is the Polymer Corporation. We are all proud of it. It has done an excellent job. It was thrown together when its creation was absolutely essential. Then there is Canadian Arsenals, and there are other examples that I could mention. I think the minister did an excellent job in that respect.
In order to supervise and properly control these activities, a department is necessary with someone in charge of it who really understands the situation. My only quarrel with the three resolutions that are now before us is this. For example, in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, when a minister is appointed, I do not think the appointment should be made on a political basis; neither do I think that it should be made on a geographical basis. I am not particularly concerned about whether Nova Scotia has a minister or not, or whether Alberta has one or not. But I am anxious that the minister who is appointed to that portfolio shall have the qualifications necessary for proper supervision of the department's activities. The same observation applies with regard to the Department of Resources and Development. As to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, it can be handled by anyone who can read and write. The other departments, however, are technical departments.
I should like to direct the minister's thoughts to another aspect of the situation with regard to the first two departments I have just mentioned. Mines and technical surveys are matters that are dealt with by the provincial governments also. The provincial governments have complete control

over whatever minerals may be discovered. They also have a large measure of control in the granting of charters for any development that may take place as a result of these technical surveys. To what extent are we duplicating, federally, the work that is done by the provinces? I have checked on this business to some extent with regard to technical surveys, particularly as to minerals. One reason why I am glad to see that whole subject now departmentalized under some responsible person is this: as far back in the past as research has been carried on by the Department of Mines and Resources, it has served little purpose. I will mention only one aspect of their work-for example, Labrador and Ungava ore. I am informed that reports had been locked in the vaults of the federal department since 1896. Nothing was done about them until some prospector staggered over some ore and thought there was something there; then a survey was made and the archives gone into. There is no use in spending a great deal of money in carrying on that kind of work unless we are going to do something about it. I trust that under the new set-up something may be done about it.
The same thing applies to the Department of Resources and Development, having to do with a matter which also is in the hands of the provincial governments. Unless the federal government are going to enact some legislation whereby their surveys and the development of their resources is to be carried on on a national scale in co-operation with the provinces, it is just a waste of time to set up federal departments and place large staffs in them if nothing is done about the surveys made and the resources discovered. This is something upon which we must make up our minds. I hope that in the future we shall have a minister in charge of these departments who has the tenacity of purpose which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has shown. On occasions he may have shown bad judgment, but I think that any mistakes he has made were honest mistakes. To me at least, as a member of this house for the last ten years, he has demonstrated that he is the kind of person who wants to do something about the matters that he may be administering. I trust that we may have men like him in these two particular departments.
My main purpose in rising was to say that we must not be unmindful of the fact that, with regard to both of these departments, we run into the provincial governments. We should not be duplicating their work. If ministers are appointed, they should have the technical qualifications to carry on the work of the departments and to do it

properly. A minister may be placed in an extremely awkward position. Let us suppose that he is Minister of National Defence. There are many technical problems to be handled and many things that he must know something about. Suppose you bring in somebody from Alberta just because he is from Alberta. He may be a farmer, and yet you bring him to Ottawa and make him Minister of National Defence. What respect has his department for him? He is just wandering around there like a ship without a rudder.


Gordon Graydon: What is wrong with the farmer?


Clarence Gillis: Nothing at all, except that he is not a soldier, and knows nothing about the technical questions that he will run into in the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Cardiff:: More farmers have become soldiers than have those in any other group.


Clarence Gillis: That is fine. But in the Department of National Defence you must know something about atomic energy and the new weapons that are coming out. Neither coal miners nor businessmen have the technical knowledge which would qualify them to take over a department of that kind and command the respect of the department. The same thing applies to the new Department of Mines and Technical Surveys which is being set up. To have the respect of the department and to make a contribution in that field, the minister, regardless of the part of the country from which he comes, should have the necessary qualifications to determine whether his department is doing a proper job or not; he should not just have somebody writing stuff for him that he reads in the house and that he is not qualified to elaborate beyond the written pages that are given to him. I do not care where the ministers come from. I think they are necessary. I think the idea of breaking up the departments and departmentalizing them is the right one. I only hope that people will be put in there who want to do something about the responsibilities that are being delegated to them in these resolutions.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly, because the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and others have given expression to some of my views; but I do want to say that I am pleased in the first place to support these resolutions. Because of the explanations given to us this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I think the proposals are logical and necessary.
New Departments
It has been my experience that many adult Canadians are confused about the functions of certain departments of the federal government. The division of the departments and the naming of them in this way will dissipate some of that confusion. I am of the opinion that the more people we can get interested in the national government, the more people we can have in the country who have an understanding of the functions of the departments of the national government, the stronger our democracy will be.
There has been some reference to the appointment of further ministers. I support the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. We are a rapidly expanding and growing country, and the functions of government are rapidly expanding. I am all for appointing ministers who are required to carry out efficiently the work of these expanding and increasing departments.
With reference to the establishment of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the new title is an improvement. As the Prime Minister said, our mines are very important to the federal government, and there is a necessity for co-ordination of the activities of the federal government with the activities of the provincial governments, particularly with regard to the conservation of natural resources, which several speakers have mentioned. In the department as now proposed we will have the majority of the technical staff, I presume, concerned with surveys and dealing with similar problems. There is a staff that is dealing with surveys in the Columbia river, the geological surveys and so on. It is a logical arrangement for that department.
When we come to the establishment of the Department of Resources and Development, of necessity an active minister will have to be appointed to that portfolio. I am all for it, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that if we are to develop our housing program, which is so necessary in this country, our trans-Canada highway system and our country generally, and if the dominion government is to support the development of Canada to the extent that will be required in the years ahead, it will be a full-time job for any efficient minister.
With respect to the establishment of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, I am pleased to see it now, because we have to expand the functions of the department in a logical way. The previous department had to do with natural resources and development. As the Prime Minister said, this department will be primarily concerned with human resources. I think the establishment.

New Departments
of a department under which immigration, citizenship and the care of Indian affairs comes under one branch is logical, and I am sure it will appeal to a large section of the country.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a reference to parliamentary assistants. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) criticized the number of parliamentary assistants that this government has appointed. Personally I am pleased to know that this government is appointing parliamentary assistants. I say that because of my personal experience in this house. They perform a very necessary function. In the first place, it seems only reasonable to provide an opportunity for, shall I say, the brighter and coming young men of the house to be trained in departmental activities with the possibility of being appointed cabinet ministers in the future. I think also that parliamentary assistants are a necessary link between busy cabinet ministers and their officials. They are a necessary link between busy members of parliament and the ministers' officials. From my experience I have found that the parliamentary assistants perform a useful function in this house for members of parliament. I want particularly to mention two that I have had a good deal to do with. In the first instance, I had numerous problems brought to my attention that concerned the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, not during the last twelve months but during the immediate post-war period. I must say that on numerous occasions I found the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply most helpful.
Now, sir, I say this, though I differ from the hon. member politically. So far as British Columbia is concerned we are fortunate that the Minister of Finance has for his parliamentary assistant a man of the calibre of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). On occasions I have had to bring to his notice problems from my constituency-because my constituents are a very alert and active people. I have found the hon. member most helpful and cooperative, and most willing on all occasions to do what he could to find a satisfactory solution to the problems that I brought to his department through him.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I simply say this. The final success, the basic success of this reorganization, depends to a great extent not only upon the ministers appointed but on the calibre of the deputy ministers appointed to assist in these departments. I do hope that in this reorganization of the departments the government will give serious
[Mr. Herridge.l
consideration to the appointment as deputy ministers of the best men that they can obtain.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two before the measure is finally carried. I believe that the move of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to add to the administrative machinery which will be at his disposal, is sound. It is true, as a number of hon. members have already said, that we need to increase such machinery as the complexity of the lives of our times develops. It must be borne in mind, however, that each department must be carefully instructed to recognize that it is not its function to step into the work which is already being done by the provinces. It must be definitely understood by every cabinet minister that his prime function is that of leadership. He should never get the idea that he is a driver or necessarily a supplanter. One of his main functions is to supply the finance to those who are already engaged in carrying on the work which falls naturally under his department. Not only should he supply finance, but he should supply also technical knowledge, in so far as the dominion has it at its disposal in greater abundance than the provincial governments can have. He should provide for co-ordination among the provinces.
Up to the present time too little realization of that sort of thing has been in evidence. This country is unique in that it now consists of ten countries. If any one of the provinces of this dominion were in Europe it would be a nation with a nation's problems, a nation's capacities and a nation's resources. One of the main tasks of the minister is to bring the activities of these ten provinces into co-ordination, so that there will be no conflict among them, such as has all too frequently developed in times past. I hope the Prime Minister will take care to brief these new men adequately in this respect.
May I revert for a moment to the matter of finance? Let us take the question of Indian affairs. Busy as has been the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Gibson) in the years immediately past, he has had plenty of time, I believe, to supervise the Indians affairs branch to such an extent as to enable him to know pretty well what ought to be done for the Indians. Strangely enough, however, I have had the impression that for about forty years that branch has been restricted in its activities by a sort of financial ban.
It will not matter who is in charge of the Indians if the policy of the government with respect to them is one of cheeseparing and niggardliness. That branch will never be

able to do what ought to be done for the Indians so long as that condition exists. To every reasonable person throughout Canada it must be a cause for chagrin, if not mortification, that we have not yet seen fit to give our Indians the old age pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member can go into that at this time. The house is discussing the advisability of setting up these departments. Under that heading I do not think the hon. member should discuss government policy.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I have no desire to collide with you in this matter. I would say, however, that unless more money is given to the departments than has been given up to the present time, covering certain activities, we might as well write these new departments off so far as their doing anything effective is concerned, and the enormous expenditures which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) foresaw will be in large measure money thrown away. I have no desire to launch into any discussion of the Indian question. I mentioned the Indians merely as an illustration of branches of government affected by the reorganization we are now discussing. How one can really be effective in a discussion without using some sort of illustration, I do not know. To my mind the Indian question appeared to be a good illustration of a matter which could have been taken care of without the establishment of new departments, but which for financial reasons has not been adequately handled.
Until we all come to realize that the things we so much desire require the expenditure of money, we shall not make the progress we ought to make. Time and again I have argued that the provinces are able to take care of all the matters coming within their jurisdiction, if they are supplied with money. The sooner we begin to realize that fact, the less we shall be inclined to delude ourselves into thinking that we can improve conditions materially in our provinces and in the nation generally by simply changing forms.
Turning to the matter of forest conservation-and I hope I shall not be declared out of order if I deal briefly with that subject, because others have already done so-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to the advisability of setting up the new departments.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; that is precisely what I am doing. For if the new departments that are being set up do not increase well-being throughout the country,
New Departments
which is going to cost money, my argument is that there is no use in setting them up, and that the money spent in setting them up and maintaining them will be wasted and confusion throughout the country will be increased.
It would appear that anything effective that could be said will be considered out of order, so I shall take my seat.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


The Chairman:: Is it the wish of the committee to consider the three resolutions at the same time, or to deal with them separately?


Some hon. Members:: Together.


Howard Charles Green: One o'clock.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Carried.


Mr.   Chairman@: Shall the resolutions carry?


Howard Charles Green: No; I wish to ask two or three questions, and it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. SI. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to	introduce	Bill	No.	211,	respecting	the
Department of Resources and Development.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to	introduce	Bill	No.	212,	respecting	the
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to	introduce	Bill	No.	213,	respecting	the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SALARIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon.	L.	S.	St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Salaries Act by repealing the salary provision respecting the Minister of Mines and Resources, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National War Services and the Minister of Reconstruction,
[Stage Direction]
Salaries Act
respectively, and by providing salaries for the Minister of Besources and Development, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respectively.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the bill which will be introduced if the resolution carries will have only two sections. One provides for the repeal of the provisions of the Salaries Act which now provide salaries for four ministers of the crown at the rate of $10,000 each, and substituting salaries for three ministers of the crown at the same rate. The other section provides that the act is to come into force by proclamation, which will be at the same time as the acts creating the new departments are proclaimed.


Howard Charles Green: I had two or three questions which I wanted to ask on the other resolutions, but they went through before most of us were back in the chamber. If I may, I should like to ask them now.
The first has to do with the distribution of the various branches. In the present Department of Mines and Resources there is a branch known as mines, forests and scientific services. Apparently it is to be broken up and some of the sections of the branch allotted to the new Department of Resources and Development while others go to the new Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. For example, there are the following branches: the bureau of mines, the dominion forest service, the eastern rockies forest conservation board, the geological survey of Canada, the surveys and mapping bureau, the dominion water and power bureau, the geographical bureau, the national museum of Canada, and the dominion observatories.
Then there are also certain branches which, while they are under the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the present time, would appear to have their proper place in one or the other of the two new departments. One is the dominion coal board, which, it would seem, should be in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Then there are the national research council, the atomic energy control board and Canadian Arsenals Limited. Can the Prime Minister tell us just how these different sections of the service are to be allotted?	'
There is one other question. Will the Prime Minister indicate the number of employees there are now in the Department of Mines and Resources, the Department of Reconstruction and Supply and the Department of the Secretary of State, and the number there will be in the new departments after the change? I realize he can only give

an approximate figure, but I take it the government has some idea of the size of the new departments.
The Prime Minister did not mention which minister would be responsible for the film board. Finally I suggest that the name "Indian affairs" should appear in the name of the new department, which is apparently to be called the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am afraid, if that is the name used, the Indian affairs branch of the new department will be regarded by. the general public as just tacked on, whereas in fact the two large branches will be immigration and Indian affairs. Each of these branches will have several hundred employees. On the other hand, the citizenship branch is a small one in the Department of the Secretary of State, with, I believe, between twenty and thirty employees at the present time. It seems to me that Indian affairs work will be of such importance that it should be given a place in the name of the department. Perhaps the title would be too long if the three different branches were named-citizenship, Indian affairs and immigration-but, if that is so, I suggest it could be known as the department of Indian affairs and immigration. Those are the two main jobs of the new department. It seems to me it is not right to leave the words "Indian affairs" out of the name of the new department.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, we are going to do our best to please everybody, but we are not going to be able to please the hon. member for Peel by shortening the names of departments and please the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra by lengthening them. As to the suggestion that we drop the word "citizenship" and substitute "Indian affairs" in the name of the new department which will deal with citizenship, it has appeared to us that the real objective towards which we should endeavour to proceed is to make citizens both of the immigrants and of the Indians. We believe that it would be a mistake not to have that fact emphasized in the name of the new department.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the Indians are citizens now in British Columbia. They have the vote in British Columbia.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: If they are, they no longer come under the treaty provisions of the administration of Indian affairs, and they can become citizens everywhere in Canada by a declaration that they wish to be withdrawn from the provisions which apply to the treaty Indians. I had the advantage of the friendship of a distinguished member of the legislature of Quebec who had withdrawn from

the treaty provisions of the Indian band at Lorette. He had become a member of the legislature representing the constituency in which that reserve is located. So I think it is very desirable to promote to the greatest possible extent the advancement of those residents of Canada to full citizenship. The only thing that might be considered would be to add "Indian affairs" to the other two names given the department. The only objection there would be to the length of the name: citizenship, immigration and Irtdian affairs.


Howard Charles Green: That does not do much harm, does it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member for Peel does not think we should have to refer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by that name.


Gordon Graydon: Neither does the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not disclosing my own views at the present time, but merely commenting on the conflict between the views of the hon. gentleman to whom I am attempting to reply, and those of other hon. gentlemen in the house. Of course a rose would smell as sweet by any other name, but most of us still prefer to call it a rose rather than change to some long and learned botanical description of that beautiful flower.
With respect to the other matters, of course the hon. gentleman realizes that it is going to require quite a delicate sorting-out process to distribute these branches and those who are concerned with their operation in the manner that will tend to the greatest efficiency. Our estimate would seem to show that there might be about 2,000 in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, about 3,200 in the Department of Resources and Development, and about 3,100 in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. That was the calculation made by those who were studying the position, because we were trying to get an idea of what the balance of activities would be.
With respect to the estimates, if the hon. gentleman will turn to pages 28, 29, 30 and 31 I might refer to the numbers of the items. For resources and development, from our best estimate of how the services would be distributed, there would be Nos. 173, 180


Howard Charles Green: That is the director of special projects?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; 180 to 186 inclusive-


Howard Charles Green: I might point out to the Prime Minister that there is a subheading for each of these, which might make it easier to follow.
Salaries Act


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But under the subheading there are some which would go to the other department. Under the subheading of mines, forests and scientific services branch, Nos. 177, 178, 179, 187 and 188 to 195 inclusive would go to mines and technical surveys.


Howard Charles Green: There is another subhead for the bureau of mines.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The bureau of mines is a subhead, and there we have items 176 to 179.


Howard Charles Green: Then comes the dominion forest service.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. The bureau of mines would go to the mines and technical surveys department; from forest service down to geological survey would go to resources and development; from geological survey down to dominion water power bureau would go to mines and technical surveys. At present the dominion water power bureau is listed as one of those branches which would remain with resources and development, though there will have to be some sorting out there because part of that branch is devoted to projects and there is a part which is a service department for the information of the public. The Dominion Water Power Act deals with projects in every section except section 10, which deals with surveys for the information of the public. All the other sections deal with projects, which would remain with resources and development.


Howard Charles Green: What about the national
museum?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The national museum would be under resources and development. Mines and technical surveys would have the responsibility of securing the samples, but the displaying of those samples in thfe national museum would be the responsibility of resources and development.


Howard Charles Green: What about the dominion
observatories?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The dominion observatories would be under the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. No decision has been arrived at as yet, but in that case also some of the stations that are now operated by the Department of Transport may have to be transferred. The portion which is a service department for the public we would endeavour to concentrate in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys


Howard Charles Green: Then I asked about the
dominion coal board, the national research council, the atomic energy control board and Canadian Arsenals Limited.

Salaries Act


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The national research council is not part of a department. The chairman is a minister especially designated by cabinet, though not as administrator of a department, as chairman of the research council. The same is true of the film board, and there is no present intention of changing the status of the chairman of that board. No consideration has been given the other three bodies yet, as to whether they would remain with the Department of Trade and Commerce or whether they would be integrated with the new Department of Resources and Development. The question has been raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, who suggested that it might be possible to have those bodies placed with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, but there has not been time to go into the matter and reach any decision. In a general way it is the desire to have all these technical services for the information of the public, as to the extent of our resources and how they can be used, under the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Mr. Higgins:: Arising out of a remark by the Prime Minister a few moments ago, may I ask if the Indians and Eskimos of Labrador have acquired full citizenship? I know this question is not germane to this discussion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not believe they
have. I understand that on a reference to the supreme court the Eskimos were classified as coming under the responsibility of the federal government in the same way as Indians. I do not think the situation there is any different than with respect to the others who are the responsibility of the federal government under the same provision of the British North America Act.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I asked the question because on Thursday another question was answered for me by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I	asked:
What medical services have been provided for the Indians and Eskimos of Labrador?
The answer was:
While the federal government has given some assistance In emergency cases, provision of medical services for the Indians and Eskimos in Labrador has been and has continued to be the responsibility of the Newfoundland government.
That is rather	contradictory,	in a way.While I do not	expect	an answer, sir,	I
thought you might perhaps clear it up.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it	might	clarify	things	if,
before the second reading of the bills, the Prime Minister or his department could make some sort of chart showing the various branches that will come under each of these

departments. From one remark the Prime Minister made, I take it that these decisions have not all been made, and that may be a bar to what I suggest. It would be of considerable help to the members generally, who have to deal with the branches from time to time, if they knew exactly which minister had charge of these things. It is embarrassing to go to the wrong department.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think it would be helpful to do it at this time because it is in too tentative a form. When the bills are being proclaimed, there will have been orders in council published under the transfer of duties act which will establish quite clearly what the distribution is. Perhaps at that time it would be possible to give charts or statements that will be informative, and that will not likely be interfered with at an early date.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps those could be distributed to individual members.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whenever [DOT] that is done we will, of course, be tabling the orders in council, because we have to table all orders in council made under the transfer of duties act. When tabling them, I believe it will be possible to have them accompanied by charts that will be available to all members.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 214, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TAX AGREEMENTS


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend section seven of the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947, which provides for payments to the provincial governments in respect of income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to or the generation for distribution to the public of electric energy, gas or steam, to reduce deductions made in computing the amounts payable for provincial corporation income tax imposed by the provinces who have not entered into tax rental agreements and otherwise to assist in computing the amounts payable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


John Ewen Sinclair: This resolution seeks authority to introduce a short bill to amend the

Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act of 1947. The amending bill will refer to only one section in the act, section 7, under which the federal government and the provinces agreed, in respect of those public utilities engaged in generating or distributing electrical energy, gas or steam, that half the federal corporation tax received from them should be returned to the provincial governments.
According to section 7 there should be deducted from the provinces' half share any increase in royalties or licences which the provinces charged to the power companies after January 1, 1947, when these agreements came into effect, or any new royalties, taxes, or rentals which were imposed on the companies after January 1, 1947, and any taxes levied directly by the provinces on those power companies. Exempt, however, was the five per cent corporation tax which the federal government collects for the provinces under the dominion-provincial taxation agreement. No provision was made, however, to extend that provision to the corporation taxes levied by the provinces which had not signed the agreement. One of the clauses of the amending bill will permit the provinces who did not sign the agreement to be given credit for an equivalent amount of five per cent, so that the deduction will be made to the extent that the provincial corporation tax exceeds the five per cent cent levied by the signing provinces.
In other words, this will be a considerable benefit to the two provinces which did not sign. It will give to them the same benefits as those received by the signing provinces.
The second amendment refers to section 7 also, subsection 4. It was intended to apply this special concession only to those companies engaged in the distribution of power to the public. It was not intended to cover, for example, large industrial corporations such as a smelting company or pulp and paper company which had a wholly-owned power company as a subsidiary selling its power output entirely to the parent company. That was regarded as a normal corporation whose corporation tax would go direct to the federal government. Subsequently it was found that there are public utility corporations in this country which have a somewhat similar set-up under which one subsidiary actually generates the power and the parent company or another subsidiary sells the power to the public. Under the wording of subsection 4 the taxes from these subsidiaries would not be shared by the provinces. It was felt that was unfair, so subsection 4 of section 7 is being changed so that the provinces will receive five per
Tax Agreements
cent of the tax collected from either the subsidiary or the parent company, so long as it is engaged in selling or distributing power to the public.
The third part of the bill provides for returns and special information necessary for the proper administration of the section, and provides for the extension of this measure to cover the province of Newfoundland.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
the parliamentary assistant whether this proposal has been discussed with the two provinces concerned? Do they regard it as equally beneficial?


John Ewen Sinclair: Yes, I am informed that the finance ministers of the ten provinces are agreeable to this amendment because it means more revenue for them than was provided when they actually signed the agreement. The two provinces that did not sign are now put on an equal footing with the signing provinces. Under the present act Ontario and Quebec, instead of getting their seven per cent of the corporate tax deducted from their fifty per cent of the federal corporation tax, will now have only the excess of their rate over the five per cent rate levied by the other provinces so deducted. There will now be a deduction of two per cent, that is the excess over five per cent which is allowed the other provinces.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have no doubt the parliamentary assistant is right in his feeling that, as reasonable men, they would be bound to accept it. Nevertheless, I am interested in knowing whether this actual proposal has been discussed with them.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am informed that the proposal has been discussed with the finance ministers of the provinces. That is the information I was given.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The parliamentary assistant made reference to New foundland. I understand that negotiations are pending for the signing of an agreement between the government of Newfoundland and the federal government. I know that a bill has been introduced in the legislature in St. John's. To what period will this bill apply? Will it apply to past time?


John Ewen Sinclair: I believe the various dates in connection with the laws of Canada and Newfoundland were covered by the statute passed last spring. Perhaps I should not speak on this matter, but I would imagine that it would date back to the time that Newfoundland actually entered confederation. As to the other provinces, this covers the period from the date of January 1, 1947, until the end of the present dominion-provincial tax

Rent Control
agreement on December 31, 1951. As to Newfoundland, this bill will only include Newfoundland in the same way as have been the other seven provinces which have already signed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Bradley (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 215, to amend the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSING


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the house revert to motions for the purpose of allowing me to table an order in council which the hon. member for Lake Centre (|dr. Diefenbaker) asked for yesterday and which I undertook to lay on the table as soon as I could procure it. It is an order in council making the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the jurisdiction of parliament in the field of rent control for the period now provided for in the existing legislation or orders, and for such further period as parliament may deem to be required to bring about an orderly decontrol.
The hon. member for Lake Centre asked if, before December 1, an opportunity could be provided for discussion on the terms of this order because, the reference having been made to the supreme court, one of the hon. justices of that court is to hear counsel on December 1 in order to give directions as to how the reference is to be proceeded with. The hon. member for Lake Centre wished to have some opportunity to make his views known and to provoke some discussion on the reference before the order goes before a justice of the supreme court.
The matter has been given some consideration, and it has been felt that we could give this opportunity for discussion by moving, at eight o'clock on Monday night, to go into committee of supply and by calling in committee of supply item 92 of the estimates, which is the item dealing with the administration of the wartime prices and trade board. At that same time we would ask also to introduce the other departments which have not yet been called, so that those estimates can be dealt with whenever there is an opportunity for that to be done. If it were satisfactory to hon. members we could move,

at eight o'clock on Monday night, to go into committee of supply and, as soon as the Speaker has left the chair, we could call item 92 for the purpose of providing the opportunity asked for by the hon. member for Lake Centre, to discuss the terms of this order in council before it goes before a judge of the supreme court.


Howard Charles Green: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that he would then ask to have all the remaining departments put in?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. There are only three other departments; and I think that at this time they should be in a position to be dealt with. They cannot be dealt with on Thursday, Friday or Saturday unless they have been called on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.



PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 174, to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act- Mr. Bradley-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Subsidiary corporations.
Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Greenwood made an inquiry as to the construction to be placed on a phrase in the original pension act of 1887 as re-enacted in the Revised Statutes of Canada. The phrase occurs in section 3. The question is as to the meaning of the words:
... of any corporation legally transacting business in Canada, under any act of the parliament of Canada.
One's first mental reaction to that phrase is that it would include companies obtaining a charter from this parliament or companies whose charter was based upon the Companies Act. I think that has been the general impression down through the years. I have made some inquiries, and there is no indication of any application ever having been made to include either a provincial or a foreign corporation within the provisions of the act. The list of corporations which have taken occasion to avail themselves of the privileges of this act includes corporations who either have special acts of their own or who are incorporated under the Canadian Companies Act. For the most part, they are banks. Altogether there are twelve of them. Just what is included in that phrase, I would not undertake to say at the moment. It is a legal question which I presume will have to be answered by the courts should ever the occasion arise. But the act seems

to have travelled along for more than half a century without the question ever having arisen. The present bill does not in any way interfere with that phrase at all, the only effect of the provisions of the amendment being to include the employees of any subsidiary of a corporation having obtained a charter within the benefits of this act, without the necessity of forming another pension fund society.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the minister for his answer, and that is all I have to ask.


Howard Charles Green: Would there be any objection to putting on Hansard a list of these parent corporations, which are taking advantage of the act?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall read them.


Howard Charles Green: Could they be put on Hansard?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes, I am quite willing to put them on Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: One other question: Is there any serious objection by the minister's department to having subsidiary corporations, which are incorporated under provincial acts, included in the terms of the act?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not think I can undertake to answer that question just now. It occurs to me that it is purely a legal question which would have to be answered by the courts.


Howard Charles Green: The minister's department has no objection?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: At the moment I do not know of any objection.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have the list?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes. The list follows:
Pension Fund Societies on Record in the Department of the Secretary of State
Name	Year
1.	Bank of Toronto	
18892.	Banque Canadienne Nationale (formerly Bank of Hochelaga)	
19163.	Barclays Bank (Canada)	
19404.	La Caisse d'Economie de Notre-Damede Quebec	
19125.	Canada Packers Ltd	
19396.	Canada Starch Co. Ltd	
19417.	Canada Steamship Lines Ltd	
19408.	Consolidated Mining & Smelting Co. ofCanada Ltd	
19409.	Eastern Townships Bank (no longerin existence)	
188910.	National Breweries Ltd	
194111.	Royal Bank of Canada	
193512.	Royalite Oil Company Ltd	
1949


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Export and Import Permits EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 143, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the Export and Import Permits Act was enacted in 1947. It was amended in 1948. Section 14 of the amending act provided that the act would expire on the 31st of March, 1950. The present bill seeks an extension of the act until July 31, 1951. The bill was introduced in the Senate and was considered at some length by the banking and commerce committee of the other place.
I might give a short explanation as to the reason for the choice of the date, July 31, 1951. The bill, as introduced in the Senate, provided for an extension of two years. When it was discussed in committee there a question arose about granting an extension for one year. It became evident in the discussion of that point that an extension for one year only-that is, an extension to March 31, 1951-would necessitate a further amending bill in the next session of parliament. It was thought that difficulty could be advantageously overcome by making the time of expiry of the act July 31, 1951, so that if it were desired again to extend the act the amending bill would not have to be brought in until the second session from the present one.
Originally the main purpose of controlling exports under the act was to ensure that commodities in short supply were available for domestic consumption. To a limited but constantly diminishing extent this purpose is still valid, particularly in the field of building products, if we are to maintain the high level of construction in this country. It is apparent now that the main purpose of the bill is that having to do with strategic considerations, and that is the main reason for the export permits at the present time.
It is essential that the government be responsible for the destinations to which arms, munitions, implements of war, atomic energy materials and other materials of like nature are shipped, and that is the main purpose of export control at the present time.
It will be noted that in the earlier years of the act there were some 542 items under export control. At the present time there are 137 items under export control. I might say that in effect the number of items is really considerably less than that because included

Export and Import Permits in the list are items that we normally do not produce in this country for export. They are of a kind that we import from the United States. Because of their strategic importance I think it is apparent to all hon. members that we would not wish to have them other than under export control, even although we do not produce them ourselves. An excellent example of the type of item I am talking about in that category is carbon black. It is not produced in this country, and yet it is included under export control to ensure that United States carbon black is not exported from this country.
With respect to continuing the authority for import control, the list has been reduced from 67 items under control to 5. It is necessary mainly because of our international commitments. An example of that is tin under the combined tin allocation committee, and rice under the food and agriculture organization.


Howard Charles Green: What were the other three?


George James McIlraith: The items under import control are powdered milk, two items of rice, tin, scrap iron and steel. These are the five items under import control.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
a question? Would it be correct to say that the Export and Import Permits Act in the main now deals with materials having a strategic significance? Would that be a correct statement?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is a correct assumption. There are still a considerable number of items other than strategic materials under export control, but they are constantly being removed from export control. The statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can we take it that from the point of view of ordinary business considerations the act is on its way out, but that strategic considerations keep it in? Is it a fact that only a year and half is being suggested because we hope that we may within a measurable time get rid of it? Is that a legitimate inference to draw from it, or is it, as a matter of fact, so far as the government can say, that they hope to have it continued indefinitely?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The legitimate assumption is that we will get rid of it. That is why we keep it on a temporary basis. As my hon. friend says, its application to commerce is coming to an end.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.

On section 1-Expiration.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant said that this act was required in order to control the export of war materials. Is there some other method by which the export of these materials is controlled? It seems to me that some years ago, in fact before the war, a bill was passed by the house which gave the government some authority over the shipment of war materials. That was a very live subject at the time. There were quite extensive debates, and I think the bill was in the shape of an amendment to the Customs Act, although I am not quite clear on the point.


George James McIlraith: No, I think the discussion to which the hon. member refers was on the 1948 bill amending this act. The act as originally introduced in 1947 did not include all the strategic materials provisions which are now in it. In 1948 the amendment did two things: it added the clauses with respect to shipments to certain areas for strategic reasons, and extended the term of the 1947 act. If my memory serves me correctly, it would be the discussion on that bill the hon. member has in mind.


Howard Charles Green: The measure I have in mind was brought in about the time arms were being shipped by some countries to Spain. This was during the civil war in Spain, and considerable debate took place in the house about that time. I believe some legislation was passed which gave the government a measure of control over the shipment of arms.


George James McIlraith: I am not aware of the legislation the hon. member has in mind, if that is so. All the export of strategic materials is now controlled through the granting of permits under this act.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant has said that this act will be allowed to expire. Probably it will be allowed to expire in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


George James McIlraith: The statement was as it affects ordinary commerce. The question of the hon. member for Greenwood was directed to export control in terms affecting ordinary commerce, and the reply was also limited to that.


Howard Charles Green: The intention is in future to control the export of munitions of war and strategic materials under this act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are international arrangements on that subject between the United States, Great Britain and Canada. It is known as area control, where certain materials-

and there are three lists, I believe, with different grades of urgency-are controlled for shipment to particular areas. While I believe it will not be necessary to extend the commercial application of this act beyond its expiry date, it is quite possible that the area control will be required. That depends upon international tension, and the maintenance of area controls by other governments.


Howard Charles Green: It is important that the government of Canada should have power to control the shipments of munitions of war to another country. Will that power be maintained under this act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is maintained under this act. When this act disappears, some other arrangement may be made to continue that control.


Howard Charles Green: The provision in the Customs Act to which I referred a few moments ago is section 290 which will be found in chapter 24 of the 1937 statutes.


Mr. Isnor:: I should like to ask a question in connection with the commercial aspect of the matter as it relates to imports, rather than exports. Has this bill anything to do with permits for the importation of equipment, including machinery and the like?


George James McIlraith: No.


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


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 133, respecting the application of a national trade mark to commodities and respecting the true description of commodities.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister make a statement?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this bill respecting the application of a national trade mark to commodities and respecting the true description of commodities was introduced in the Senate at the last session of the 20th parliament. It was dealt with by the banking and commerce committee of the Senate at that time, at considerable length. Some slight amendments were made in the bill as introduced. It was then passed by the Senate through all stages, and was on the order paper in this house when parliament dissolved.
National Trade Mark
It was reintroduced at this session in the Senate in precisely the form in which it had been passed by the Senate at the previous session. The bill has been considered and passed by the Senate without further amendment. It was referred to their committee on banking and commerce at this session, but required to be dealt with only briefly.
The bill itself relates to three subjects, the first of which is the use of the words "Canada standard" or the initials "C.S." as the national trade-mark, following the establishment of commodity standards; secondly, the accurate labelling of commodities; and, thirdly, it provides for the repeal of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act of 1935.
Hon. members will recall that an attempt was made to deal with the subject matter of this bill with the passing of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act in 1935. That act dealt with other matters which are unrelated to the present bill. However, the provisions of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act which related to the national trade-mark, the establishment of commodity standards and true labelling were transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce in March, 1947.
Experience has shown that the legislation is defective and unsatisfactory for the purpose originally intended. I will refer to these defects in dealing with the particular subjects contained in the bill. The new bill provides a basically new approach to the problems involved and will establish a framework within which these problems can be administered.
There is active business interest in this type of legislation. This is evidenced by the fact that a large number of requests have been received by the Department of Trade and Commerce from manufacturers, distributors, or consumer organizations for the issue of regulations, either with respect to the use of the national trade-mark or to true labelling. Applications have been put forward for the right to use the national trade-mark, but the greater number of the more pressing requests deal with commodities in regard to which more adequate labelling safeguards are desired. I may say that the issue of regulations in response to the requests that are now in hand has been held up by the department, in some cases because the investigational work required has not been completed, but also on the more important ground that the existing legislation has certain defects and does not provide adequate safeguards.
It is not considered that there will be a very rapid development or growth along the

National Trade Mark
development of the use of the national trademark. Indeed, it is desirable that this be so, in view of the fact, as hon. members will appreciate, that great care and thorough investigation of each application must be made before the right to use the national trade-mark on any product is granted. It is believed that there will be a real advantage to both the domestic and the export trade in the voluntary adoption by Canadian firms of the use of the national trade-mark under conditions that will properly safeguard the quality of the goods to which the mark is applied.
It should be clearly understood that the use of the national trade-mark by any industrial or commercial firm is wholly voluntary. It is not intended in any way to supersede or interfere with the use of privately owned trade marks, which have been long established or widely known, and represent assets of great value to the individual firms or companies to which they belong. If, however, any firm or company wishes to make use of the national trade-mark, it may do so only on the condition that its product conforms with an approved specification or standard. The extent to which its use will increase depends completely upon the extent to which business firms desire to have a national mark used on their products.
Under the old Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, the minister had the power to regulate the manner of using the mark, but he had no power to prescribe the terms and conditions of use. Further the governor in council had no authority over the national trade-mark. It is felt that all regulations governing the manner of using the national trade-mark, and prescribing the terms and conditions of its use, should be those of the governor in council instead of the minister as it was in the old act. These changes are effected by the present bill.
Further, under the existing legislation, once the right to use the mark had been granted there was no provision whatever for cancelling or withdrawing the right to use it if the right was abused. Under the present bill the governor in council is enabled to make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which the right of any person to affix the national trade-mark to any commodity or container may be either terminated or suspended. The importance of this safeguard will, I think, be self-evident. The potential value of the national trade-mark lies in its recognition in both domestic and export trade as a virtual guarantee of quality.
The establishment of commodity standards is a corollary to the establishment of the

national trade-mark. Under the old legislation mandatory standards or specifications may be set up for any commodities, regardless of whether or not it is intended that the national trade-mark be applied to them. In this respect the bill we are now considering makes an important change. The authority to establish a standard or specification for any commodity applies only in the case of products on which the right to use the national trade mark is being sought. Consequently, the standard or specification that may be established for any given product will be mandatory only on those firms applying the national trade-mark to such projects. There will therefore be no compulsory specification or standard that must be observed by firms which are not making use of the national trade-mark.
With respect to the second main part of the bill, the true description of labelling of commodities, it will be noted that the provisions of the present bill are not as wide as those of the existing legislation. In the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act there is power to compel descriptive labelling virtually without restriction. The regulations under the new bill will be mandatory only in the sense that if goods are described on labels they must be labelled accurately and in a manner that avoids public deception. The principal point to be emphasized in this connection is that regulations can only prescribe the manner of labelling if goods are labelled for the purpose of indicating the material content or quality of the commodity or the size or contents by weight or measure of the package or container.
If any individual manufacturer wishes to put out a product without marking or labelling or describing it in advertising for the above purposes, he may still do so. If he does label it, descriptively, for any of these purposes he must label it accurately. The purpose of the bill may be simply stated as follows: In establishing a national trade-mark, it is proposed that this shall be on a voluntary basis only, and the necessity of complying with commodity standards affects only those manufacturers or others who desire to use the national trade-mark. Where manufacturers descriptively label any commodity or container, it must be labelled accurately to prevent public deception.
I might add that when the bill was in committee in the other place there was a rather thorough examination of it, and representations were heard from the retail federation of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Canadian association of consumers.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, as to this measure I think I can safely say that I thought I was in thorough agreement with the broad principles of the bill, but after listening to the parliamentary assistant's description of it I do not know whether or not I am. We will not argue the fact that we should have a high standard of quality for any goods to be sold in Canada or to be exported. With that proposition we are in agreement. There is also no argument as to the true labelling of goods, but when the parliamentary assistant says that no compulsion is provided in the bill for the labelling of goods for export, I do not know whether I can go quite that far. I think probably there should be some compulsion whereby exporters of goods from Canada would have to meet certain requirements as to standards of quality and these other things. We are all seriously interested in the quality of goods exported from this country, because in order to hold our markets we must see that the quality is such that it will meet the demands of consumers in these countries.
The parliamentary assistant did not say what products the bill would deal with. I am going to say very little, as a matter of fact, but I want to look at the question from the standpoint of agriculture. If the bill has anything to do with agricultural products I want to say a few words about it. We are dependent on export business for the disposition of practically all our agricultural products. In order to secure that export business we must produce a quality that is in demand in the countries to which we sell. If we do not do so, we cannot expect to get the business.
So far as agricultural products are concerned, I may say quite frankly that I do not like the words "Canada standard" or the letters "C.S." The letters "C.S." might mean anything. The words "Canada standard", in my opinion, would mean quite ordinary or average. We certainly do not want products being exported from Canada marked with words that mean no more than ordinary or average. That is particularly so in the case of canned products. They are now graded, and the lowest quality of canned products is referred to as the standard grade. The word "standard" implies that the products are of average or ordinary quality. I do not think it is good enough for us to use such words as a Canadian trade-mark for goods that are being exported or that are being sold in the domestic market. I do not know what other word I would use, and I would not want to suggest one. Surely there should be some better word than "standard". Even though this bill has passed through all stages in the other place, I believe the government should 4578-1-I47J
National Trade Mark
give us an undertaking that it will be sent to an appropriate committee of this house to be further discussed and studied before it passes this chamber.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this measure which is to replace sections 16 to 19 of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act of 1935, which is repealed by section 9 of this bill. I believe this is a good move. I was very glad to hear the parliamentary assistant say the government intends to adopt a new approach to this problem. The act apparently has been inoperative for years, and I am glad to see some evidence that it is the intention of the government to develop this type of legislation.
Before proceeding with my remarks let me say that after reading the trade and industry act of 1935 and knowing the situation in regard to the enforcement of legislation of this kind, I fully appreciate that the machinery and procedures have to be developed rather slowly, and as the result of producer and consumer support. Up to the present time we have done very little in Canada along these lines, as compared to what has been done in the United States. There, through the activities of the federal trade commission, a great deal has been done to develop national standards and the true labelling of commodities. This, I think, is evidenced by the number of investigations and prosecutions that have been conducted by the federal trade commission in recent years.
I understand that originally the federal trade commission of the United States was set up to stop unfair practices in competition and to protect the trade rather than the public. After some years of experience this was found most ineffective, and changes had to be considered.
It was not until 1938 that the United States government legally recognized the need for protecting the public as well as business interests; and I presume that in our legislation there is to be protection for the public as well as for business. This change came about in the United States as a result of the dispute between the federal trade commission and the manufacturers of a weight-reducing remedy which was found to be injurious to health. That company won its case before the supreme court of the United States on the ground that while the weight-reducing remedy might have been injurious to many customers, it never hurt a competitor. Since claims made by the competitors were equally false according to the law, this hair-splitting decision was technically correct, and I understand that was the cause of a new approach

National Trade Mark
to the problem by the commission. The court ruling in that case, which prevented the federal trade commission from proceeding against one manufacturer because all in that field were dishonest, showed the absurdity of the situation and the need for some change in the law.
As a result of that decision the Wheeler-Lee amendment was passed giving the federal trade commission power to act in the public interest as well as in the interests of business. The adoption of this amendment had a great effect upon the advertising and labelling of commodities in the United States. Since that time the commission has done a great deal of work in this connection. According to the figures I have been able to obtain, last year its staff examined some half million advertisements in newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, of which number some 25,000 were noted as containing representations apparently false or misleading. In addition over a million radio continuities were examined, and some 20,000 violations of the law were determined by the federal trade commission. As far as I can discover, during the same period of time in Canada only one violation of the law was dealt with, as compared with more than 20,000 violations in the United States.
This action in the United States was supported by many newspapers, and I mention this because I think it only right to give credit where credit is due. The Christian Science Monitor has been a great advocate of the setting up of fair standards for the manufacture of goods, and the true labelling of those goods in that country, and has consistently supported the efforts of the government in that direction. It was the first national newspaper to emphasize the harmful effect of false advertising on all mankind, and to reject such advertising for this reason rather than because it was damaging honest business.
At this point I should like to say that when this legislation is passed and the government begins to develop its procedures and to gain experience in administration, I trust the newspapers and magazines of this country will give similar support to all measures taken to improve standards and bring about true labelling. In Canada investigations and prosecutions concerning manufacturing and labelling have been far fewer than in the United States, except with regard to the inspection of primary and farm commodities, those commodities which provide the purchaser in the first instance with greater opportunity to know whether he or she has obtained the goods desired. The housewife knows she is purchasing beef. It may be a bit tougher than she anticipates; it might be
[Mr. Herrldge.l
B instead of A, but she knows it is beef. The same can be said about pork, and the same can be said about lumber. A man knows he is purchasing lumber. He may not be certain of the grade, but at least he can tell that it is lumber. When it comes to bottled or canned commodities, however, very often the purchaser has no conception of what he is buying.
In Canada we have developed an effective method of inspection and grading with respect to primary products and farm commodities, but so far we have done little that has been effective with respect to manufactured products. For instance, under the Livestock and Livestock Products Act we have the inspection of stockyards, livestock, livestock products and poultry production. Under the same act we have inspection of hogs, carcass grading, grading of bacon for export, branding of beef, grading of lamb and mutton carcasses. We also have regulations respecting stockyards, the export of dairy cattle, the grading of unwashed fleece wool, dressed poultry, and the grading, branding and marketing of canned poultry. Under the Meat and Canned Foods Act we have inspection of meats, meat products, horse meat, fish and shellfish intended for canneries. Under the Dairy Industry Act we have inspection of milk, cream, condensed milk, evaporated milk, cheese, ice cream or any other article manufactured from milk or any imitation thereof. Under the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act we have regulations for the grading and inspection of fruits, vegetables and honey. Under the Meat and Canned Foods Act we have regulations for the grading and inspection of canned fruits and vegetables. Under the Maple Products Industry Act we have regulations for the grading and inspection of maple products. Under the Seeds Act, 1937, we have regulations for the grading and inspection of seeds. Under the Feeding Stuffs Act, 1937, we have regulations for the branding and inspection of feeds manufactured for consumption by livestock. Under the Inspection and Sale Act, 1938, we have regulations for the grading and inspection of flax fibres. Under the Hay and Straw Inspection Act, 1933, we have regulations for certain standards and inspection. Under the Fertilizers Act we have regulations covering the content of fertilizers and for the inspection of the same. Under the Pest Control Products Act we have regulations for certain standards and provisions for commodities coming under this act. Lumber is also sold according to grades and subject to inspection previous to sale, particularly for export.
I want to emphasize again how far we have developed the inspection and grading of

primary and agricultural products, as compared with the inspection, grading and labelling of manufactured products. I find that the Food and Drugs Act is administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This service is supposed to protect the public's pocketbook by assuring the customer that he will receive what he believes he is purchasing in the way of food and drugs.
In the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare dated March 31, 1948, it is stated that the inspection service of this department reviewed 7,961 radio programs, 2,137 labels and 395 pieces of advertising material. According to the report, after all this examination one prosecution was launched and a conviction obtained. During the same period in the United States, under similar but more advanced legislation, approximately 20,000 definite violations of the law were determined. I think that in itself, Mr. Speaker, is evidence that in this country we lag behind the United States with respect to legislation of this type.
I find also that the Department of National Health and Welfare has a laboratory service which has given some consideration to cosmetic chemistry. I find in this report they have given some study to the analysis of face powders, vanishing creams, and so on. A number of reports from the public regarding violations of the law were received, but apparently there have been no prosecutions to date.
The same department investigates pharmaceutical chemistry. The report says that the Winnipeg laboratory made a valuable survey of headache products including some 80 samples of these products collected throughout the territory. According to the report only 45 fully met the requirements, yet there is no evidence of any prosecutions. A noteworthy collection of ointments was analysed in Montreal, which revealed a considerable amount of misbranding.
Then, with respect to the administration of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act which, I believe, is an important act, the report states that the annual production of patent medicines in Canada for the year 1945 amounted to $60,330,928. Now that is an amazing amount of the Canadian consumer's dollar which is being spent upon what a good many of the members of this house consider pure trash. I believe it is necessary for any government to do all it possibly can to protect the consumer.
Effective action along these lines, according to reports issued by the United States government, has been taken for a number of years but in Canada we have done very little. Under
National Trade Mark
the legislation existing in the United States, the federal trade commission has investigated hundreds of thousands of products and the question of labelling those products. According to the best evidence obtainable not very much of that sort of work has been undertaken in Canada. I could not obtain evidence of the sort I have mentioned in Canada, but in the United States there are some illustrations of the junk which is on the shelves of the stores. Many of these brands are in Canadian stores and should not be purchased by Canadian people without full knowledge of the facts.
I intend to give a few illustrations of the findings of the federal trade commission of the United States and others throughout the years concerning these commodities, many of which can be found for sale in Canadian stores. I shall deal with the subject under various heads. There are 7 brands of castile soap which, when analysed, were found to contain no olive oil at all, although it is supposed to be one of the basic contents of good soap. In the soap chips there was not sufficient naphtha to have any value as a cleansing agent, although according to the advertisements it is supposed to loosen, soften and dissolve dirt. The best soap can be sold at 20 cents a pound.
Then we come to drugs. I am taking the time of the house to put this matter before the government, because I believe it is important. What about Murine eyewash? You see it advertised quite often. Chemical analysis showed Murine to be essentially a solution of borax in water with a trace of berberin or some golden seal preparation. Furthermore, the formula was found to change from time to time. If you bought your own borax and mixed it with water, it is estimated you could make about a gallon of Murine for five cents. In the container in which it is sold it costs you $1 an ounce, $16 a pint, or $128 per gallon.
The next product with which I wish to deal is Doan's kidney pills. The government of the United States has declared that the claim of this nostrum to cure kidney disease is false and fraudulent, and the courts have upheld the ruling.
I know a good many people who are in the habit of purchasing Nuxated Iron. A dollar bottle of Nuxated Iron was found by the chemists of the American Medical Association to contain less than 2 J grains of iron. The claim that Nuxated Iron possesses great advantages over other forms of iron is the sheerest buncombe.
Then we come to this well-known mother's remedy, California syrup of figs. I know dozens of people who have purchased that

National Trade Mark
bread the way Hollywood has glorified the American girl. Man does not live by bread alone, but it is the foundation of our diet, and our sliced loaves of cotton batting are a weak foundation for anything.
What America needs is bread with crust to exercise the teeth and stick to the ribs, bread to strengthen the heart for the tasks which lie ahead.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because, in the application of this act and related acts, I think it is necessary that the government do everything possible to make certain in the first instance at least that essential foods, such as bread, are manufactured purely for the use of the Canadian public.
Before ending I just want to mention the question of barbed wire. It comes to my mind because I know hon. members know me to be a peasant farmer. I am not like one of these huge machine farmers on the prairies with his thousands of acres and his thousands of dollars and huge buildings. I am just a small fruit farmer, keeping a few head of stock, who has made his living not by sitting on a rubber-tired combine but by using a mattock, an axe and a saw, and who works with his hands. But just the same, I do use barbed wire to fence in my fields and my pasture. I think hon. gentlemen who are farmers on this side will agree with me when I say that the quality of barbed wire has deteriorated terribly since the war. Previous to the war we got a heavy grade of good barbed wire which would keep a bull out or in if it was properly stretched. For years now we have been buying an inferior grade. We cannot buy a good grade of barbed wire. You dare not stretch it beyond a certain tightness because it will snap. We have a poor quality of barbed wire in this country at this time, and it is sold at a high price. The government should give some consideration to making certain that when a farmer or anyone else buys a commodity such as barbed wire, which I give as an illustration, he will know that he is buying a quality commodity of a certain standard and of a certain value.
I wish to refer to roofing. A farmer often has to put a roof on the woodshed, on the granary, or on an outdoor building of some sort. Today you have no idea what you are buying. On one occasion I was purchasing roofing and I thought I was getting a high quality roofing. It was supposed to be four ply, or something of that sort. I said: "Give me the best; I want it to last as long as possible." I found out later that I could have got exactly the same roofing-one was red and the other was green-at about $2 a roll less. That is the sort of situation that ought to be corrected in this country. Farming people, working people and others should [Mr. Herridge.i
have some confidence in what they are purchasing. There must be, shall I say, a set of standards established with regard to the essential things required in the building of homes, in development of farms and for all consumer needs.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, if it is effectively enforced, means that science has gained another foothold in the fight against misinterpretations and fraud. I say "if effectively enforced". I do not expect to see sudden action in this connection, because I am quite sure it is going to take time to develop public understanding and procedures on the part of the department.
If this legislation is to be effective, not only must the government through the department administer the act and find procedures, but it must get the support of the Canadian people. It is not going to be effective, and cannot be effectively enforced, unless it receives the support of Canadian producers and Canadian consumers, the very active and intelligent support of the Canadian people.
In this connection there is a splendid opportunity for women's organizations, farm women's organizations, women's institutes, Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, the Legion Auxiliary and so forth. Women are particularly fitted for this type of work and for keeping a watchful eye on this type of legislation. There is a great opportunity for women's organizations in this country to assist the government in the enforcement and in the development of this legislation. The same applies to trade unions. The workingmen of this country should be very interested in this type of legislation; so should the farm organizations. When they are aware of the possibilities of the further development of this type of legislation this government will receive the active support of the farmers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and allied farm organizations in developing and administering this type of legislation. The same thing applies to co-operatives, and finally to the individual.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that a democracy is only as strong as the democracy that exists within it, and the democracy that exists within any country is finally determined by the willingness of the individual to accept some personal responsibility in the administration of the law and the development of our society.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I trust that, in the passing of this legislation and in the administration and enforcement of the act, public support will develop to the advantage of the Canadian people. I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that the Canadian

papers generally will, as I said before, emulate the Christian Science Monitor and other very well-known American papers in effectively supporting the government in the development of this type of legislation. I trust also that it will receive the widespread support of all sections of the Canadian people.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) willing to have this bill sent to a committee as suggested?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there is no real objection to it except the circumstances of today. It has been before a committee in the other place where a number of trade organizations appeared and made their representations. It would be a duplication to ask these organizations to come before the committee here. The incidental delay might not be serious if it were early in the session. We should like to get this bill through this session. It was on the order paper last session and it was held over owing to the shortness of time. Therefore I suggest that the discussion take place in committee of the whole and that the bill be passed at this session.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, and I should like to make one or two brief observations. I think every party in this house can compliment the government on introducing the bill, because it is long past due. The protection which it affords is long past due. I suggest to the minister that there should be a provision requiring a manufacturer or producer who asks for a brand to pay fair wages to the workers who produce the article for which the brand is wanted. I believe we should make quite sure that it is produced under the best working conditions possible and, if possible, certified by a trade union that the contents of the package have been produced by fair wages, and fair living and working conditions. I make that suggestion because I think such a requirement should be insisted upon before any brand is given to any firm.
An article can sometimes qualify for the brand when the conditions under which the article was produced could not qualify under the decent standards of living that we are trying to establish in this country. That was amply demonstrated some years ago during an investigation into the working conditions in some of our industries, particularly the clothing industry, and so on. It was proved that the article was good, but the conditions of the people producing the article were deplorable and were condemned wholeheartedly by the findings of that commission. I merely make that remark because I understand another speaker is to follow me and deal with that phase of the question.
45781-148	;
National Trade Mark
One other thing I suggest is that the container on which the trade-mark appears shall not be either used or filled again by any unauthorized person. In the part of the country from which I come, the Okanagan valley, we have a product that I have no doubt will qualify for the national trademark. In the meantime we have the O.K. brand which is pretty well equivalent to what any other government brand would be. It is well known everywhere that the packages that bear this name are often re-used for inferior quality goods. As a matter of fact, if you care to go down to Elgin street you will find boxes labelled "O.K. Brand Peaches", the very best grown in the Okanagan, filled with apples and tomatoes of rather low grade. That is what I refer to. Therefore, right here in Ottawa, there are people transgressing the method employed by a reputable firm to turn out a good product that they can guarantee. Naturally they expect support from the retailers and consumers in general. The same can be said of many other commodities. I could mention several. It happened especially during the war when certain commodities were in short supply. I refer particularly to a popular sauce from England, which I presume could be purchased in Canada. I saw the container, the bottle in which it originally came to Canada, used over and over again by restaurants all across the dominion. They used the brand name of that particular sauce for a concoction made in their own kitchens, one which was very inferior in quality. So that the label, in that sense, did not mean a great deal.
It is important to protect those people who conscientiously try to live up to the standards which we seek to impose upon them by this bill. When one has done that, and then is victimized through carelessness in the operation of the act, either in the retail or consumer end, we are at fault. I would suggest that there be inserted in the act a section stating that where a container has been used for an article complying with a national standard, and such container is emptied, it be destroyed or disfigured in such a way that it cannot be used again for a similar commodity and so definitely mislead the consuming public.
I would impress upon the minister the responsibility of printers in connection with the supplying of labels. The printing and distribution of labels should be carefully checked. I know that most firms printing labels are reputable, and will sell such labels only to those persons qualified to purchase them. Before a label can be sold to any firm, the firm purchasing such label should produce definite proof that it has the approval

National Trade Mark
of the government to make the purchase. I say this because during the war one could purchase scotch or rye with almost any label one wished; it was the same bottle, but the label was changed to suit the fancy of the customer.
This has been done in connection with other commodities. Men could be found who were willing to print labels by the thousand for sale to anyone. This included even the printing of government seals in British Columbia. Such labels have been sold to people who bootlegged products of inferior quality under the guise of approval by the provincial government.
Firms purchasing labels should give some definite proof to the printer that they are entitled to such labels. I know this would be difficult to do, because people who print the type of labels to which I have just referred usually do it surreptitiously, and are hard to find. They will operate in basements, or quarters of that kind. I would suggest that labels should be made definitely clear and specific as to the contents of the boxes, bottles or cartons on which they appear. The printing on the label which appears on the container of an article offered for sale should not be so small that the average purchaser cannot read it, or have to use a magnifying glass to see the print. Containers should be clearly marked as to their contents; they should be marked in such a way that anyone looking at a bottle or any other type of container may know the contents without difficulty.
May I next refer to bedding, which I imagine would come under a provision of this kind. For some time we in British Columbia have sought a pure-bedding act. Thus far we have not got it, with the result that bedding unfit for use is being sold in Canada. Some years ago-and not many years at that-the state of Washington passed a pure-bedding law whereby old mattresses could not be resold in any shape or form, with the result that dealers in bedding who usually made some allowance for old mattresses no longer had any use for them. The result was that they had an accumulation of these old mattresses which they shipped to Vancouver. In Vancouver the covers were ripped off and the contents pieced together- not cleaned. The mattresses were recovered with new ticking and sold in Vancouver and other points in British Columbia as new bedding. I know this to be an actual fact.
We should have a strict regulation which would refer particularly to bedding, because I am sure many diseases can be transmitted through the use of uncleaned bedding of this kind, whether it be in the form of mattresses, blankets or other bed coverings. Mattresses

should be clearly stamped indicating that the contents are brand new and made according to the specifications required to secure a Canada standard label. Naturally only the best and most reputable firms could secure that brand. I will say however that many firms today using cotton in its raw form, whether in chesterfields or bedding, have adopted a system of their own whereby they affix a label stating that the contents are 100 per cent pure, clean and new. This however is done purely of their own volition.
In my view the act should make provision for the control of advertising. As my colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has just shown, advertising can be ridiculous and fantastic. These fantastic claims continue to be made regarding many commodities one can think of. So clever are the advertisements that their producers are actually in higher brackets of pay than are the producers of the article the advertising agent seeks to sell. The agent is regarded as the more clever.
An article may be all that is desired, it may be pure and come up to all the required specifications; but from the standpoint of selling that is not enough. It must be glamourized; and for its sale one must secure the services of a man who can, as my colleague says, bring Hollywood into the set-up, and sell something that is not exactly what it is meant to be. Any firm practising wrong advertising or making fantastic claims, whether the product meets with specifications or not, should immediately lose its privilege of having the brand assigned to it. This must be stopped, whether it applies to food products, face creams, toilet products or any other articles. It does not matter what the product may be; the practice of truth in advertising must some day prevail, and this could be a first step in demanding that all who receive labels must conform to fair trade practices in their advertising, particularly that appearing in popular magazines.
One can read these advertisements in magazines today where absurd claims are made. Some time ago in England some of the prominent sections of the press, including Punch and the Daily Mirror, took steps in this direction. The Daily Mirror indicated that it would not accept an advertisement for their paper which they themselves could not back up 100 per cent. For that purpose they had their own staff, which scrutinized every advertisement offered to their paper. If it met with their approval, after investigation, the advertiser was given the privilege of continued advertising.

I would appeal to the press of this country to co-operate with the department in making this bill a successful effort to make Canadian products known throughout the world for what they are stated to be on the labels, the contents being of best quality.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have only two brief observations to make, which will not take long. First I feel the government should be assured from all sides of the house that it will have the support of the people of Canada in pushing the use of the trade-mark "Canada standard" as provided by this bill. When the parliamentary assistant was introducing the measure some of us felt it was too bad he could not go a little further in making these standards more compulsory. I think I know the reason, namely, the difficulty we encounter as to provincial and federal jurisdiction under the British North America Act. I take it, however, the bill is based upon the premise that, if the federal government is going to accord to certain producers of goods the right to use a federal trade-mark, the federal government has the right to indicate the standards that must be met in order to use that trade-mark. If that is the case, then the course for the government to follow, under the constitutional division of powers as it now stands, is to popularize and push this trade-mark for all it is worth. It would seem to me, as one product after another meets the standard laid down and is able to use the letters "C.S.", that the people of Canada would be encouraged to want goods that have that particular mark on them, and in turn that would encourage the producers of other goods to try to meet these standards as well.
I remind the government that during the war under the wartime prices and trade board there was what was called, I believe, a bureau of standards. Under price control it became necessary to see to it that the purpose of price control was not defeated by the quality of goods being allowed to deteriorate. Therefore a bureau of standards was set up, and I am sure members of the government know as well as we do that the women of Canada in particular were most grateful for it. They liked the idea, and they came to feel during the war that, whatever else they might have to complain about, when they bought goods with a W.P.T.B. ticket on them they knew there was some supervision and inspection as to the standard of quality of the particular article. I am sure there is widespread support for the principle of the bill, for the institution of this trade-mark, and I hope that it will be pushed by the department. Some improvements have been
National Trade Mark
made in the new bill compared with the previous legislation. It seems to me it has been made more workable, and I hope that it will not be a measure, as the old one was, that will be more or less buried and become inoperative.
The other thing I should like to say has already been referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones). In this connection I may say to the minister that I should like to offer an amendment to one of the clauses of his bill when we get into committee. I think it will be in order for me to mention it now in the hope that he will have at least that long to think it over, and be able to accept the amendment I propose to make when we reach the committee stage. As the hon. member for Yale has said, it does seem that, when we give the good name of Canada to products that are produced for sale either within or without Canada, we should be sure that that good name does not cover up poor working conditions. It should be a guarantee that, in addition to the goods meeting certain qualifications and standards, the workers who have been employed in producing them have been paid decent wages and have worked under decent conditions. As a matter of fact, it would seem to me that manufacturers would want it that way. Otherwise it would be possible for one manufacturer, who was paying poorer wages, to get the label or trade-mark by keeping up the quality of his goods when another manufacturer who was paying better wages might not be able to get it.
In case anybody raises the constitutional question, it seems to me that the answer is fairly simple. These working conditions would be put on the same basis as the other conditions set out in the bill. The federal government is not laying down mandatory provisions so far as standards of goods are concerned. They are simply saying: Here is our trade-mark; we cannot compel you to meet these conditions but if you want our trade-mark these are the conditions you must meet. I submit if the federal government has the power to do that so far as the standards and qualities of goods are concerned, it has the right to do the same thing with respect to labour conditions. As the British North America Act is now being interpreted, the federal government claims it has no right to invade the provincial field and say that such-and-such must be the general labour conditions, but the federal government has the right, just the same as with the other phases of this matter, to say that so far as this federal trade-mark is concerned we are not giving it unless,
2316

National Trade Mark
conferring as we will be the good name of Canada, we are assured that certain fair and decent working conditions are met.
Just as the bill does not propose to set out in detail what the other standards or qualifications are, I would say that as to working conditions the bill should not necessarily specify them, but that the matter should be left to the governor in council to decide by regulation. This proposal is not one that can be made the subject of an amendment to the motion for second reading, but when we get into committee I shall move an amendment to section 4, the wording of which I have before me, which will give the governor in council the power to lay down the working conditions to be met before the use of Canada's good name is permitted. I hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) may see fit to accept it when that time comes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-National trade mark.
John Alpheus Charlton: I mentioned on second reading that, so far as agricultural products are concerned, the word "standard" implied only average or ordinary quality. Would the minister care to make a statement as to that in view of the fact that he was probably present before the committee of the other place when it was considered there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that subject was not mentioned in the committee of the other place. The standards laid down for an agricultural product can only be the standards established by the Department of Agriculture for the particular product. I think we could hardly establish by order in council a standard superior to that maintained by the Department of Agriculture. It would simply be a guarantee that the standards set by the Department of Agriculture are equalled or exceeded by the goods.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it considered that the trade-mark will be used for agricultural products or merely for manufactured goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would not ordinarily be used for agricultural products. It could only be a guarantee that the minimum standard for that product laid down by the Department of Agriculture is adhered to in the product. That is all it would mean in connection with agricultural products.


Mr. Stanfield:: How would that work with respect to agricultural products which were processed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If a manufacturer wishes the privilege of putting the brand "Canada standard" on his goods, he must make sure that they come up to the minimum standard set for those goods. The commodity will be tested from time to time in the national research laboratories, and if it is found below the standard the manufacturer will lose the right to use the "Canada standard" mark.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: What about those who do not use the trade-mark?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not applicable to them. There is no compulsion about using "Canada standard"; it is a privilege extended to people who undertake to keep their goods up to the standard specified.


Mr. Johnston:: Would this apply to goods which went out of the country, say to the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the manufacturer chose to use this trade-mark, probably it would be used on his exports as well as his domestic shipments. All this act means is that if the brand "Canada standard" is put on the package, the contents of that package must be up to the standard set by the government in that regard.


Charles Edward Johnston: There would be no compulsion on the United Kingdom people to leave that trade-mark on, would there? I have in mind that many of our products go over there without bearing any brand name, and I thought this would be of a great deal of assistance to the purchasers on the other side, who would know they were getting quality goods from Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That situation is incidental to bulk buying by the British government itself. It arose in the war years, when the British government were buying in bulk and then refused any country the right to advertise itself on the goods shipped to Britain under those bulk purchase arrangements.


Mr.   Baler@: Perhaps I am a little late in rising, but in view of what other speakers have said with respect to section 3 I think the difficulty might be overcome if we provided for the use of the words "Canada super standard" and the initials "C.S.S." and then for any grade under that "Canada standard" and "C.S." I think probably "Canada super standard" could be applied to any manufactured article or any commodity produced on our farms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps we had better establish the grade "Canada standard" a little more firmly before we add any other grade.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I have not been able to remain in the house all afternoon,

National Trade Mark
and I do not want the minister to repeat any explanation he has given already; but I should like to know under what authority or by what practice his department will set up the standard or quality of goods. I want to refer to one commodity in particular; that is, paint. For a good many years there has been a great deal of complaint in our part of Canada with respect to the quality of paints, perhaps more in recent years than was formerly the case; paints that fade in colour, paints that peel, paints that crack and last for only a short time. I have heard many of our older citizens compare the quality of paints used in recent years with that of paints used years ago on our farmhouses and urban dwellings, and they have said that the old paint retained its colour and quality and ability to protect the surface for a much longer time. I believe the use of paint is something that should be encouraged just as much as possible, but the beautification of our whole countryside depends upon the quantity and quality of the paint used, and we should safeguard the users of paint both with regard to quality and with regard to cost. I believe the users of paint have a serious grievance in that they are subjected to the high sales tax of eight per cent. I think the use of paint should be encouraged by removing that tax entirely; and, as I say, those purchasing paint should have some guarantee as to the quality of the product.
My first question on rising was what provision the minister is making for establishing and guaranteeing the quality of commodities such as paints.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will look at section 6 of the bill he will see that it reads:
In addition to its powers and duties under any other statute or law, the national research council shall, at the request of the minister,
(a)	study, investigate, report and advise upon all matters relating to commodity standards or specifications;
(b)	prepare draft standards or specifications for any commodity or for any grade or type thereof and recommend methods of designating the same...
The standards would be set after study by the national research council and upon their recommendation as to what a reasonable standard might be, and subsequent consultation with the trade itself, to get their confirmation of what would be reasonable to warrant the designation "Canada standard".


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the
minister when it is expected that the provisions of this act will be made effective?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As soon as we get it through this house and it receives royal assent, which I hope will be within the next few days.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section	4-Regulations	respecting
national trade mark.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This section reads in part:
(1) The governor in council may make regulations
(a) prescribing the classes and kinds of commodities to which the national trade-mark may be applied and the persons who may apply it . . .
Then follow two or three more paragraphs, after which I should like to read paragraph
(d)	because it is pretty important:
(d)	prescribing the standards or specifications, including those established under any other act of parliament, to which any commodity shall conform if the national trade-mark is applied thereto:
(e)	prescribing the implied warranties that application of the national trade-mark to any commodity shall represent . . .
It is at this point in the bill that I should like to move for the insertion of the amendment I referred to when we were on second reading. As I indicated at that time, Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand the premise on which this bill is based, which was set out by the parliamentary assistant to the minister. That is, it is not possible for the federal government to lay down mandatory provisions; but it can say, "Since this is our trade-mark, these are the standards that must be maintained." That is provided for in section 4(l)(d), for example, which I have just read.
My submission is that if it is possible for the federal government to say that those who wish to use this trade-mark must see to it that their goods meet certain standards, it is also possible for the federal government to say that those who wish to use this trademark must conform to certain standards in the matter of rates of pay, hours of work and other working conditions.
I must say that some of us feel that the guarantee of good working conditions-and a real super guarantee, if I may quote the hon. member for The Battlefords-is the use of the union label, but it is to be admitted that there are many commodities on which the union label does not appear, which nevertheless are subject to fair wage legislation in the provinces. I would leave it to the governor in council to indicate the standards of wages and other working conditions which should be met, but it does seem to me that we should not put the good name of Canada on goods without being in a position to be able to say not only that those goods meet a certain standard as to quality, but that they have been produced under decent working conditions. So I move that after paragraph
(e)	a new paragraph (ee) be inserted. My reason for suggesting that it go in after (e) is that paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are of a positive nature, whereas paragraphs

National Trade Mark
(f)	and (g) are negative in character, and it seemed to me that was where it should go. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South:
That clause 4, subclause (1), of Bill 133, be amended by inserting therein after paragraph (e) a new paragraph (ee) to read as follows:
"(ee) prescribing the rates of pay, hours of work, and other working conditions under which commodities, packages or containers shall be produced if the national trade mark is applied1 thereto."
I might say that I took the first words of the proposed amendment direct from the federal labour code and, obviously, the wording of the latter part of the amendment is to be found in other subsections of this same section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I have every sympathy with the objectives which this amendment is trying to attain, but it seems to me that there would be real difficulty in applying anything of this nature in determining a Canada standard. I believe my hon. friend has put his finger on the essential point when he said that the best label to protect working conditions is the union label. To substitute anything else for the union label would, I believe, meet with serious objection from the labour unions. No doubt the hon. member is aware of the fact that the union label is a bargaining weapon, and a valuable privilege granted by labour unions under certain conditions. I believe that is one objection.
Another objection would be that this would cut across provincial jurisdiction. In effect, it asks us to set a minimum wage and minimum working conditions on a national scale for industries using the "Canada standard" label. I doubt if this government would have the right to do so. Perhaps the Minister of Labour is able to discuss this more intelligently than I can.


Mr. Mitchell:: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has mentioned the union label. Many years ago in Hamilton I used to be a delegate to the union label league, and I think I know something about union labels. Is there a union label on the suit my hon. friend is wearing at the moment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's right, and I have my union card in my pocket.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about union labels. There is a union label on my coat, my vest and my pants.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand trade unions and I know that they are jealous of their labels. The painters have a label; the cigar makers have a label; the printers certainly have a label; the lithographers have a label,

and the die stampers. There are over a hundred labels which are given protection by a statute. I believe that statute was introduced some years ago by a Liberal government. I knew some of the prime movers of that statute, and it is rather revealing to look at it. It says:
No union label registered by any labour union may be assigned by any other process of law or otherwise.
That is section 15, subsection 3, of chapter 201, an act respecting Trade Marks and Industrial Design. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, the union label is a bargaining point. It is of use to the trade unions in ensuring good working conditions. I believe my hon. friend was in the printing trade and I am sure he will agree with me when I say that the printers are jealous of their label. So are all other trade unions. I know when I go to get a haircut-I have not much hair -the first thing I do is to look for the union label in the shop. It is a guarantee that the employees are getting good working conditions.
I believe that that is far better than any legislation. The use of this label is not mandatory. I do not take second place to anyone in this House of Commons in my advocacy of good working conditions, but if this amendment were adopted it might create hardships for one section of an industry. Take the canning industry, for instance, with all its ramifications from the production of the base metal to the completion of the cans and putting the contents in the can. As my hon. friend is aware, there are many union labels carried on cans and articles of that description.
I say this sincerely to the hon. member, that he is defeating his own purpose. I am not questioning his sincerity, but he is defeating his own purpose by amending this particular bill in that manner without consultation with some of the labour organizations in this country. I cannot recall any resolution or any demand on the part of labour organizations for this particular type of legislation. By insisting upon this amendment, one may be creating hardship for some well-organized trade that enjoyed good working conditions within an industry. Perhaps in some other industry that was not the case. Organization is the answer to that.
I have never been a great believer in setting minimum wages by law except to protect young people and women engaged in industry. Experience has taught us that when minimum wages are created by law the minimum becomes the maximum. If my friend looks across this country he may find some exceptions, but as a rule it is the

case. In the United States, the minimum wage was recently raised from 40 cents to 75 cents per hour in industries under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is an indication that there must have been a good many people working at substandard rates in the interim between the establishment of the 40 cent per hour minimum and the 75 cent per hour minimum.
I join with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in saying I do not think you would be rendering a service to the trade union organizations of this country by adopting this amendment. So far as I am concerned, I would prefer the union label. I believe it is an indication that the men are free men and are not being dominated by a government. They have negotiated agreements and I think that is the proper way relations between employers and employees should be conducted, particularly in view of the fact there has been an enormous growth in trade unions in Canada during the last ten years.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I believe both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour are under a misapprehension. If the union label-in other words trade union conditions-is the best proof of the existence of a standard, you do not need to go any further; you have exactly what you want. As I understand it, this is voluntary legislation. The provisions of the bill are not mandatory; that is, we are not stepping in and telling manufacturers that they must do so-and-so. We are merely saying that if you produce a product of a certain quality, the Dominion of Canada will put on that product the hallmark, or whatever mark you call it, of quality "Canada standard"; but the product itself must first of all be of the required quality. If it is not, we have no power under this bill to compel producers or manufacturers to produce a product of the standard of quality that will receive the trade-mark. We contend that the quality may be good and may be of such a standard as to merit this trade-mark quality, but, at the same time, it may be produced under sweated labour conditions. If there is a trade union in the industry where the product is produced, we would assume that that was sufficient proof that it was not produced under sweated conditions.
We carry the same principle into government contracts through the fair wage policy; that is the wage that is accepted in the particular locality. But you might indeed go a little further than that. The Minister of Labour said that he was opposed to minimum wages. But a minimum wage is only required in industries in which the workers
National Trade Mark
are not organized. I know that for years the trade union movement did oppose minimum wages. In 1931, in the convention in Vancouver, the American Federation of Labor went on record as being opposed to unemployment insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was there.


Donald MacInnis: They were foolishly trying to protect the trade union movement. In the old country the trade union movement for years was opposed to family allowances. I am well aware of the background of those fears. But all of the things I mentioned are now accepted by intelligent trade unionists everywhere as being of assistance in maintaining high standards of living and are not a detriment to trade unionism. I quite admit that there may be difficulty in finding a proper wording for a clause of this kind, but I believe that, if we accept the principle of it, it can be found.


Clarence Gillis: I think it is rather unfortunate that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not discuss with the Minister of Labour the drafting of this bill. If I were Minister of Labour and Canada was preparing to adopt a bill of this nature, I think it would be my responsibility in the field of labour to see that those who produced the goods were also taken care of. I think the minister is in reverse in the statement he has made in this matter.
You cannot produce quality goods under sweat-shop conditions. I have no doubt that the hosiery industry, which is a low-paid industry and somewhat unorganized, can produce silk stockings and that kind of thing, and have them meet the standards that may be laid down. No standards are laid down in this act. It merely says that the research council will prepare specifications and standards. They may be able to meet the standards laid down by the research council; but I think one of the first things which should be done, before we put our trademark on any commodity that we are marketing in this country is to see to it that the people who actually produce that commodity are at least getting a fair break in the matter of wages and conditions.
This business of bringing the trade union label into the question is completely irrelevant to this bill. It has not anything to do with it. It is a good yardstick as to whether goods are quality goods or not and that conditions are fair and reasonable in any industry where the workers are organized and are bargaining. But we must not forget that only about 25 per cent of the workers of this country are eligible for membership in a union. The other 75 per cent will be

National Trade Mark
producing most of the goods that we are going to label and say meet the standards laid down by the research council and later adopted, I suppose, by this house. Seventy-five per cent of the people who actually produce the goods are not in a position to protect themselves with regard to a union label.
This measure will not be opposed by any trade unionist in this country if he has any sense, simply because this action in protecting the public, by bringing our commodities up to standard, will assist in the unionization of plants, in my opinion; and that is something that is badly needed at this time. I do not see any reason in the world why the minister cannot write in the clause suggested here, because it does not mean that you must go out and start to organize the workers of this country. It means that you are going to do exactly the same thing for the man who works in the plant and produces the goods as you are going to do for the manufacturer-that is, the decent manufacturer-who wants to produce quality goods. The bill merely states that you are simply going to lay down certain requirements and specifications for his goods. That is going to protect him against the fellow that wants to sell inferior goods. At the same time, if you add this clause (ee), you merely say that we are going to probe the possibility also of decent working conditions, hours of labour and wages in the plants and factories whose goods carry the trademark of Canada. There is no reason why that cannot be done. It does not interfere with anyone. It does not mean that you are going to do it overnight, because it is going to take some considerable time to build up in this country a standard product that is recognized even by our own people. I think both things go hand in hand, because you cannot get, under sweat-shop conditions, the kind of goods that you can put your O.K. on.


Mr. Quelch:: I do not quite like this amendment because I feel that it may result in a form of discrimination. It reads as follows:
(ee) prescribing the rates of pay, hours of work, and other working conditions, under which commodities, packages or containers shall be produced if the national trade mark is applied thereto.
What would be the result in a canning factory if, in order to pay these rates of wages and maintain certain hours of labour, they felt that they could not maintain the price at which the commodity should be sold? The result would be that they would start to chisel on the primary producer who was supplying it with the commodities to put in

those packages. If you put that provision in there, you should also put in: "And shall prescribe the price paid for the products contained in those packages". Therefore, unless that proviso is put in, I would not be prepared to support the amendment. Otherwise, it would just mean discrimination against the primary producer.


Mr. Wright:: I think the hon. member for Acadia has misinterpreted the amendment. The amendment states, as he has read: prescribing the rates of pay, hours of work, and other working conditions, under which commodities, packages or containers shall be produced if the national trade mark is applied thereto.
The tomatoes and corn that go into the can are commodities; and if this amendment were applied, it could be applied to the minimum price, as meaning the minimum price for the agricultural product that went into the can, as well as to the hours and conditions of the labourer who produces the can.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I must correct my hon. friend there. The mark "Canada standard" on a package means that the commodity itself is standard, but it does not necessarily mean that the fruit, before it was canned, was standard. If we accepted this amendment my hon. friend would hardly wish to take it back into all the components that go into the finished article. I think that would be quite impossible. In any event, what he is asking is that the government prescribe rates of pay. That means we would have to put in a coast to coast rate of pay for a given commodity. There are minimum wage laws in every province, and they are all different in some respect. I do not see how we could set a rate of pay for a commodity, and prescribe hours of work. How could we do that? British Columbia works a forty-hour week, and Ontario perhaps a forty-five or a forty-eight-hour week. How could we say that one would have the standard and the other could not? I think that by accepting the amendment we would make the act completely unenforceable. As the act is written today, if an article is found in the United Kingdom it can be tested, and the test checked against the specifications, and it either complies with the specifications or it does not. But if the article also had to be traced back to its origin and a determination made as to whether fair wages were paid we would have a wholly unworkable act. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will not accept the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say that to prescribe rates of pay, hours of work, and other working conditions would not necessarily involve,

at the federal level, all the detail that the minister suggests. For example, it might be solved by simply requiring that the fair wage conditions in the various provinces be met before the label is granted. It might prescribe-and I would so urge-that in certain classes of goods the union label would be the only acceptable proof of proper working conditions. In other words, it does not have to be shown in terms of a wage rate for every class of employee right across the country; it could be done in general classifications. As a matter of fact, something similar to that happens in some of the provinces today where the fair wage legislation hinges in part on what the trade union rates are in a particular industry; and in industries not so well organized some detail is given.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not as difficult to find a general formula for prescribing working conditions as it is to prescribe qualities and standards for all the different kinds and classes of things that may come under this legislation. The bill provides for that; I think my amendment is even more important. Frankly, I do not feel that the objection raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce carries weight.
While I am on my feet may I say one word with respect to what the Minister of Labour had to say. He tried to make a comparison between this national trade-mark and the union label, and suggested that the union label was good enough and that we should not have the provision I ask for with respect to the national trade-mark. May I point out, as did the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that there are a lot of goods produced by workers who are either unorganized or are in fields in which the union label is not used. By this legislation what you are making possible is another label called "Canada standard", which sounds good, but which may not-and will not when my amendment carries-guarantee the conditions that the union label is guaranteeing on certain other goods. You will have people going into stores in Canada and buying goods and feeling satisfied with them because they have got the "Canada standard" label on them. People will be asked if they have bought union label goods. They will say: "Yes, I have. I have it here; it has 'C.S.' on it." It will not be worth what the union label is worth, and it will actually be a detriment to the trade union movement in this country to have another label competing with the trade union label, a government label which will not be worth half what the trade union label is worth. I am saying the way to make
National Trade Mark
this "Canada standard" label worth something is to put this kind of clause into the bill and leave it, as the clause says, to the governor in council to work out the proper regulations.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I refer to one point? You do not have to use this label to begin with. Let us take the condition of the organized people in industry at the moment. Take this thing to its logical conclusion. Lots of olive oil comes from Greece. My hon. friend smiles. He says, "Let somebody else work it out."


Stanley Howard Knowles: I laughed because I thought the minister was punning.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I am not. I am trying to be sensible.


Donald MacInnis: There is no harm in trying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should warn us.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I have as much experience with these things as the average member in the house, especially in connection with minimum wage laws. As hon. members know, I was chairman of the Ontario executive board of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada seven years. Do you want the standard to apply to sugar from the West Indies, for instance? I refer to the people who are interested in the great international movements. Take many other things that enter into it. Some of the things that we are speaking about are basic. I believe the best form of protection is an organization. You can have all the laws in the world so far as I am concerned; when you get the workers organized that is the yardstick of progress. The hon. member for Vancouver East is a member of a street railway union. It would have been just too bad for these street railway men if they had to put this kind of label on the streetcar to see whether a person rode on it or not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a member of the printers' union. It would have been just too bad if the printers had to use this kind of legislation to see that they got good working conditions. It would have been just too bad for the miners of the hon. member for Cape Breton South if they had to lean on legislation of this kind. And so on right across the board. As I said before, for defenceless people, for women and young people, it is all right, but I would prefer straight negotiation for grown-up people. The union label is superior to any minimum wage law under the canopy of heaven.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This bill makes it possible for the label "Canada standard" to be put on packages. The minister spoke to me as a printer. As a printer I want the union label on packages.

National Trade Mark


Humphrey Mitchell: Why don't you get one on
your suit?


Stanley Howard Knowles: But under this legislation it will be possible to put out packages with "C.S." on them, that have not been produced under the conditions required by the printing trades council, to which I strongly object.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just a word; I would not like to see this amendment pass without saying something on it. No matter what the intent of the amendment is it is the wording that you have to decide on. To start with, I do not think we should try to create an advantage for one class of citizens to the disadvantage of another class. When you look at the amendment closely you find that it says:
Prescribing the rates of pay, hours of work, and other working conditions, under which commodities, packages, or containers shall be produced if the national trade mark is applied thereto.
It is true that it speaks of commodities, but the working conditions attached to it are three, namely, rates of pay, hours of work, and working conditions. I am all for giving the workingman the advantage of the situation. I want to see him have the highest possible standard of living; but under this amendment, as the hon. member for Acadia said, you can maintain wages, rates of pay, as it is called, the hours of work and the other working conditions. You can keep these at a high level to the detriment of the man who produces the raw materials. I would be most hesitant about passing this in its present form. If the sponsor of the amendment can change it so as to give all parties connected with the production of a product and its processing the advantage which he hopes, then I would be only too pleased to support it. But I can see very clearly that the agriculturist, for instance, who produces garden produce such as peas, corn and the like which go into the manufacture of commodities put in cans, upon which labels are placed, has absolutely no protection. In fact it may work out very much to his disadvantage in the long run. So, when it comes to placing one class against another, I think it is poor legislation. I am of the opinion that labourers throughout the country would view it that way. I cannot support it in its present form.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, may I deal first with what the hon. member for Bow River has said. He still clings to the old-fashioned idea that in order that farmers may prosper the industrialist worker must be kept on a low wage.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, no, no.


Donald MacInnis: There was never a more fallacious argument than that. The farmer

does not sell his products to other farmers. He sells his products to city people, the industrial workers. If the industrial worker does not get a wage that enables him to buy the things the farmer produces, then the farmer will be poor.
Now for the Minister of Labour; he can draw more red herrings across the trail than any other person I ever met in my life. He talks about the great advantages of unions, organized labour, and he mentions the organization to which I belong, the street railway-men's union. He has referred to the printers' union, and to various other unions. But all of the labour unions he referred to are in relatively protected industries, in industries in which it is easy for the workers to organize. The people who need protection are not the people who can protect themselves, but those who cannot protect themselves. That is what we are trying to do by this amendment.
It is very easy for the skilled workers, or the workers in industry where there is a virtual monopoly, such as in street railway transportation, to organize. I remember at one time hearing the president of the company for which I worked say that we got good conditions partly because the company's own condition was so precarious that they could not afford a struggle with the union. That is a fact.
What we want is not that those who are strong should maintain good conditions for themselves, but that we make sure that those who cannot maintain good conditions for themselves, because of their weakness, will be protected. It is for that purpose that the amendment is moved. As I said before, there may be some difficulty in wording it so that it will meet the intended purpose; but that should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his most efficient staff.


Mr. Fair:: The hon. member for Vancouver East is just a little ahead of the minister when it comes to twisting things, and drawing red herrings across a trail; because no better job could have been done in misconstruing things than has been done by the hon. member for Vancouver East in connection with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Bow River.


Donald MacInnis: You put it right, then.


Robert Fair: The hon. member for Bow River stated distinctly that he wanted the workers to have the very best possible working conditions, provided that they did not have those conditions at the expense of the primary

producer. That was stated quite clearly and distinctly and there is no reason why anyone should try to draw a red herring across the trail, or change that condition around.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived, on division.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall section 4 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is meant in paragraph (a) when it states-
Prescribing the classes and kinds of commodities to which the national trade mark may be applied and the persons who may apply it.
Does that refer only to manufactured goods, or does it include processed goods? As I see it, processed goods and primary products are all included; but it is left to the minister to say which ones are affected.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It could apply to any commodity, agricultural, manufactured, or anything else, provided the industry asked for the designation, and the government approved and set up the minimum standard. For instance, it could apply to eggs which are graded under the rules of the Department of Agriculture. We could have a Canadian standard egg, if we wanted to. I do not imagine that we would. I think it is more applicable to manufactured articles.


John Alpheus Charlton: Practically every agricultural product across this country is graded.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is no need for this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps that is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: This is what I have asked for on various occasions; if it will mean that the grade on which we are paid is carried through to the ultimate retailer or consumer, then I am all for it. But I do not think it does that. For instance, a side of pork which is graded as a grade A side-does that mean that the consumer will get that particular quality of bacon when he buys it at the store?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that does not apply to this act at all. We are operating under another act.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to have an answer about wire. Has this act anything to do with the quality of wire being sold? Is it standardized, or is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An application has already been made for a standard for barbed wire. There is no standard at the present time. We tried to have this measure passed last year, but did not get it through. The result is that we
National Trade Mark
have no standard today. However, after this is passed the standard for barbed wire can be set if we can work out suitable specifications. If the hon. member buys barbed wire marked as the Canadian standard he will know exactly what he is buying.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If that is it, then I am all for it, because in the last seven or eight years we have been buying wire which was not worth putting on the market.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howe moves, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), that the bill be read a third time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer was "now".


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had second reading today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had second reading today, and there cannot be more than one reading in a day. Standing order 73.


Alphonse Fournier: By unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked, "When shall this bill be read a third time?" And the answer was "now"-no one dissented. Therefore it has received unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When someone else was saying "now" I was saying "next sitting of the house" at the same time. It requires unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Howe, and seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), that this bill be now read a third time. That motion is debatable. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


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

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, at eleven o'clock on Monday we will take up, in the hope of passing it on that day, Bill 194, an act to encourage and assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. As announced by the Prime Minister, on Monday at eight o'clock we will move to go into supply and call an item in the three remaining departments, the Prime Minister's office,

Business of the House finance and legislation. We will specially call item 92, the administration item for the wartime prices and trade board, so that the discussion requested by the hon. member for Lake Centre concerning the rental control reference to the supreme court may take place. If we conclude the trans-Canada highway bill during the day, I would name the
following bills and resolutions that could be taken up, but not in this order: Bills Nos. 64, 65, 120 and 148, and resolutions 16 and 27 on today's order paper.
I move that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.

Monday, November 28, 1949