1949-04-07

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Drew be substituted for that of Mr. Black (Yukon) on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Matihew MacLean (Cape Breton Norlh-Vicioria) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Wednesday, April 6, 1949, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. McCulloch (Pictou):: 1.	By order in council P.C. 5488, were Nova Scotia potatoes excluded from eligibility for sale to the agricultural prices support board at a price of $1.15 per 100 pounds in the bin?
2.	If so, are Nova Scotia potatoes likely to receive the same support as those of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
3.	If not, will steps be taken to ensure that Nova Scotia potato growers will receive support treatment as favourable as that extended to the other maritime provinces?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Under order in council P.C. 5488, potatoes grown in the province of Prince Edward Island and in the counties of Carleton, Victoria and Madawaska, and the Hazen Settlement of Restigouche county in the province of New Brunswick, are eligible for sale to the
agricultural prices support board at a price of $1.15 per 100 pounds in the bin. Therefore potatoes grown in other parts of Canada are not eligible for sale to the board.
2.	With this price available, growers in the defined area need not sell their potatoes at a lower price. Since nearly all the surplus commercial potatoes grown in the eastern provinces are in the defined area, the effect of the price support program is to enable growers in other areas to sell their potatoes on the market at the equivalent of the support price. This effect extends equally to Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and those parts of New Brunswick which are not within the defined price support area.
3.	It is not considered feasible or necessary to enlarge the area in which the board will purchase potatoes. Moreover, there is every reason to expect that potatoes originating outside the defined support area will bring on the market at least the equivalent of the support price within the area.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	How many uniformed members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were employed in guarding government-owned and rented buildings in Ottawa as of the following dates: (a) March 31, 1947; (b) March 31, 1948; (c) March 31, 1949?
2.	Are uniformed members of the R.C.M.P. employed in guarding government-owned and rented buildings outside of Ottawa?
3.	If so, where, and how many of the force are employed in connection with each such building?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	(a) 50; (b) 41; (c) 34.
2.	Yes.
3.	Halifax, N. S.-Bank of Canada, 1; Saint John, N. B.-Bank of Canada, 1; Montreal, P. Q.-Bank of Canada, 1; Customs Warehouse, 400 Youville street, 3; Toronto, Ont.- Bank of Canada, 1; Winnipeg, Man.-Bank of Canada, 1; Regina, Sask.-Bank of Canada, 1; Calgary, Alta.-Bank of Canada, 1; Vancouver, B. C.-Bank of Canada, 1; assay office (Royal Mint), 1.



T.B. TESTING IN BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.

Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	When did T.B. testing to establish a restricted area commence in Bruce county?
2.	What percentage of the cattle tested to date were reactors to the test?
2404

Questions
3.	What percentage of the cattle which reacted were (a) dairy; (b) beef type, and what percentage of each of the above types were sent to the tank?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	September 11, 1947.
2.	5.23 per cent.
3.	Separate records are not kept tor dairy and beef type cattle. Two hundred and ninety-two carcasses of dairy and beef type cattle, or 9-25 per cent of reactors were sent to the tank.



CUSTOMS REVENUE, KINCARDINE, ONT.

Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: What was the total amount of revenue collected by the Department of National Revenue for customs charges in the town of Kincardine during each of the years 1947 and 1948?


Mr. McCann:: The customs office at Kincardine weis closed October 1, 1941. No statistics are available of customs revenue collected in town of Kincardine during the years 1947 and 1948.



FISHERIES


Mr. Moore:: 1.	How many fishing licences were issued by the federal Department of Fisheries for Great Slave lake in the following seasons: 1946-47, 1947-48, 194849?
2.	Is there a quota on the quantity of fish to be taken from Great Slave lake each season?
3.	If so, what was the quota of each species of fish taken from Great Slave lake in the seasons 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49?
4.	If the quotas were exceeded in any of the seasons mentioned, what was the total catch for each species in 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948-49?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	1946-47, 100; 1947-48, 204; 1948-49, 420.
2.	Yes.
3.	1946-47 summer season: 2,500,000 lbs. whiteflsh and trout, dressed weight.
1946-	47 winter season: 1,000,000 lbs. white-fish and trout, dressed weight.
1947- 48 summer season: 2,500,000 lbs. whiteflsh and trout, dressed weight.
1947-	48 winter season: 1,000,000 lbs. white-fish and trout, dressed weight.
1948- 49 summer season: 2,500,000 lbs. whiteflsh and trout, dressed weight.
1948-49 winter season: 3,400,000 lbs. white-fish and trout, dressed weight.
4.	Quotas were not exceeded in any year.



EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO MINISTER OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	Is there an official in the employ of the Department of Veterans Affairs known as executive assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs?
2.	If so (a) what is his name; (b) what are his duties; (c) was he appointed by the civil service; (d) is he a returned soldier and, if so, what unit did he serve with overseas?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	There is such an official, whose title is associate private secretary and executive assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
2.	(a) J. D. Macbeth.
(b)	Secretarial and general executive duties in the office of the minister.
(c)	He occupies a permanent position in the Department of Veterans Affairs, to which he was appointed by the civil service commission. Appointments to the duties attaching to the titles stated in part 1 are made by the minister of the crown.
(d)	Yes; 1st Divisional Signals; 2nd Divisional Signals; Canadian Scottish Regiment; 1st Canadian Corps Signals.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. Brooks:: What percentage of collections were made from veterans under the Veterans Land Act for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 respectively?


Mr. Mutch:: Assuming 100 per cent to be payments due, the answer includes payments due and prepayments. For fiscal year ending March 31, 1945, 112-5 per cent; for fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, 187-7 per cent; for fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, 159-3 per cent; for fiscal year ending March 31, 1948, 141-8 per cent.



&quot;LES PAROLES FRANCAISES&quot;

Mr. Dorion:: 1.	Is the weekly review Les Paroles Frangaises admitted into Canada?
2.	If not, since what date and for what reason?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



CAR LOADINGS

Mr. Adamson:: What was the number of car loadings for the month of February in the years 1946 to 1949 inclusive?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Year	Cars
1946 			 263,107
1947 			 269,902
1948 			 285,607
1949 			 289,502



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	What are the exports to and the imports from Canada and (a) Belgium; (b) Czechoslovakia; (c) Japan, during the years 1947 and 1948?

2.	What were the principal commodities traded and what were the values of these principal products?
3.	To what products and with respect to what countries has Canada applied a dumping duty from January 1, 1947?



POST OFFICE


Mr. Green:: 1.	Is the government acquiring property in the city of Vancouver for postal purposes?
2.	If so, where is such property situate?
3.	Have any agents been appointed to fix rents, collect rents, make valuations or perform other services in respect of such property?
4.	If so, who are such agents and what is the basis of their remuneration?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	Did the Department of Veterans Affairs recently hold a conference of district administrators D.V.A. and district superintendents V.L.A.?
2.	If so, where and when was the conference held;
(a)	who presided; (b) what was the duration; (c) how many attended?
3.	What was the total cost of (a) transportation;
(b)	hotel and living expenses?



VETERANS LAND ACT ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What was the number of total staff employed under the Veterans' Land Act, Department of Veterans Affairs, for years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 respectively?
2.	How many were (a) permanent; (b) temporary?
3.	What changes were made in the staff for above years, giving names and reason for change in each case by (a) dismissal; (b) transfer to other departments; (c) new appointments?
4.	How many temporary employees were made permanent in years, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 (to date) ?



EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRY


Mr. Adamson:: 1.	What was the number of people employed by the gold mining industry for each of the years 1931 to 1948 inclusive?
2.	What was the average annual wage paid?
3.	What was the amount of Canadian gold shipped to the United States in each of the years 1931 to 1948 inclusive?



BUTTERFAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In order to use the present surplus of butterfat, is the minister or his department considering the lifting of the restriction on butterfat content of ice cream, which is now only 10-5 per cent and should be considerably higher?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the department is considering the matter, and a recommendation has gone forward.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It will be lifted?


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope so.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report in the Montreal Gazette of February 10, captioned "$5 million asked as taxes penalty"? This report suggests organized tax evasion on a large scale in high places. Will the minister make a statement to the house as to the progress his department is making in the prosecutions it has launched in this particular case?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the case. It is still before the courts in Montreal, and until it is decided I feel that I should not make any public statement.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John O. Probe (Regina City):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have sent him notice. In view of the answer given by the minister to a question I asked on March 11 about the intention to prosecute an alleged bread combine operating in western Canada, and in view of continuing increases in bread prices, will the minister inform the house what progress the agents of his department have made in bringing the prosecution to a successful conclusion?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, crown counsel are giving their full attention to the preparation of this case, which, as hon. members will realize, involves a number of points to which consideration has to be given. I am informed that good progress is being made in preparing the case for preliminary hearing.


John Oliver Probe: It is not before the courts yet?
2406	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence DOMINION ELECTIONS



DISMISSAL OF RETURNING OFFICER IN DAVENPORT CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: I see
the Acting Secretary of State has returned to the house. Perhaps he will recall that I asked him to make arrangements to have a meeting of the privileges and elections committee. A large delegation from the Davenport riding wishes to come to Ottawa to inquire into the reasons for the dismissal of their returning officer. Have any arrangements been made to call this committee together?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Acting Secretary of State):: No. I have just returned, and as yet I have not done anything about the matter.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
605. To provide for additional expenditures against the authorized commitment program in connection with the orderly establishment and organization of the defence forces of the navy, army and air services on a peacetime basis and to authorize further commitments for future years of $11,708,000-further amount required, $19,622,583.
Mr. Skey:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose last night I was endeavouring to turn the discussion on this item back to the Royal Canadian Air Force and its future commitments, as well as the policies and plans under which it is being governed at the present time. Before I continue with some remarks on that subject, I should like to make this observation. I should like nothing that is being said today by way of recommendations that we might be willing to back as a party to be construed in any shape or form by our political enemies or by the communists in Canada as anything in the nature of aggressive intent. For anyone to consider that Canada might at any time be aggressive or that our defence policies might be so directed would be utterly ridiculous. We are a country of twelve million people. Our peace-loving policies have been followed throughout the entire history of this country. Anything we might have to say, Mr. Chairman, is purely directed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, could we have more order?


The Deputy Chairman:: Once again I should like to ask all hon. members to deal specif -


ically with the item before the committee. If the item were for administration, there could be a general discussion of the activities of the department, but in dealing with this specific item I hope the members will not go beyond it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: In this item there is mention of future commitments for the R.C.A.F.


William Henry Golding: But it is only for this amount.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It is for $19 million odd. From
the time I first came into this house I have urged that Canada's defence policy should aim at the development of fighter planes capable of meeting any aggressive action that can be taken against our country. I intend to speak on that again today, because the vote involves a future commitment, and we are already aware of the fact that the government has under consideration the manufacture of fighter planes in Canada of a type now manufactured in the United States.


William Henry Golding: Is the hon. member going to discuss this matter under the item now before the committee? If it comes within the item, well and good.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Chairman, in item 605 we find the words, "to authorize further commitments for future years." I am talking about future years.


William Henry Golding: That is $11,708,000.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes-future commitments. I am recommending to the government that its policy be so directed that it will develop in Canada a fighter force capable of defending this country and the people in it. Sweden, which is a country about half the size of Canada, has a modern fighter force. The Swedes are a peace-loving people, just as we are. They have no aggressive intent anywhere, but they have a fighter force of 300 modern machines.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item before the committee. This has nothing to do with Sweden. It is a well-known rule that remarks made in committee must be relevant to the item under discussion, and I would ask hon. members to observe the rule.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I was just endeavouring to make a comparison between the defence of Canada and the defence of Sweden. I think it is in order to give to the minister a comparison.


William Henry Golding: I want to say this in all kindliness to my hon. friend. It is not in order, in the consideration of a specific item in the estimates of the Department of National Defence, to talk about Sweden or other countries.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The last thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is to engage in a controversy with you. But I humbly submit to you as chairman of this committee that when the item says "to authorize further commitments for future years", what I am doing is completely in order.
The Depuiy Chairman: Speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. I should like the hon. member to tell the Chair and the committee what this item has to do with Sweden or any other country.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I can tell you, sir, in just a few words. Future commitments with regard to the Royal Canadian Air Force have to do with the type of aircraft used and the type of expenditure made by this department. They have to do with the question whether the people of Canada will be assured of adequate measures for defence. We know at the moment that there are only about seventy-five modern fighting machines in Canada. With the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent since the war, our country has only seventy-five Vampires-the only modern fighting machine in Canada. My remarks are directed toward the government to the end that their future commitments will be more intelligent than they have been in the past.


William Henry Golding: What has this to do with Sweden or any other place? It is not in order.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I say that a country half the size of Canada has a fighter force three times the size of the one that our country has at the moment, and by the end of this year it will have one that is ten times the size of Canada's.
These remarks are all directed toward this thought which was expressed so well by Ovid's "Tristia", where these words are found:
The robber and the wary traveler are both girded with swords; but the one carries his for outrage, the other for self-defence.
I am advocating that Canada be girded with a sword as a wary traveler in order that it will be able to defend itself. I am saying here today that unless this country has a modern fighter force and the organization to back it up, the minister can never make another speech in which he tells the Canadian people that he is defending this country, because it cannot be. We cannot have an effective army, an effective navy, or effective defence unless the first line is held properly, and that with a fighter defence force in Canada.
Yesterday we had under discussion the question of North Star aircraft, and I want
Supply-National Defence to direct a few remarks to this matter, as it is part of the question of future commitments so far as Canada is concerned. There is a question whether the R.C.A.F. ever needed these aircraft. There is a question whether it ever asked for them. There is a question whether more than half of them have ever been in service at the same time. If we were privileged to have in this country a defence committee, I feel that the examination of those three questions would be an important matter; that it would be in the country's interest to have the minister produce the actual requisition from the R.C.A.F. for North Star aircraft, and, against that, the reasons why they were asked for.
We know that at the close of hostilities we had a surplus of various kinds of aircraft in Canada, and suddenly there appeared in their midst twenty to twenty-four new North Star aircraft. I am not discussing the merits of the machine as a passenger aircraft; I hear it is a good one. Although they have had some initial difficulties, I understand those are being overcome. That is not the point, however. The point is that Canada needs a fighter force, and has twenty-four transport passenger aircraft handed to it by the government. It is important for the country to know whether the minister receives aircraft from the Canadian factories for the R.C.A.F., or whether the R.CA.F. pays for these aircraft without a proper requisition being made for them, without actually a need having been shown for that type of machine in the defence of our country.
We also know that six of those North Star aircraft were immediately lent to T.C.A. As soon as they were manufactured they went on loan to T.C.A., and they were placed on the north Atlantic run to the United Kingdom, where I understand they have been flown almost to exhaustion and then handed back to the R.C.A.F. It would be interesting to know whether T.C.A. paid the cost of reconditioning them and putting them back in proper order, or whether the air force had to do this; or whether when they were returned to the air force they were in shape to fly should the air force wish to fly them, or should they be allocated to the active part of the minister's reserve.
I think these are questions that the country should have answered. It is only too easy for these things to get caught between two departments, and we might find that the R.C.A.F. actually paid for those machines which were flown to exhaustion by T.C.A., and possibly they were returned to them unreconditioned. I am merely putting that proposition forward as an example of what

Supply-National Defence could happen under this type of organization, and I would appreciate the minister's comments.
To return to the defence of Canada, which is what we are really talking about when we talk about future commitments: On this continent we are in the same position today as Great Britain was in the thirties. They had a defence problem, and they formed a policy as early as 1935. That policy was the same as the one I am advocating today, namely, that a fighter defence force has to be maintained in order to meet any initial aggression against Canada.
It is interesting to note that back in 1935 and 1936 the air ministry in Great Britain anticipated the battle of Britain and its importance to that country, although that battle was not to be fought for five long years. Their plans were laid. The Spitfire and the Hurricane were then under development, and arrived in time for that battle. Our condition today on the North American continent is exactly similar to the condition in the United Kingdom at that time. I believe that we should take the first essential step, the development of our defence forces, as they did at that time. I have made that suggestion before in the house, and I do it again. I believe that is the first task in Canadian defence.
As recently as a year ago the minister said that Canada must ensure positive security under her own arms. He made that statement in Montreal in February, 1948. I wonder whether we have made any progress. I hope we have.
Again at a meeting of the young men's board of trade on May 4, 1948, the minister said:
Our job will be to supply the minimum quantity of interceptors and the ground forces to deal with local attacks, as well as to develop the staff and personnel to take their place as part of any major striking forces.
He said in that speech in Montreal before the young men's board of trade that we should supply the minimum quantity of interceptors. We certainly have the minimum in Canada; there is no doubt about that. We wonder how many of the seventy-five Vampires which are left are efficient, and how many of them are effective; whether in fact they are not being cannibalized for spare parts, and slowly but surely so handled that they are being reduced to a mere handful. Hon. members know what "cannibalize" means so far as aircraft are concerned. It means that those which are working are living off the others. Those in the hangars are giving their spare parts-new wing sections, tailplanes and the like, to keep them serviceable. That means that if you buy

fifty machines you probably have the use of five of them to produce spare parts, and you really have a force of forty-five instead of the fifty which you paid for.
In Canada we are being asked to trust the government in a great many ways so far as defence is concerned. We are being asked to permit the minister to remain silent on points which we consider to be essential to security. For that reason a committee in camera is absolutely necessary in order that hon. members may be properly informed as to the state of Canada's defences. We know that they are not good.
It is four years since the end of hostilities. We have had all that time to develop, to make an appreciation of what the future will require for this country. We joined the United Nations, which committed our country to joint efforts to resist aggression. We joined the Atlantic pact, but can we do anything about it? Are we just a silent partner of these other nations, or are we to make a contribution? I believe that the people of Canada want our government and parliament to see to it that a proper contribution is made towards collective security against aggression. Unless the minister can so direct his departments, particularly the air department, as to be able to make that contribution, unless he is able to achieve that, he should hand his resignation to the Prime Minister of Canada and let somebody take over who can.


Mr. Cockeram:: 
The Chairman:: Order. I should draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is not in order to read from newspapers reflecting upon what is taking place in the house. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the fact that if hon. members were allowed to read newspaper articles, there would be no end to the privilege. May I read to him citation 306 in Beauchesne's second edition:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
If the hon. member wishes to state certain facts, he should do so; but he should not read current newspaper articles reflecting on the subject under consideration.


Alan Cockeram: I thought perhaps I would bring the matter up this afternoon, because I had noticed that since the beginning of this session many hon. members have read from newspapers; but this is the first occasion I can remember of anyone having been called to account for doing so. However, I believe I have read sufficient of the article to let the public know about the cannibalization, as it is called in the air force-that is, stripping these aircraft down to the point where they are of absolutely no use, not just for one day, not just for one week, but for several months. In that connection I propose to table this newspaper.


Mr. Claxton:: You cannot.


Alan Cockeram: It contains a photograph of the Minister of National Defence taken last October at the airport at Downsview, at the time the birds were shooed out of the planes, the nests cleared out and the planes cleared up so the minister could see them. In this photograph the minister is accompanied by Mr. P. C. Garratt, managing director of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada; Mr. C. H. Dickins, sales director, and Air Commodore G. Kerr.
I had intended to speak on the estimates later on. However in view of the minister's statement yesterday I considered the matter should not be left to drop where the minister would have liked to see it dropped yesterday.
2410	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence There is no doubt that the minister is condemned, either on the ground of ignorance of what has happened to these planes at Downs-view-which is nothing short of appalling in a person holding such an important post at this time as does the Minister of National Defence for the Dominion of Canada-or he is condemned on what is probably the more serious ground, that of his refusal to deal with members of the House of Commons on the basis of candour, frankness and honesty that we are entitled to expect as members of the house.
In view of this further evidence which I have produced today, I believe it is the duty of the minister, not only to the services of which he is the head, but to those of us in the House of Commons and to the country as a whole, to do as my leader suggested the other day, namely, offer his resignation immediately.


Mr. Harkness:: 
Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I should like to place briefly before the Minister of National Defence. It arises out of a newspaper dispatch which appeared on Monday of this week, reading as follows: Pacific pact to be discussed in Ottawa talks
A Pacific defence pact to buttress Canada's western approaches-as the North Atlantic treaty had secured the east-was "definitely on the agenda" in scheduled talks between Australian Defence Minister Sir Frederick Shedden and Defence Minister Claxton.
Sir Frederick had been invited to the United States to discuss joint problems, and a similar invitation had been issued by Canada's defence department.
The dispatch went on to give the view of the Canadian defence department with regard to this pact, and then follows the part about which I am particularly concerned. It reads:
By the defence department, possible Pacific pact proposals were regarded as the "United States' baby." Canada was "not going to take the initiative" in proposing a defence barrier against aggression from the East.
And the article concluded by saying that the problem of mutual defence would be the main substance of the talks, which might "very possibly" pave the way for Pacific pact discussion.
For those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope this question of a Pacific defence pact is of great concern, as I believe it is also of concern to Canadians in other parts of the country. I realize that the minister himself visited Australia just a year or two ago, and

Supply-National Defence no doubt is closely in touch with this whole picture. Unfortunately the threat to freedom today is not confined to Europe and the north Atlantic. It may be that in that area the soviet is already well contained. In Asia, however, the soviet is going ahead by leaps and bounds. There are communist armies swarming over China; a greatly increased communist vote in Japan; communist uprisings in Malaya and in Burma, and a communist problem in India. In fact in that part of the world it looks as though the soviet is winning by default.


Mr. Langlois:: Is this kind of debate in order on this item, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: I understand the hon.
member is discussing this item in relation to Pacific defence. That is what occurred to me.


Howard Charles Green: As I was saying, it looks as though in Asia the soviet is winning by default. It may be that while we are bolting the front door by the North Atlantic treaty, we are leaving the back door open by doing nothing in the Pacific. Winston Churchill summed up that situation in his speech on April 1, when he said:
Whether the western democracies are winning the cold war cannot be decided by looking at Europe alone, he said.
"We must also look at Asia. The worst disaster since our victory has been the collapse of China under communist attack and intrigue. China, in which the United States has always taken a high interest, comprises an immense part of the population of the world. The absorption of China and India into the Kremlin-controlled communist empire would certainly bring measureless bloodshed and misery to eight or nine hundred million people. On the other hand," Churchill said, "the position in Europe has so far been successfully maintained."
That affects Canada directly, and particularly western Canada; because if trouble comes it may come from the Pacific. If it did, I suggest that Canada would be the centre of the fighting. The easiest way for soviet forces to get at the production centres of Canada and the United States would be by coming across Behring strait to Alaska, on into Yukon and then down to Edmonton. As a matter of fact I believe many soviet airmen flew that route during the war, when they operated the planes the Americans were supplying to the soviet, going in the other direction across Behring strait. This is also the gateway to British Columbia and to the Northwest Territories, where our deposits of uranium are found; and of course uranium is one of the vital strategic materials on this continent.
I believe Canada is so directly affected by what goes on in the Pacific area that she should be taking the lead in advocating a Pacific defence pact. It would include most

of the nations already in the North Atlantic pact, as for example the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, all of which are involved in the Pacific as well. But it would include also our old friends Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and the Philippines; a Pacific defence pact would fill the gap at present existing in that area. There is one other reason for a Pacific defence pact.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I am afraid a discussion on the advisability of a Pacific defence treaty would hardly be in order under this item.


Howard Charles Green: I need not deal with the other point, then; but I would ask the minister to explain to the committee the attitude of the government on this question of a Pacific pact.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I should hope that while the Australian minister of defence is here some such arrangement could be made. Would the minister be prepared to give a statement on this question?


Mr. Case:: It is not my purpose or intention, Mr. Chairman, to delay for an instant the progress of this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: But I am going to challenge my hon. friends opposite. I find myself terribly confused.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: If you are conscious of your responsibilities as members of this house I am sure you too must ask yourselves many questions at this time. It must be remembered that a few days ago the leader of the opposition directed certain questions to the Minister of National Defence, to which he received certain replies. Let us not fool ourselves. Yesterday in this very chamber the minister had ample opportunity to rise on a question of privilege; indeed, he spoke at considerable length in committee, but failed to correct the false impression he left with the members of this house. So having regard to my responsibility to the people of Canada, particularly those of my own constituency, when I am asked to pass an item of more than $19 million for national defence, I think I am entitled to know upon whose advice I can depend. Through the signing of the Atlantic pact undoubtedly we all became more conscious of our situation in relation to security and the world situation. That should make us consider our own position very carefully. It is all very well for those opposite to chide me for rising to take part in what is perhaps one of the most important

debates we have had in this house, but our security and our very future depend entirely upon-


An hon. Member:: The government.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I would hesitate to depend upon the government, in view of the answers that have been given by the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Sinclair:: You have depended upon it for the last fourteen years.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Of course you have been there for a long time, but you have outworn your usefulness. So I say the time now has come when we must ask ourselves these questions. Are we properly prepared to defend ourselves? It is all very well for us to gloss over these things; nevertheless the over-all picture becomes very important. The Minister of National Defence has hesitated to make available certain information to the committee. I believe we are adults capable of thinking for ourselves. There is nothing that would arouse a greater national consciousness of our ability to defend ourselves than complete frankness with this House of Commons. If our position were explained it would help to stimulate a regard for our obligations as citizens. I do not think the minister is overburdened with the number of people who are offering to enlist. Advertisements appear in the various journals and appeals are made over the radio. I do not think a frank revelation will bring any comfort to the enemy.
Do not let us fool ourselves. We have only one potential enemy and the Kremlin is already aware of our defence position. I am reminded of the dark days of the war when we were all cautioned against saying anything about the departure of troop ships. It is interesting to note that the shortwave radio in Germany always broadcast the date when a troop ship was leaving. That is only a smoke screen. Let us have the facts. We want to know that the money is being properly spent because it is being advanced by the taxpayers of Canada, not by this government. We want to know the money is fulfilling the purposes for which it was intended.
Some very proper questions have been directed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I presume that in due time he will answer all of them. I was much impressed yesterday afternoon with the remarks of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), a man whose background and training fits him not only to ask these questions but to advise any committee the minister may set up to deal with this matter. Mr. Chairman, this is a very grave moment in our 29087-153J
Supply-National Defence history. We have certainly projected ourselves into the future as a power capable of holding our own should the necessity arise. These are the questions that were asked by the member for Nanaimo and I intend to read them into the record. They will be found at page 2397 of Hansard. I am reading these questions to make sure I receive the answers I am seeking.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Do not interrupt me, please, because as I have already intimated I am only a member of parliament and not a technical adviser. I am much concerned about this matter, however, more concerned than many of the members opposite who are laughing this matter off. I think it is a disgrace to take such an unusual attitude towards one of the most serious matters ever to come before this house. I should like to direct the minister's attention to the questions I mentioned appearing at page 2397 of Hansard.
I ask the minister to explain definitely whether this $19 million is to come out of the amount allocated and voted by this house last year, and whether the $59 million voted at that time will be reduced to this extent. Then I ask him to explain in a little more detail how the division of that money is going to take place, how he proposes to utilize it, under these main headings to which I have referred.
A review of the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo will indicate how important the answers are which we seek. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if the minister can provide the answers to those questions our concern will be alleviated, especially if he can assure us that his statements in this house bear some relation to the facts. If that is done, there is no doubt about his ability to obtain the sanction he seeks for these estimates. Imagine the talk about bringing comfort to the enemy! May I say to all members that if the answer made by the minister in this house a few days ago, refuted yesterday, followed by the admission of those facts by the minister, has any relation to our over-all defence position, then Canada is an easy mark for any enemy who may care to attack her.
I do not want to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman, and I say this with the kindliest feelings, but I want to understand what I am voting for when I vote this $19 million.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. If a member received an envelope bearing the mark "On His Majesty's Service", and at the bottom the word "Headquarters", would that envelope be from military headquarters?


William Ross Macdonald: I am not so sure that that matter would fall within this item.

Supply-National Defence


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I want to find out something.
I can assure the Chairman that this is a defence matter.


William Ross Macdonald: It would have to be a defence matter falling within this item. There are many branches of the minister's department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but this envelope bears his name on the frank. I want to bring the contents of this envelope to the minister's attention. On October 7 we received in this envelope a copy of the minister's speech. I do not object to that since it contains many facts in which I was interested. I wondered why the minister's department would also include with this speech in this envelope from headquarters a pamphlet entitled "The Future of the Liberal Party." Evidently it was put in there by one of the officials of that department. Whether it was with the minister's knowledge I do not know. All the members of my party received a copy.


An hon. Member:: That is the department of Liberal defence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is Liberal defence all right. They might be looking for new recruits for their party after the next election.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must say that that matter-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not out of order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must say that up to the present time the hon. member has been out of order in raising this question under vote No. 605. There might be a proper time to raise that matter, and no doubt there will be.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Unless the hon. member is going to relate the envelope more directly to this vote in some way, I cannot allow him to continue.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, this $19,622,583 is money expended during the fiscal year 1948-49. This envelope was received during that year. I am just asking the minister whether he requested his department to include Liberal party literature in letters sent out by his department. The public should not be paying for Liberal party literature to be sent from any department.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member has been allowed to state his case.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to have a reply from the minister.


William Ross Macdonald: If that envelope and its contents fall within this vote, the minister will no doubt answer.
[The Chairman.]


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was sent out in 1948. I am
getting the same kind of answer that I received from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) yesterday-nothing.


Brooke Claxton: I protest against that statement. I have been waiting to answer the questions of members opposite for a day and a half. I wish to have an opportunity of doing so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I sat down so that the minister could reply.


Brooke Claxton: And the member for York South (Mr. Cockeram) caught the chairman's eye before I did.


Alan Cockeram: When discussion took place about the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated that there was within the Department of National Defence a committee from whom requisitions were received by that corporation. I wonder if the minister will give the house the details of that committee, how it functions, and how it goes about obtaining tenders for those large amounts of money.
Then there is another question which perhaps the minister can tell us something about. We are obliged to get most of our information from the minister when he makes speeches outside of the House of Commons. I think the only information we have with regard to the reserve army is that there are approximately 40,000 men in it. The other night the minister told us that there are 40,811 men in the permanent army. We then have a total force, including the reserve army, of 80,000 men. This item includes part of the pay of those men, so I think I am in order in mentioning this matter. But we have a group of civilians, numbering 20,279 as of March 31 this year, servicing that department. In other words, for every man in the permanent force and reserve army there is one man in the civil service servicing the personnel. As I pointed out to the minister the other day, there was an increase of only 108 in the civil service strength in the year; but there was an increase of $12,682,000 in the pay of the civil servants. That works out to in excess of $600 per civil servant working in that department. I point out to the minister that there was surely something wrong with those figures. I should like to make sure that they are correct, because the total increase in pay for the civilian branch of the armed forces for the next fiscal year was $12,682,000, and there is an increase of only 108 in their strength.


Brooke Claxton: A number of questions have been asked and as I indicated a moment ago

I have been waiting for an opportunity to answer them. I should make it perfectly clear at the outset that, so far as I have been able to see from examining the record of the discussions in the house from the start of the session until the beginning of today's sitting, the only two questions which I have not answered were those to which an answer was refused for reasons of security, plus the other two, the answers to which are being prepared by the department and should be available before the house adjourns. I believe I am correct in saying that is the actual fact.
The hon. member for Calgary East during the course of the debate on the address referred to civil defence and I thought that at an appropriate time I should be glad indeed to make a statement on the subject. But as I read his speech at the time and as I have read it this afternoon, I do not see that any questions were asked that have not been answered. If I have not paid him the courtesy of an immediate answer, then I apologize. But I think I am right in the record, that up until today's sitting the only two questions that I have not answered from the beginning of this session were those to which an answer was refused for reasons of security plus the two still standing on the order paper.
In the course of his interesting remarks the hon. member for Nanaimo, as reported at page 2395 of Hansard, said:
The first question I would ask is this:	Is this
amount part of the additional moneys voted for future years? Will there be a reduction from that $59 million, or is this amount to be added on?
In this question he has reference to the commitment authority of some $59 or $60 million for future years. The answer is that the appropriation we are seeking today is in respect of the year 1948-49. The commitment authority of $59 million for future years is in respect of the year 1949-50. Therefore the $19 million is not deducted from the $59 million. One is for cash which we are seeking today to make expenditures which have not been made yet, and the other of course provides for future years commitment authority.
The hon. member also asks:
Can the minister allocate the division he proposes to make of this $19 million under those various main estimates?
I gave a breakdown of that figure before in the course of the discussion, but I read the figures rather rapidly and I shall be glad indeed to give them again. This sum of $19,622,583 is divided as follows: For complete payment in respect of the year 1948-49 to the imperial war graves commission for care and maintenance of graves of the second
Supply-National Defence world war, $127,583; for the navy, due to wage, salary, pay and allowance increases, $1,995,000.


Alan Cockeram: That includes civil servants too, does it?


Brooke Claxton: That is right. For the army there is $14,500,000 of which $5,940,000 is for married quarters which were completed during the year under an accelerated program which we started to build up during the year so as to complete the largest possible number of married quarters during the period. For maintenance of properties, $700,000. For purchase and repair of equipment, $900,000. For increased wages, salaries, pay and allowances, a total of $6,960,000. These figures make up the item of $14,500,000.
The one remaining item is $3 million for the air force. That is for the overhaul of aircraft under a program that was started two years ago and which provided for overhaul and modification this year of 209 aircraft at a cost of over $10 million. It was possible to proceed with that work faster than we had planned, and accordingly more money should be expended on that account than had been provided for in the main estimates. That is the way the items are broken down. The hon. member for Trinity asked for some further information about the North Stars. His question was: "Did the R.C.A.F. need these planes?" The answer is yes. Any air force in a country with the area of Canada, and having to serve not only the length of the country but also to reach well up beyond the Arctic circle, needs high-speed, long-range, load-carrying transport planes. They were asked for by the air force. The hon. member asked whether half of them were ever in service at the same time. I doubt whether it is possible to say that half the aeroplanes of any service are in use at the same time, but service has been normal.
The hon. member referred to the fact that modifications had to be made. Of course that is true. That is true not only of new planes, but also of virtually every old plane. Recently I found that a Rolls-Royce engine, which is one of the most efficient engines there are, and which has been in existence for eight years, is still being modified.
The hon. member also asked whether T.C.A., which at one stage had borrowed six of the planes, had turned them back in a broken down condition. The answer is no. They were completely overhauled and new engines were installed in the planes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: At whose expense?


Brooke Claxton: At the expense of T.C.A. The planes were returned in a condition as good

Supply-National Defence as new, or even better, because in addition some modifications were installed at T.C.A. expense.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the minister know how many flying hours each plane had?


Brooke Claxton: No, I cannot give that now but I can easily find it for the hon. member, but I have not got it with me. Then the hon. member referred to the need of a fighter defence force. The hon. member for Grey North took some exception to the fact that I made a comparison with the situation in 1933-34. The hon. member for Trinity made a comparison with Sweden. I would point out that the defence needs of every country must be considered with regard to that country. Recently we have had the pleasure -and it was a very distinct pleasure-and also the advantage of a visit from the chief of the Swedish air staff, General Nordensheld, and we discussed with him the organization and strength of the Swedish air force. He had the opportunity of seeing ours. I am committing no breach of confidence when I say that he referred in terms of the highest commendation to the work he saw going on in our air force. He saw a good deal of it. He recognized, as we do, that the defence needs are quite different for the two countries, and that they have to be met in different ways.
With regard to the question of the air force, and the objections taken to the remark I made in respect of the situation as it existed in 1933-34, I think it has some relevance when people today express their very strong support of the air force, as I think most of us do, to judge how that is likely to be carried out, to consider what happened in the past. It is interesting to note that in 1933-34 the air force was reduced to its lowest strength since the first year of its origin, with a total strength of 692 officers and men regular, and thirty-four in the auxiliary. The defence expenditures for that year were $1,684,561.93, which also included expenses for civil aviation and postal transport. That figure may be contrasted with the amount we are seeking in the main estimates for 1949-50 of $142,836,360.


Alan Cockeram: Does the minister suggest that the situation has not been changed since 1933-34?


Brooke Claxton: I have heard eloquent
speeches from the other side of the house suggesting that at about that time we should have been preparing for the next war, which one hon. member said was coming. From that date on there was a steady improvement.


Alan Cockeram: What about the air training plan?


Brooke Claxton: The air training plan was a grand aerodrome of democracy and produced
131.000	trained air crew, and they arrived when they were needed.


Mr. Drew:: And refused before the war.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member asked
whether there was any procedure whereby we were cannibalizing Vampires. The answer is no.


Alan Cockeram: What are you cannibalizing?


Brooke Claxton: We are cannibalizing a number of planes, which are virtually obsolete, in order to keep them going without having to start factories working on spare parts; but we are not cannibalizing any modern planes.


Alan Cockeram: Yesterday the minister said that he had 1,000 first-line planes. Does that mean that 1,000 planes are complete and none of them have been cannibalized?


Brooke Claxton: Not at all. Yesterday I said nothing about 1,000 planes. Some hon. member quoted what I said in the house on the estimate debate-I think it was the hon. member for Nanaimo-and gave a partial list of what I gave then.


Alan Cockeram: On Monday.


Brooke Claxton: On Monday I did mention
1.000	planes. We have not got 1,000 first-line planes, and no suggestion has been made that we have.


Alan Cockeram: How many first-line planes have we that are not cannibalized? That is what I should like to know. We are spending practically $150 million on the air force.


Brooke Claxton: I must tell the hon. member that it will require a pretty nice appraisal by people who are experienced in it to say what are first-line and what are not.


George Alexander Drew: The number is sixty-two.


Brooke Claxton: It is a matter of opinion in each case as to what is the most modern type for the purpose for which it is designed. At present we have not sixty-two, as the leader of the opposition said-I assume he means Vampires-but seventy-seven.


George Alexander Drew: I ask the minister to check his figure. He must realize that there have been a number of crashes which reduced the eighty-five below that number, and he also knows that there are a number not yet actually put into service.


Brooke Claxton: We have a number in reserve, but there are seventy-two Vampires either in service, in reserve or undergoing modification at the present time.


Mr. Merrill:: The minister said seventy-seven.


Brooke Claxton: I beg your pardon, seventy-seven.
The hon. member for Vancouver South asked me a question about the visit of the Australian defence minister, Sir Frederick Shedden. Sir Frederick Shedden is the permanent secretary of the defence department of Australia. He corresponds to our deputy minister of defence. He is almost the senior civil servant in Australia. He is visiting here and the United States for the purpose of exchanging views on various subjects; but so far as any indication has yet been received here as to the purpose of his visit, it is to discuss organization, administration and matters of that kind. No doubt in addition we shall go on to discuss with him other matters, but the question of a Pacific regional security pact is not on the agenda. May I say a further word or two in reply to what the hon. member for Vancouver South said. The view of the government, of course, is that there is only one possible aggressor at this time, and should that aggressor commit an act of aggression it will affect practically every part of the western and eastern world including Canada. It will be one war in one world.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister favourable to a Pacific defence pact?


Brooke Claxton: That would be a matter of government policy which I could not deal with now. But I should think a good deal could be said for having regional defence pacts along the lines of the North Atlantic security pact in the hope that they would gradually form part of one defence system which the United Nations was set up to establish, and which we still hope the United Nations will achieve.
The hon. member for Peterborough West asked me about an envelope which he had. That envelope was sent to hon. members enclosing a speech on industrial organization. That speech gave facts and figures which were new, and I thought hon. members would be interested in it. Apparently in addition, by error, he got a pamphlet-


An hon. Member:: We all got that.


Brooke Claxton: -which he should not have got, certainly, and which I am sure will do him no good whatever.


Mr. Knowles:: Does the minister mean the pamphlet is no good whatever?


Brooke Claxton: No; I said I was sure it would do the hon. member for Peterborough West no good whatever.
Supply-National Defence


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why was this pamphlet, The Future of the Liberal Party, by the Hon. Brooke Claxton, distributed at all from the Department of National Defence? That is what I would like to know.


Brooke Claxton: They had nothing to do with paying for it. If the pamphlet was wasted I am sorry; it should have been given to some proper recipient.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it is taking government money to put it in there.


Brooke Claxton: No.


An hon. Member:: Who paid the postage?


Brooke Claxton: If anyone suggests that hon. members in any part of the house do not send out political material to their constituents and friends under a government frank, then I am surprised.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is only one point-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not sent out by a separate department.


Brooke Claxton: Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have answered the questions which were expressly put to me. If I have not, then no doubt I shall be reminded of it at once. However, I cannot close these remarks without saying a word or two on the more general subjects which have been brought up. This is the first time, I believe, in our experience that anything in the nature of a general debate has occurred on supplementary estimates. I have never heard of a minister being asked to make a general statement on supplementary estimates, and it certainly is not my intention to do so today.
However I should like to offer one or two sentences.
In the first place, with regard to the organization of the armed forces, I believe that we have made, in the field of co-ordination and unification, as great progress as has been made in any other country.
In the second place, in regard to the primary objective of the training of officers, I believe that in our various plans-in the cadet service colleges, in the university training plan, as well as in the command contingent plans we have in the 4,000 officer candidates in training to the equivalent of a university degree, plus a year's practical experience with their service, a greater number, in proportion to our population, training for a high standard than any country in the world.
In the third place, with regard to recruiting for the active force, we have just had the

Supply-National Defence best two months of recruiting since the war. The results for the last six months show an 81 per cent improvement over the corresponding period of the year before. If those numbers are maintained we will continue to obtain the number of men required to build up our armed forces to the strength we believe to be necessary. What is more, the quality is of the kind we need.
Fourth, with regard to the reserve forces, in addition to the 40,000 and more men in the active force, we have 40,000 men in the reserve forces; and when you compare that with the corresponding figure of something like 75,000 in the territorial forces of England, organized on the same basis and for the same purpose, then I suggest we are making good progress. I would like to see many more men in the reserve force. That force as regards equipment and spirit is in much better shape than ever before in peacetime. Then, we have 20,000 civilians doing work which used to be done by service personnel, because it is more economical to do it this way.
Altogether we have had in the department and in the services 100,000 men and women, of whom 60,000 are full-time, who I believe are well qualified to do the jobs they are called upon to do.
Fifth, with regard to equipment, we are 1 believe the first country to undertake the design and construction of a new type of high-speed anti-submarine vessel; three of them will be laid down this year. We are continuing the development of the Orenda engine and the XC-100 night fighter allweather aircraft by A. V. Roe. Tests already made of the engine indicate that in all probability it may be not only a success, but an exceedingly good engine. Our hope is that the plane will be flight tested this summer; and as soon as it is, plans are made for us to go into production on the first jet-engined plane to be designed and entirely built in Canada.
Finally, with regard to relations with the civilian community, the relations between the active and the reserve forces and the relations among the three services, the effort has been made steadily throughout the period since the war to create the idea that this is one partnership essential to the welfare of all of our country. I believe that, commensurate with our resources and commensurate with the program which has been set, they are doing a good job for the defence of Canada.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If it is true that the R.C.A.F. did need 24 North Stars, of which six were lent to T.C.A., then why were another half a dozen or more left in storage?
[Mr. Claxton.l


Brooke Claxton: Those planes were not needed by the R.C.A.F. at the time. They were available for delivery. It was the economical way in which to keep the plant of Canadair operating on an economic scale, so that the planes would have a lower cost than if we ordered only the planes we needed ourselves. At that time it might have been possible for us, for example, to have ordered twelve; and if so the cost would have gone up commensurately, particularly if we had given an order for twelve at first and then eleven more later.


Alan Cockeram: Would the minister tell us something about the defence purchasing board?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; I had overlooked your question.


Alan Cockeram: Then, one other question: Is it not a fact that those planes stored out at Downsview are some of the first North Stars produced, and' that they were reported to be defective.


Brooke Claxton: As to the planes stored at Downsview, I would not think it made any difference which ones were stored there and which were in reserve. As I said yesterday afternoon, our plan is to keep some 25 per cent in reserve for the time being. That number will change. The number will change as there will be a flow backward and forward to meet the needs. I do not think it makes any difference what the order is.


Alan Cockeram: I agree with the minister that it does not make any difference what the order is, but I should like to know whether the planes which are stored and inhibited and all the other things-this can be obtained from the serial numbers-cannibalized-


Brooke Claxton: There is no cannibalizing.


Alan Cockeram: I should like to know whether those planes were among the first delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Brooke Claxton: I can get the information for the hon. gentleman. In answer to his other question may I say that the procedure whereby the Department of National Defence makes its purchases is that the service concerned, the navy, army or air force, working with the deputy minister and his officials, prepare contract demands. When a contract demand is passed within the department it is sent to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which advertises for tenders. When the tenders are received they are processed by the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the conclusions are reported to the Department of National

Defence. Observations are expressed and then the tender is awarded.
Consultation is held with the industrial defence board, the Canadian preparedness association and committees of industry with regard to matters of long-term planning but not with regard to individual orders. We have within the Department of National Defence joint service committees on weapons, equipment, clothing and the like so that the services may be in line with regard to various items of equipment.


Alan Cockeram: Will the minister tell us who are on that committee and who are on the imperial defence board? They are the people responsible for spending this money.


Brooke Claxton: No; the people responsible for spending the money are the government of Canada.


Alan Cockeram: They are responsible to you?


Brooke Claxton: No. The industrial defence board and the industrial preparedness association have nothing whatever to do with expenditures of money, with procurement or administration direct. They are consultative bodies, one being appointed by the government and the other being an organization of industry corresponding as far as industrial preparedness is concerned to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in the field of civilian industry. They have been exceedingly helpful but they have no responsibility. We are very glad to consult them about matters of policy.


Alan Cockeram: There is a committee in the defence department which is responsible for these applications or whatever it is you submit to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That was stated in the house the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Brooke Claxton: There must be some misunderstanding about that. We have joint service committees made up of representatives of the three services.


Alan Cockeram: Who are they?


Brooke Claxton: There must be a dozen at various levels. They have no authority whatever for making expenditures. They agree on a common pattern of shoe or a standard of cloth, and then, that having been decided, the order is placed by the service through the deputy minister with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which corpora-
Supply-National Defence tion makes the purchase, with funds supplied, for the Department of National Defence. There is no committee of the kind described.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Did the Department of National Defence actually requisition or ask the government to approve the purchase of the twenty-four North Stars that the minister says they needed?


Brooke Claxton: I do not want to disclose what I should not, but that was cleared through service levels, and then through the cabinet defence committee. Then a contract demand was formulated in the ordinary way and it came up through the deputy minister and, because of its size, was approved by myself. It was referred to the treasury board, approved by council, and then the order was placed through the Canadian Commercial Corporation with the industry concerned.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The R.C.A.F. actually asked for them, did they?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. Ferguson:: In view of the fact that R.C.A.F. personnel are on twenty-four hour duty at the present time I should like to ask the minister what is being done to improve the housing conditions at the various camps, particularly at Camp Borden, with which I am more familiar. The living quarters for both officers and men are not what they should be at the present time to house men who are on twenty-four hour active service. Some work was contemplated and some work has been done, but I should like to know what is actually being done to improve the living conditions of R.C.A.F. personnel in the various camps.


Brooke Claxton: On January 1, 1947, we had in the armed forces of Canada 1,100 married quarters. That was the total for the navy, army and air force and it included permanent, temporary and emergency quarters. On March 31, 1949, we had either completed or rapidly approaching completion 7,500 married quarters. That was a tremendous increase, a much greater increase, I can assure hon. members than that made in any other country with which comparisons are usually made in such matters. The supplementary estimates which I hope we will pass provide for payments on this accelerated married quarters program of $5,940,000, of which amount $1,630,000 was for additional quarters at Camp Borden.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. Pearkes:: Are these married quarters being provided under contracts let through Canadian Commercial Corporation or is the work being done by direct day labour under the supervision of the department?


Brooke Claxton: The greatest part of it is being done by contract, but where we could not find a contractor to take the contract or where we wanted to build a special type of quarters it has been done by the Department of National Defence by day labour. For 1949 the greatest part of the married quarters program will be handled by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and we hope that that will provide two years of our married quarters program in one year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
611. Departmental administration, further amount required, $35,400.
Mr. Bentley:: Can the Postmaster General give us an assurance that letter carrier service will be extended this year to south of the railroad tracks in Swift Current?


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General):: It would be impossible for me to answer that question without looking at the file.


Thomas John Bentley: Will the minister look into the matter and do his best to have that service extended?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes I will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
613. Air and land mail services-further amount required, $100,000.
Wilfrid Garfield Case: Has the Postmaster General now determined whether the mail of members, which is franked in the House of Commons and the delivery of which is important, will be carried by air mail; or do we still have to affix stamps for that purpose?


Ernest Bertrand: Only first-class mail can be carried by plane at the four-cent rate. Any franked letters which are first-class mail are carried with similar mail. If they are letters containing printed matter, they are not first-class mail, and have to be carried by surface transportation unless the appropriate stamps are affixed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
613. Canada Gazette-further amount required, $25,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: rate applies for forty-four hours per week, and time and a half does not begin until after forty-four hours have been worked.
On this basis, and contending that the employees at the bureau have a just griev-
7.	1943	2421
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery ance, I have put the information to which I have referred in the form of a table which I should like to read to the house. It is not very long, but it does clearly set out the situation. The table is as follows:
-	Montreal Job Offices	Toronto Job Offices	Government Printing Bureau at OttawaRates now in effect	Rates coming into effect June 1, 1949	Rates according to agreement	Rates according to Sessional Paper 106C, Apr. 4,1949	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Day Rate, Straight Time	1 40	1 45	1 47 J	1 50	1 30Night Rate, Straight Time	1 61	1 67	i mi	1 724	1 62Total Pay for 44 hours, Days	65 10	67 42	68 69	69 75	57 20Total Pay for 44 hours, Nights	74 86	77 65	78 82	80 21	71 28
The figures in this table speak for themselves and show that the employees at the bureau have a real grievance.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Just as a matter of information, does the hon. member know about the conditions of work, that is to say superannuation, health insurance, sickness insurance, or anything of that nature in relation to the figures he is quoting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a number of things in those fields with which I am quite familiar. I could take time to deal with them, but I do not think I should. The printers at the bureau do enjoy some advantages which printers working in these other plants do not enjoy, but they do not offset the disadvantages, and I would direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that all the rates of pay I have quoted for Montreal and Toronto are those prevailing in job offices. If I were to give the rates paid in newspaper offices, they are considerably higher. I think most if not all hon. members of this house will agree that surely the job of producing Hansard so that it reaches us every morning is more like newspaper work, involving all the strains that obtain in a newspaper office, than working in a job printing plant. I have set out these rates in tabular form because of the discussions and questions which arise from time to time, both on the floor of the house and in public, so that the information can be looked at and it can be seen that the printers at the bureau have a case when they say they are being discriminated against. I raised this question on the floor of the house
one day and I would say the Secretary of State, as he then was, was correct in stating that the practice is to keep bringing the rates of the bureau up to the rates that obtain in * the cities of Montreal and Toronto. However, my contention was, and still is, that there is such a time lag that the employees at the bureau feel that the intent of the act is being violated.
When I put my set of questions on the order paper requesting this information, I asked this question as well:
What was the date of the last increase in the hourly scale of wages paid to printers employed at the government printing bureau?
The answer was, "April 1, 1948." I would point out that these agreements in the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto increasing the wages paid in those cities have come into effect since that date. This is a clear indication of the time lag. Since April 1, 1948, increases have been made in the cities that are supposed to be used as a basis of comparison, but no increase has been made at the printing bureau for over a year.
My next question read as follows:
Is a further increase under consideration?
I am happy to say that the answer to that question is a categorical "yes". I hope the increase will soon be announced.
I asked one further question which reads as follows:
If so, to what date will such increase be made retroactive?
The answer to that question was just two words, "Under consideration". I am glad to

Supply-Public Works note that the proposed increase is one to which consideration is being given to making it retroactive. I appeal to the Acting Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) to use his good offices if he still has some supervision over this matter, and if not to use his good offices with the Hon. Mr. Bradley, the new Secretary of State, to try to carry out the clear intent of the appropriate section of the Public Printing and Stationery Act. This calls for bringing the wages of the employees over at the printing bureau up to the standards that are supposed to obtain with the least possible delay.
Kon. Colin Gibson (Acting Secretary of State): I should like to say that the hon. member did ask me questions concerning the rates and wages paid at the printing bureau. I delayed making my answer because I knew that new rates were coming into effect. Before I made my answer I was moved to another portfolio, and did not know that an answer had been made as I had not seen it.
There is always a time lag in bringing up the wages of the printing bureau to the level of the wages paid in Montreal and Toronto, because we ask the Department of Labour to verify those rates for us. I will ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) to look over the chart which the hon. member has put on Hansard to see if anything further should be done to bring the wages into line with those paid in the other two cities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to thank the Acting Secretary of State for his statement. I should like to take one moment more to point out, if I did not emphasize it sufficiently before, that the last increase was on April 1, 1948. The Toronto agreement which I hold in my hand was brought into effect on October 1, 1948. The minister has now been frank enough to admit that there is a time lag and I hope that the admission will bring action. I hope there will be an attempt to close that gap. I may say that one way to get rid of the feeling that exists amongst these employees about this matter is to give the assurance that when the rates are raised they will be made retroactive. I suggest that the date to which they should be made retroactive should be October 1, 1948, which was the date when certain increases went into effect in Montreal and Toronto, and also in certain branches of government service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Ontario-
621. Ottawa-Central Experimental Farm-addition and alterations to chemistry building, $17,000.
Ottawa-East Block - improvements - further amount required, $90,000.
[Mr. Knowles.l
Ottawa-national research building-improvements and repairs-further amount required, $50,000.
Ottawa-parliament buildings-carving, $12,000.
Sault Ste. Marie-public building-further amount required, $200,000.
Wilfrid Garfield Case: I should like to ask the minister a question about the second item in vote 621, the improvements to the east block in Ottawa. The amount required is $90,000. To what will this bring the total expenditure in connection with the remodeling of that building? What is being done to that building? Is provision being made for the Senate or private offices for the House of Commons? If so, it would mean the members would have more room in which to conduct business relating to their constituencies.


Alphonse Fournier: No, we are renovating one of the oldest buildings in the government service, the east block. Actually we have expended $154,321, and it is estimated there will be an additional expenditure of $100,679. We are proceeding with this work by way of progress payments. At the outset, we did not know how we could make a real office building out of it. None of our people could find exactly in what state of disrepair the building was. We still owe this amount of $90,000 on the work which was completed by March 31, 1948. I believe we will have to spend approximately $365,000 for the complete job.
As to the other question, concerning rooms for members of parliament, may I say that this has not yet been discussed in cabinet. The internal commission of the House of Commons, which consists of four ministers and the Speaker of the house, held a meeting some two or three weeks ago and appointed members representing the various parties in the house as advisers to that commission. If I recall correctly, the whips of the four different parties are now on that commission. I am sorry that, although one meeting was called, it was not held because of absenteeism. I should add that the Speaker of the Senate and the whips of the different parties in the Senate are also members of the commission.
To date the commission has discussed making some use of the east or the west block or possibly adding-not being an architect, I can hardly give a description of it-to the middle of the Centre block one or two stories, in which I am told there would be room for eighty offices for the members of the house or of the Senate.


Mr. Graydon:: You will not need that many offices after the election.


Alphonse Fournier: That is a matter of opinion. These various projects are being studied by the officials of my department and

this commission I have mentioned. There is no doubt that as time goes on more rooms will have to be provided for the members of parliament. Having been here a long time, I can recall that when I first came to the house there were three members in one room. We had to suffer that for some time. I do not think that condition prevails now. I should like to see the time come when every member has his own room.


Mr. Timmins:: In connection with the third item in vote 621, will the minister tell us whether that expenditure is for the building in which building research is conducted?


Alphonse Fournier: That is for the office building, the main building on Sussex street.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The item we are discussing concerns the main building on Sussex street?


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: This is not the building in which building research is conducted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
630.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $1,200.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to ask the Acting Secretary of State a few questions on the answer he gave me earlier in the day that apparently no-


Mr. Gibson (Hamillon West):: That matter does not come under these departmental estimates.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the Acting Secretary of State want to say something or to interject something?


Colin William George Gibson: That is a different vote.


Alphonse Fournier: It is a different vote, Mr. Chairman.


William Henry Golding: It does not come under this item at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, under administration- what I want to ask comes under administration. The first item is "departmental administration, $1,200". What I have to ask comes under "administration" because I want to tell the Acting Secretary of State that as Secretary of State he gave a poor exhibition of administration in discharging the returning officer in Davenport riding, if he made no investigation into that discharge.


Colin William George Gibson: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not object to discussing that question on another item; but the chief electoral officer does not come
Supply-Secretary of State under the administration of the department of the Secretary of State. It is another vote entirely.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the administration-


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member must discuss the item under consideration. If that question does not come under this item, it is not in order to discuss it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to discuss administration.


William Henry Golding: The Secretary of State says it comes under another item.


Alphonse Fournier: This question would come under the office of the chief electoral officer, which is a special vote. It is not under the administration of the Secretary of State. Under the Secretary of State's administration no moneys are expended for the chief electoral officer. He has a special vote in the main estimates, and it is vote No. 49.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This item 630 reads, "Departmental administration - further amount required, $1,200". That money has been spent.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that the chief electoral officer is an appointee of the House of Commons.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the administration of the department that I want to discuss.


Alphonse Fournier: He is not in the Secretary of State's department. He is an independent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to discuss the chief electoral officer; he is a good man.


Alphonse Fournier: You can discuss the matter on the main estimates, under vote No. 49. That is where it would come.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to be fair, Mr. Chairman; but I knew very well an effort would be made to block me.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member should not make that accusation. If the matter he wishes to discuss does not come under this item, he should discuss it at the proper time. I hope my hon. friend will not make the accusation that he knew he was going to be blocked.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I have said anything irregular, I shall be glad to withdraw it. I would defer to the Chair at any time. But what I should like to do is to discuss the administration of the Secretary of State under the present Acting Secretary of State. In my judgment he was guilty of gross mis-administration of affairs in dismissing the returning officer in Davenport riding without

Supply-Secretary of State making an investigation. That is what I charge him with. He is going into a big department, and I shall have a good deal to say to him when he gets there. Those are affairs that I know something about. But coming back to this item here, I want the Acting Secretary of State to tell me who wrote the letter asking him to discharge the returning officer in Davenport riding.


Colin William George Gibson: I am not prepared, Mr. Chairman, on this vote, to discuss the chief electoral officer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to know-


William Henry Golding: Order. I hope the hon. member will not pursue this matter under this item. It will come under the item with regard to the chief electoral officer, not under this one.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, it is not carried yet. I am going to ask for a vote that this item be reduced to $1 because of the incompetence of the Acting Secretary of State when he was Secretary of State. He was grossly incompetent in doing what he did without making an investigation.


William Henry Golding: Order. If the hon. member is going to propose an amendment, he should move it and not discuss something that is not connected with this item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What item will it come under?	[DOT]


William Henry Golding: Under the item for the chief electoral officer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is not in the supplementary estimates?


William Henry Golding: Not in these further supplementary estimates.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What does the administration of the Secretary of State cover, then? The item is plain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It covers printing, stationery and office equipment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The item says: "departmental administration". What is "administration" but the conduct of a department?


Colin William George Gibson: I should like to explain to my hon. friend that the chief electoral officer and his staff are not part of the department of the Secretary of State. That office is set up by parliament itself. The chief electoral officer reports, through the Secretary of State, to the House of Commons; but the chief electoral officer is not an official of the Secretary of State's department.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the chief electoral officer under the Secretary of State's department?


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Alphonse Fournier: He is under the House of Commons.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then why did the Secretary of State have anything to do with the dismissal of the returning officer in Davenport riding?


Colin William George Gibson: It is the same as with the Public Archives. Archives is a separate department which comes under the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is head of the Archives department, but Archives is not part of the Department of the Secretary of State, and has a separate vote.


Gordon Graydon: Might I ask the Acting Secretary of State this question? If a change were to be made in the electoral officer-and perhaps this is a poor example to pick because he is an efficient and satisfactory official- which minister of the crown would intimate to him that his services were no longer required?


John Lambert Gibson: That would be the Secretary of State, although of course the chief electoral officer is appointed by parliament.


Gordon Graydon: That is what I thought. In view of that fact, I think it would be difficult to divorce the Secretary of State from the chief electoral officer in the matter of jurisdiction, because it seems to me that somebody in the government must always be responsible for someone who is employed by the government.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, but-


Gordon Graydon: May I just finish my
remarks. For that reason, some part of the administration expense of a ministerial position must, I think, in the final analysis of the matter, be related to all parts of his department. For that reason I fancy the hon. member for Davenport felt that he was in order when he was dealing with this matter.


Colin William George Gibson: As I said before it is just the same as with the Archives. Under an item of this kind, which has to do with the Secretary of State's department, we could not deal with matters concerning Archives or other departments that are not connected with the item. That is why I suggested we should not take time on this item to discuss the matter referred to.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the Acting Secretary of State if he did give the order to the chief electoral officer to dismiss the chief returning officer in Davenport riding?


John Lambert Gibson: Yes, I did.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then you are responsible.


Colin William George Gibson: I am not
trying at all to disclaim responsibility, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying is that this is not the time to discuss the matter. But I accept responsibility for his retirement.


William Henry Golding: Order. Shall the item carry?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, it will not carry, because I will ask for a vote first.


William Henry Golding: It is not in order to discuss this matter under this item. This is not the item under which to discuss it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is administration, Mr. Chairman. That is the way the item reads.


Colin William George Gibson: This matter does not come under the Secretary of State's department.


William Henry Golding: It has been pointed out that properly the hon. member's discussion should come under the item for expenses under the jurisdiction of the electoral officer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then this item should be under some other name than departmental administration. What is departmental administration? Is it not the conduct of the department? If not, what are these words here for?


Colin William George Gibson: It is for the
expenditures of the department of the Secretary of State, but not for the expenditures of the electoral office. They are two separate departments.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister said there was no such department. In his reply to me he said that he was responsible for the discharge of the returning officers. As I said, it was simply an example of gross mismanagement to discharge a man who had the work already half done. The minister ordered the deputy returning officers to get on with the enumeration.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That officer had his work already half done. Look at the position in which the minister placed him. I should like to do exactly as the leader of the opposition did last night and ask for the minister's resignation because of mismanagement of the department under his control.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I get it before the
privileges and elections committee I shall bring a large delegation down from Toronto consisting entirely of Liberals. There will not be a Conservative among them. They may also ask for the minister's dismissal because of what he has done.
Supply-Secretary of State The Deputy Chairman: Is the hon. member moving an amendment?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to hold up the business of the committee, Mr. Chairman. You have been very kind, but the Acting Secretary of State can look forward to quite a dig in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
631.	Citizenship branch-further amount required, $3,779.
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Before this item is carried I should like a little information from the Acting Secretary of State about the citizenship branch. This may be one of the smaller branches of the government, but in the minds of many of us it is a very important one. In the last few years many thousands of immigrants have come to Canada. I should like to find out what the government is doing to let those immigrants know something about Canadian citizenship and Canadian culture. I should also like to know what the department has been doing with regard to providing information on citizenship to other Canadians as well.


Colin William George Gibson: I would welcome an opportunity to make quite a long speech on this subject, but I do not want to do that at this moment. This is an important branch, one that has become of considerable importance since we enacted the citizenship act and have been bringing many newcomers to this country. The citizenship branch has been in close co-operation with the various provinces. As hon. members know, education is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The citizenship branch has been in close co-operation with the departments of education in the provinces with the object in view of providing training for the newcomers to Canada.
In addition to that various private organizations have assisted in providing classes, with the result that a large number of classes have been established throughout Canada to give an opportunity to the newcomers to this country to learn the English and the French languages. The item in which I am asking for additional funds today to the amount of $3,779 is to pay half of the cost of some broadcasts which are being made in Ontario. The provincial government is paying the other half. These are broadcasts to explain to the people of the country the problems of the immigrant when he comes to Canada, with the object of securing their co-operation in helping them to become assimilated.
Then we are providing prints of films to be used on board ship, so that when these people are coming to Canada they may learn something of the conditions that they will meet,

Supply-Secretary of State and not be entire strangers when they arrive here. Then the Department of Mines and Resources has published a very good booklet called "This is Canada". We are securing copies of that publication for distribution as we feel it is a pamphlet that can be of great assistance to the teachers who are running classes for the immigrants.
There is a great deal I should like to say on this subject and concerning the Canadian citizenship council, of which General Crerar is the head, which is co-operating by helping to establish classes. The council is in touch with the provinces as well. They really are trying to co-ordinate the activities of the dominion and the provinces with the private organizations such as labour organizations, veterans organizations, and other groups in Canada.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There are two further questions I should like to ask the minister arising out of what he has said. The minister said that a certain amount of money was being expended on broadcasts in Ontario in conjunction with the provincial government. I should like to know why these broadcasts are not being carried in other provinces as well. If it is a matter of the provincial governments not co-operating, why does not the federal government go ahead on its own and tell the Canadian people something about citizenship problems?
The second question I have in my mind is about the use of films. The minister said that films are being used on ships bringing immigrants over. That is very good. But how far are films being used in this country? We have a vehicle right at our hand, namely, the national film board, which has turned out really splendid work on films dealing with citizenship. Does this particular department use this material in various areas where there are film circuits which are attended by great numbers of people?


Colin William George Gibson: The reason that Ontario is the only province in which we are having the joint broadcasts is that it was Ontario which first organized these broadcasts and asked if we would co-operate with them. We agreed to do so. I have no doubt that if other provinces decide to undertake the same sort of educational work, the citizenship branch will be glad to co-operate in a similar way. In regard to films, we are endeavouring to secure films and to make them available to the various classes that are being held, but anything that we produce in that line is after consultation with the departments of education so that we shall not in any way be stepping on the toes of the provincial authorities.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I would not like to get into a jurisdictional dispute with the provinces on education. Surely, in the matter of these broadcasts it is the responsibility of this department to approach the provinces to see if they will co-operate. If not, I do not think any constitutional problem would be involved in using the air waves in these various provinces in giving broadcasts on citizenship. I should like to think that this department of our government was the spearhead of the drive instead of waiting for others to come along and make suggestions to the government.


Colin William George Gibson: This is a new venture. We have tried it out in Ontario, and as the results are ascertained it is quite likely that it will be carried out in other provinces as well.


Mrs. Strum:: I should like to follow what the hon. member for Winnipeg North has said and suggest that the C.B.C. be used, as it is now being used to give some excellent programs on science, medicine and other subjects which are of wide general interest. It might well be used to take the place of some of the brain-softening soap programs that are on the air in the morning. It would not hurt our own Canadian women to have little citizenship talks as well. If we could have some really good general programs explaining the growth of democratic institutions and the practices that we use to make democracy work it would be all to the good. There is nothing in the world to prevent the C.B.C. from doing for citizenship what it is now doing in these programs for science.


Colin William George Gibson: The C.B.C. has been putting out some very good programs dealing with the problems of immigrants to help them become assimilated when they reach the various parts of Canada.


Mr. Ross (St. Paul's):: Suppose a Canadian woman marries a man who is not a citizen, but is a resident of Canada and is in the process of becoming a citizen. She loses her citizenship as soon as she marries him, does she not?


Colin William George Gibson: No, that is
not correct. That was the case under the former law. Now the Canadian woman, on marriage, retains her right either to keep her citizenship or to assume the citizenship of her husband, whichever she desires. The decision is hers.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: She does not lose her citizenship now?


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Gordon Graydon: I note that the Minister of Mines and Resources is still acting as Secre-

tary of State. I am sure that the Prime Minister, who has just come into the cham-oer, will welcome the opportunity to make an announcement as to when we may expect a seat to be opened up in Newfoundland for ;he new minister so that he will be able to ;ake his place in the house as soon as possible.


Mr. St. Laurent:: As soon as a decision is *eached it will be announced.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: How much has been spent of the imount granted last year? I ask this question >ecause I made the suggestion in the house ast year that an orientation program should >e undertaken, especially in the camps to vhich these people come when they first irrive in Canada. I am pleased to learn that his program is now being carried on aboard hip. I should like to know how much the [ovemment is spending, and whether this is i large program or just a trial?


Colin William George Gibson: I have not hose figures now, but I shall be glad to get hem for my hon. friend and let him have hem.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am referring again o the case I mentioned before, where the roman marries a man who is not a citizen.
understand they cannot acquire citizenship intil the man gets his papers. It is all right or those who marry after 1947, but there are ome who, because of the act, cannot become itizens. Can something be done to correct hat situation?


Colin William George Gibson: Only by an mendment to the act. Naturalization acts .iffer in various countries. In the United Itates a person does not automatically become
United States citizen upon marrying an Lmerican. Consequently a Canadian marry-ig an American did not lose citizenship. In ther countries a woman would automatically cquire the citizenship of her husband, if she Tarried before January 31, 1947. She would ave to apply for Canadian citizenship again, s an alien.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is being done
bout these people? They are in a very nfortunate position, as they were married efore that time. It seems to me there should e an amendment to the act. After all, that ras 1947; this is 1949. Some of those people ave to wait two years before they can ecome Canadian citizens.


Colin William George Gibson: Undoubtedly lat is a matter which will be considered if n amendment is being made to the citizenship ct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Secretary of State Patent and copyright office-
632.	Patent record division-further amount required, $15,000.
Mr. Fleming:: Is the patent office now in a position to give a complete service with regard to the printing and obtaining of drawings? If so, how are the actual printing arrangements now being handled?


Colin William George Gibson: The patent office is now printing patents. They are being printed in the Canada building, under the supervision of the printing bureau, the bureau supplying the printing staff. There is a backlog, .and an effort is being made to pick up some of that backlog of patents which had not been printed since the authority was first granted to have patents printed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the department is now equipped to give the complete service of printing.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, it has now a complete service.


Mr. McKay:: Has anything been done to find more suitable quarters for the patent records division? I think everyone knows that in their present quarters the corridors are used. People go there from all over this country, and I suggest something should be done not only to renovate the quarters but to make them adequate for this important work.


Colin William George Gibson: I agree that the quarters were inadequate, with many of the files out in the corridors. However, that department is now moved to the Canada building, and the quarters are much more satisfactory.


Mr. Jaenicke:: There was a backlog of two years in connection with applications for patents. Has this situation been overcome? What is the backlog now, as compared with two years ago?


Colin William George Gibson: I have not the actual figures, but there has always been a backlog in the patent office. It varies from time to time. Some people say that they know of a patent which has been pending for five years or perhaps for two years. It depends a great deal upon the co-operation received from the solicitor for the applicant as to how long it takes to have a patent issued. Quite often there is no great desire for haste, and there is considerable delay in answering letters. As I said before, there are cases where the department will write to the solicitor, and it may take six months before a reply comes back. In such cases they may be stalling purposely.
There always has been and always will be a backlog. However I cannot say offhand

Supply-Justice
just how many outstanding applications there are at the present time. I do not think however that we are falling behind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
629. To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty-further amount required, $11,343.84.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice under this item. He has had correspondence with Mr. G. E. Blake, dominion secretary-treasurer of the Royal North West Mounted Police Veterans' Association, located at Calgary. That correspondence has to do with the question of retirement and hospitalization needs of senior veterans of the old Royal North West Mounted Police. I shall not go into all the details of the correspondence, for I believe some ground has been cleared as between the minister and the organization.
In a letter which the minister wrote on March 11, he asked for a more definite statement as to what these veterans wanted in the matter of hospitalization. It was encouraging to have the minister ask that question. A statement was made in reply, and perhaps I could place it on record more quickly by reading the pertinent part of the letter:
We ask that the following recommendations may receive not only sympathetic consideration, but approval:
That any former officer, N.C.O., or constable who
(a)	is in receipt of a pension for long service, or
(b)	having less than pensionable service, holds a good discharge, or equivalent proof thereof, or
(c)	has been invalided from the force, either with pension or gratuity, or
(d)	is aged and in straitened circumstances-shall be able to make application for hospitalization and/or treatment at any military hospital, and get it without cost to himself.
And then there is this note:
In the cases of (b) and (c): whose state of health is such that he is unable to earn a living for himself and his dependents.
That letter was written by Mr. A. C. Bury, dominion president, and it is dated at Calgary, March 31, 1949. Would the minister say whether further consideration has been given to the point?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, that correspondence is still continuing. The subject matter is complex and wholly unrelated to the item before the committee. For that reason I did not bring the correspondence with me.
As hon. members will see, item 629 provides for moneys to compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries sustained in the performance of duty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not wholly unrelated, is it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, wholly unrelated. This item before the committee relates to 40 members of the force. It is a type of pension for injury suffered by members of the forces enlisted prior to March 1, 1949. The only purpose of the vote is to provide a sum of money with which to bring those members of the force to a position of parity with those who enlist after March 1, 1949, and for no other purpose. The matter my hon. friend is referring to is one which could properly be raised under the general estimate providing for pensions for the mounted police. For that reason I did not bring down the correspondence and in any event I would rather hesitate to make a statement except as a matter of information.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has this item anything to do with those members of the police who were pensioned prior to the war? Does this give them extra compensation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under this particular vote, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have sustained injuries could be divided into two groups, those who enlisted prior to March 1, 1949 and those who enlisted after that date. The purpose of this vote is to place both groups on the same basis with regard to the pension they would receive for injuries suffered in the course of duty.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will those who were pensioned before the war now receive the same rate of pension as those who were pensioned after that time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They would not but for this vote. The purpose of the vote is to place them on an equal footing.


Mr. McLure:: Last year I brought up the case of a man in my constituency who had lost an arm and at that time the ministei promised that he would look into it to see that he got an increase in his pension. The man's name is Seymour Farquharson.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I wish to move tha1 the committee rise, report progress and asl leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Dominion bureau of statistics-
635. Statistics-further amount required, $41,533.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to say one word of commendation for the excellent work the dominion bureau of statistics is doing, especially in connection with the publication of that monthly journal which so many of us have found invaluable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
638. To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for amounts advanced by it as working capital under mortgage security to George T. Davie and Sons Limited (losses on which advances cannot yet be estimated) for the purpose of enabling that company to complete and to deliver ships to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited, which purchased such ships with funds derived mainly from a loan for this purpose guaranteed by Canada under part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act, $850,000.
Mr. Howe:: Perhaps I had better explain this situation. At the outset I may say it is one that has given the Department of Trade and Commerce a great deal of worry over a long period. The transactions undertaken by the government, which in the result have made necessary this special vote, were carried on under the authority of part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act, 1944. It will be remembered that this act was introduced as part of this government's program in the immediate post-war period, looking to the rehabilitation of the war-torn countries and the maintenance of our export trade. The act was divided into two separate parts, of which the first provided the authority under which the Export Credits Insurance Corporation was established. Part II of the act was the enabling legislation for the extension of government to government credits, as distinct from the credit insurance facilities available to private exporters through the corporation.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
We are not here concerned with the corporations. Part II of the act, the part dealing with government to government credits, made provision for two distinct types of credit facilities. The more important of these was for direct government to government loans, which were authorized to an aggregate of $750 million, of which amounts totaling $594,500,000 were advanced. Full details of these loans have been laid before parliament from time to time by my colleague the Minister of Finance.
The second type of credit facility that was made available under part II of the act was provided by subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of section 22. Under this section the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was permitted to authorize the Minister of Finance to guarantee the obligations of the government or any agency of the government of any such other country to pay the cost of Canadian-produced goods under a contract to purchase such goods from an exporter.
Only two guarantees under the provisions of this particular subsection were made, one of which was subsequently converted into a direct government to government advance. The other guarantee was the transaction with which we are here concerned. Under this transaction the Minister of Finance gave guarantees to a group of Canadian banks in respect of credits provided by them to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited, a Chinese corporation borrowing under the authority of and with the guarantee of the Chinese government. These loans were to enable the company to purchase specially designed ships and other equipment in Canada for use in its shipping operations on the Yangtze river. In accordance with the provisions of the act the Chinese government, having guaranteed the obligations of the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited, requested the Canadian government to do so as well, indemnifying the Canadian government against loss in connection therewith. Total credits made available by the banks were to finance not more than 85 per cent of the program of purchases in Canada of ships and related equipment and services by the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited, and were limited to a maximum of $12,750,000. That is the part that guaranteed the actual transaction; provisions were made for an expenditure of $15 million. Under the terms of the agreement the company was to provide $2,250,000 in cash, making a total purchasing program of $15 million.
The major part of this program consisted of the following three shipbuilding contracts: one contract with St. Lawrence Metal and

Supply-Trade and Commerce Marine Works Incorporated covering four 160-foot L.B.P. Yangtze freight and passenger vessels, and two contracts with George T. Davie and Sons Limited covering two 160-foot vessels and three 270-foot Yangtze freight and passenger vessels. These contracts were negotiated on a firm price basis, with provision for the making of change orders from time to time as might be considered necessary by the purchaser.
Within a few weeks of the signing of the contracts the owner and manager of the Davie yard, Mr. Charles Davie, was killed in a motorcar accident, leaving that yard without experienced management. Construction under these contracts was carried on, but by August, 1948, before any of the ships had been delivered, it was apparent that owing to increases in the cost of materials and labour and as a result of disputes between the builders and the purchaser on the interpretation of specifications and extra charges in respect of change orders, neither yard was prepared nor indeed financially able to fulfil its obligations to make delivery in accordance with the terms of the contract. The yards asked that the original contracts be renegotiated. The Ming Sung company on the other hand demanded its rights to delivery in accordance with the terms of the contracts, refused to renegotiate and claimed inability to increase its over-all $15 million program due to Chinese foreign exchange regulations.


Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Onfario):: When was the original contract made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it was about 1946. Numerous conferences were held between the builders and the purchaser, but it was found impossible to reach an agreement. The purchaser threatened legal action to obtain possession of the ships, relying on a provision in the contracts which gave them the right to enter the yards and complete construction. The yards, on the other hand, threatened a countersuit for extra costs which they claimed were due to them but which the purchaser refused to recognize.
At this point the purchaser and both the yards approached the government in the hope of working out some compromise that would avoid protracted litigation, the probable bankruptcy of both yards and the probability if not the certainty of very substantial losses to the government under its guarantee obligations. Then followed a series of negotiations between the yards, the purchasers and the government. The government's position may be summarized as follows. It had sponsored, by its guarantee, a transaction which in the circumstances threatened to result in the very opposite of the purposes for which the whole post-war program of assist-


ance to war-torn countries had been undertaken-a black eye in the shipping world for the reputation of Canadian shipyards and indeed of Canadian exporters generally; ill will on the part of a country that Canada sought to assist; the certain bankruptcy of two Canadian shipyards; and the very real possibility that the purchaser might, in the face of protracted delays, abandon his interest in the contracts, leaving the government to dispose of specially designed ships which would have little realizable value.
Investigation of the accounts of the yards disclosed aggregate expenditures and firm commitments made by the yards of $10,743,000, and an estimated cost to complete the contracts of $2,703,000, being $2,300,000 in excess of the original contract prices plus agreed extras. It was apparent that the settlement of these excess costs would in equity call for some share to be borne by each of the three parties concerned, the yards, the purchasers and the government. After much negotiation it was agreed as between the government and the Ming Sung company that the company would cancel all items in its original $15 million program for which firm commitments had not been made, being purchases of special equipment, spare parts, et cetera, and would thereby be enabled to pay the resultant savings, amounting to $734,000, in addition to the contract prices and agreed extras. It will be seen that this represented just under one-third of the total extra costs in dispute. The amount of $734,000 was made up of $75,000 in respect of each of the six smaller ships and approximately $94,000 in respect of each of the three larger ships. In consideration of these payments, the government undertook to guarantee delivery of the ships. The St. Lawrence Metal and Marine Works Incorporated accepted settlement on this basis, that is, on payment of an extra $300,000 being $75,000 for each of the four 160-foot ships that it was building, and absorbed the balance of the extra costs that it incurred over the contract prices. It thereupon made delivery to the satisfaction of the purchaser at no cost to the crown.
The George T. Davie Company, however, which had the other contract and which was not so far advanced in construction, advised the government, and substantiated its claim, that it could not complete its contracts without financial assistance. The government, recognizing a measure of responsibility, then undertook to make advances to the Davie company to enable completion of the ships, taking in exchange a first mortgage on the Davie yard. It was recognized that a substantial part of these advances would ultimately have to be written off, but until the

final cost of the ships was determined and the actual loss on the contracts established, a final settlement with the yard could not be made.
To carry out the settlement, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) instructed the Canadian Commercial Corporation to take such action as was necessary to give effect to the foregoing arrangement, and to expedite construction of the vessels under the Davie contracts. The corporation has since that date maintained close technical and financial supervision over the operations of the Davie yard, with the result that delivery has been made of two 160-foot freighters, and two of the three 270-foot vessels. It is expected that the third and last of the large vessels will be completed by June of this year.
On the basis of advances which have been made to date by the Canadian Commercial Corporation to meet the cash deficiencies on operations, and upon statements of estimated cost to completion of the final vessel, the total net advances by the corporation will amount to about $850,000. When the contracts have been completed, the net amount of the government advances determined, and the final costs established by a treasury cost audit, the government will have to write off a substantial part of its advances and make a settlement with the yard which will have regard to the yard's then financial position and future prospects. It is the government's hope that the settlement may be such as to enable the yard to continue as a going concern, the government receiving partial repayment of its advances over a period.
I may say that, before that course was taken, the government's position under every alternative settlement was studied. I am a great believer in taking my losses quickly and avoiding litigation. Had the government not taken that position, there is no doubt the two yards would have gone into bankruptcy and the settlement would have been worked out from that point. I take the full responsibility for the transaction. It was made on my recommendation. I am satisfied today that it was the wisest procedure from the viewpoint of the federal treasury to extricate these yards from the position they were in [DOT]at the time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It
seems to me that there are two questions that arise. First of all, I am going to ask the minister to explain what authority there was for the Canadian Commercial Corporation coming into this picture. I cannot find any authority in the statutes for it.
Before we come to that, however, I wish the minister would explain just a little
Supply-Trade and Commerce further why it was, in the year 1946, when he said these contracts were entered into, when employment was high and so on, the government felt it necessary to risk public money to that extent. Was it for the purpose of maintaining shipbuilding? If so, were these two yards in a special position? Were they without work? Will the minister make clear why it was necessary to go into it? I am inclined to agree with the minister that when you get into a mess of that kind there is a great deal to be said for cutting your losses and getting out of it. The thing that is not clear to me is just why we got into it and, secondly, how any justification was found for using the Canadian Commercial Corporation to fill the breach.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the transactions were entered into in pursuance of legislation passed by this parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the Export Credits Insurance Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; they are all made under that act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That seems perfectly clear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There were two types of transactions made possible by that act. One was government to government loans and the second was contractual arrangements between private parties in each country. A reliable firm of merchants in China, we will say, could make arrangements with shipyards in Canada. This transaction must have the guarantee of the government of China and the government of Canada. This was a transaction of that type. It seemed to me at the time that this was a more desirable transaction than a direct government to government loan.
A private loan with the backing of the government, had the assurance of a contract between a reliable merchant in one country and a private firm in this country, making use of the banking system of both countries as the intermediary. In addition, it had the government guarantee, which is just as good an endorsement, on paper, as is a direct government obligation. I have no reason today to believe that this is not a desirable transaction. The Ming Sung Company is one of the oldest shipping companies in China. The company has enjoyed a favourable reputation for several hundred years, and there is every indication that its obligations will be met when due.
The difficulty was that the situation developed as it did. The possibilities of obtaining further guarantees in China were doubtful. The government was tottering at that time.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Chinese government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Chinese government. In any event, it was felt it would not be desirable to increase the obligations beyond $15 million, which had been arranged. It was arranged that the loss should be shared three ways. The Ming Sung Company cancelled certain contracts it had placed for spare parts and thus raised approximately another $800,000. The audited claims of the shipbuilders were reduced by $800,000, so that two shipyards took a one-third loss and the government took the residual third. The government took a possible loss of $850,000 and for that it has as security a mortgage on one of the shipbuilding yards.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I
understand that part; but I am still not clear as to why in 1946 the government felt it was necessary to step into this situation. Was it because they felt it necessary to provide business for Canadian shipbuilding yards? Why could they not allow ordinary business operations to take care of themselves? As I say, it was a time of high employment. The minister still has not made clear to me what it was that moved the government. Was it a desire to serve China? Was it a desire to serve our own shipbuilding companies, or what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all very well now to say that it was a time of high employment. Those who occupied the opposite benches at that time told us we would be in the depths of a depression in 1946.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But
you were telling us it was a period of high employment, and it has been.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The contracts now before us were made as one of a number of arrangements to try to tide us over a situation which many people believed would be very difficult, the period of demobilization when the men were returning from the war. I say the contract was made in 1946 and I think it was. But I imagine the negotiations were entered into in 1945. At the same time, we negotiated government to government contracts for a number of other ships.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister deal with the other question? I understand fully how the original contract was entered into under the Export Credits Insurance Act, part II. I do not understand where you find any power in' the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act for bringing that corporation into this situation. It seems to me that this situation should have been disclosed and the government should have

obtained some fresh authority to deal with it. I can discover no authority for the Canadian Commercial Corporation to deal with it, and that is what I want to know. As it stands now, it seems to me you have acted without any authority whatever. Will you explain that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament was not sitting when this problem developed. It is sitting now. As soon as parliament resumes we get our authority. We stepped into the breach to protect a government credit of $12 million and to avoid an ugly situation which might well have meant the loss of that amount. It could easily have done so. We stepped into the breach. We did it with the authority of the governor in council, which is the only authority we can get between parliaments for emergency action of that kind. As far as the Canadian Commercial Corporation is concerned, there is authority under the act to carry out the instructions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The corporation acts as the agent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in buying for the armed services.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, for the armed services.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It also acts as agent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for making purchases on behalf of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The
minister says quite truly that they act as the agent of the Department of National Defence for making purchases for that department. But there is no suggestion that this had anything to do with the Department of National Defence. The minister really must get down to the business of pointing out to us where there is some authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It had something to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce, had it not?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You
cannot use the money of the Canadian Commercial Corporation except for certain specific purposes which are set out here. Did the minister or the department not consider its legal position with the Department of Justice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What advice did you get from the Department of Justice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend setting up the thesis that, if a sudden emergency occurs between sessions of parliament, nothing can be done?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am
not setting that up at all. But I am setting up that what has been done seems to have had

no legal justification whatever. I am not saying whether there was some way in which it could have been dealt with or not. I should think possibly there was. But I cannot see that this was the way. I think the minister should take the trouble, if the legal position was considered, to let us know what was said; because as it stands now it seems to me that this is just another of those things really worse than the ordinary order in council. The ordinary order in council does usually have something to back it up. But here the minister has as yet shown no authority of any kind, so far as I can see. Surely we cannot leave it at that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The procedure was worked out by the officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the officers of the Department of Finance. The procedure was agreed between the two departments as the logical one in the circumstances. The approval of council was obtained. I think if my hon. friend will look at the files of this parliament he will find that the order in council has been on file for a considerable period. I shall be glad to get him another copy. I cannot think what more authority we can get.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No,
Mr. Chairman, it is not carried. The minister has not yet answered my question. He just says that they were faced with a difficulty, that they decided they had better deal with it, and the departments got together. I thought he said a moment ago that they had sought the advice of the justice department, but apparently that was not done. I do not think this item should go through yet. I think there should be a further explanation. A further explanation must be given. If they did consult the justice department, we should know the advice that was given. If they did not consult the justice department, it is clear that they should have, and that they have just gone ahead regardless of any authority. I think this item should stand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say here that there is an officer of the Department of Justice attached to the Department of Trade and Commerce and there is also an officer of the Department of Justice attached to the Department of Finance. We had the judgment of those two officers. I do not say we had written opinions. I do not see anything on which we should get an opinion. But in any case we had the advice of the Department of Justice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The
minister says he does not see that there is anything he should get an opinion on. Nevertheless he is faced with the fact that there is not, as far as I can discover, and he has
Supply-Trade and Commerce not shown it to me, a shadow of justification for what has been done. If the law officers or the legal officers in the department were consulted, it is strange to me if there was no written memorandum of any kind. I suggest there may be something further, and I think this item should stand. I do not want to waste the time of the committee but it seems to me to be a very high-handed procedure. We have no desire to drag this committee's work out any more than anyone else but it is clear to me, as far as I can see, that it was a perfectly high-handed action and that we should not acquiesce in it. I think possibly the minister may be able to make out a better case than he has done up to the present time. But as far as I can see, he has made out no case.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think this department is in the same position as any other. We are coming to parliament and asking it to approve or disapprove. If parliament disapproves, the government is defeated. If parliament approves, the item will be confirmed by parliament. But it will not be permitted to stand. It will be dealt with now.


Mr. McMasier:: This is the result of a government guarantee. I have seen statements of this Canadian export company for some years. What surprises me is the low rate they have charged private exporters for their guarantee. As I recall it, the amount was infinitesimal- 002 or something like that. The result is that the Canadian export credit company have no surplus at all. Practically all the money they got in was from interest on bonds which they had purchased from the government. This is a large amount. I should like to know from the minister what rate they charged exporters to guarantee private people's exports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is referring to the insurance corporation, is he not?


William Alexander McMaster: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not the matter that we are discussing. The corporation was formed under the act to which he refers, but there were two parts to the act. There was one part which authorizes transactions of the insurance corporation, and the second part which authorizes direct government to government loans-and I might say that some $600 million was loaned under that provision, government to government-and also includes provision for contracts between private firms with the guarantee of both governments. It was under that third provision that this action was taken.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
To reply to my friend the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, I might say that the assistant deputy minister of justice is a director of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and it was his opinion that the action taken by the corporation was legal and proper for the corporation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In
writing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I have that advice from my deputy minister. It must have been in writing, I should think.


Mr. Williams:: Will the minister give us some information about the experience of the shipbuilding firms? Were they operating as shipbuilding firms during the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Arthur Henry Williams: Did they have contracts from the government during the war for building ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Charles T. Davie was one of our most efficient builders of corvettes and frigates.


Arthur Henry Williams: Charles Davie?


Clarence Decatur Howe: George T. Davie yard. I am mixed up with the owner whose name was Charles Davie. It is the George T. Davie yard. There are two shipyards at Levis, one owned by the Canada Steamship Lines and the other owned by the Davie family. This is the latter. It was an efficient yard, and like all shipyards it was greatly expanded during the war. The St. Lawrence Metal and Marine yard also built a considerable number of corvettes. It is located in the city of Quebec. It was an extremely active shipyard during the war period.


Arthur Henry Williams: Do I understand also that this sum of money that you found it necessary to advance was in 1946?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. It is within the last six months.


Arthur Henry Williams: Within the last six months?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The advance is guaranteed by a mortgage on the company property. The difficulty came when the first deliveries were about to be made. It was found that large sums of money were owing by Davie and by St. Lawrence Metal and Marine. It was found that without intervention from somewhere it was impossible to deliver the boats, because mechanics' liens would have been filed immediately had delivery been attempted at that stage.


Arthur Henry Williams: What surprises me, Mr. Chairman, is that experienced shipping com-

panies of this particular kind, which did nol suffer any particular period of bad business during the earlier years, should almosl immediately on the conclusion of the war find themselves in such difficulties that they could not carry out these contracts and the government had to come to their aid. It is easy enough to run any business in that way if one can just carry on and fall flat upon the government to get it out of the hole. The fact that the government did something of this particular nature is more amazing, if it did it without authority, though I understand the minister to say that he did have an order in council for this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Arthur Henry Williams: Which presumably is his authority. However, it is more surprising still to find out that this much-vaunted private enterprise found itself in such a hole that the government had to come to its rescue to the tune of $850,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unfortunately private enterprise has to be somewhat venturesome. These people ventured in 1946 and took a firm price contract to deliver nine ships. My hon. friend will recognize that the cost of material and labour advanced materially between 1946 and 1948 when the ships were due to be delivered. One of them is not delivered yet.


Thomas John Bentley: If we had had price control we would not have had that trouble.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps that is why we are paying $850,000.


Mr. Castleden:: I was interested in the minister's statement in which he said that the loss was according to the accounting firms of the shipping companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I did not say that.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to know what effort was made by the government to ascertain whether or not the statement of the company as to its losses was correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first thing the government did was to call in a firm of chartered accountants to go through the records of the company from the beginning. The firm of McDonald Currie Company was retained, and no action was taken by the government until a complete report was obtained.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the security of this company behind the mortgage that the government now has?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A first mortgage on the company's real property. What it is worth I cannot say.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister any
approximate figure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I have no idea.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It
seems strange that the minister and I have to delve into these legal matters. Apparently the government finds itself in the position where this business transaction has to be carried out. It is not a matter whether they have power or not, they just do it. The minister seems to think that by passing an order in council they can cure any difficulty in their position. I propose to read the enabling sections of the act because I believe that if hon. members will listen to it they will find out that this transaction does not appear to come anywhere near to being covered. I am reading from section 4 of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act:
The corporation is established for the following purposes:-
(a)	to assist in the development of trade between Canada and other nations, and
(b)	to assist persons in Canada
(i)	to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada; and
(ii)	to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.
I do not think anyone will suggest that what I have read covers what has been done. Section 5 under "powers" makes the situation still clearer. It reads:
(1) The corporation may do such things as it deems expedient for, or conducive to, the attainment of the purposes set forth in section four of this act; and, for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, the corporation may carry on the business of:-
(a)	importing goods or commodities into Canada, and
(b)	exporting goods or commodities from Canada, either as principal or as agent, in such manner and to such extent as it deems advisable to achieve the said purposes.
In the following year the powers of the corporation were broadened. By chapter 51 of 1947 they were given quite a broad additional power, which reads as follows:
17. The corporation may, as directed by the minister, exercise and perform on behalf of the minister, the power, duty and function vested in the minister to buy or otherwise acquire and manufacture or otherwise produce munitions of war or supplies for, and to construct or carry out projects required by, the Department of National Defence.
In other words, this section gives them certain powers to act as agent of the Department of National Defence. Previously they had certain powers with regard to assisting in the import of goods into, and the export of goods from, Canada. Does the minister suggest that what has been done comes within any of these sections? If not, where is the power? Surely the minister is not going to leave us with the suggestion that merely because the government thinks it wise to do something, they proceed to do it regardless of whether this parliament has given them
Supply-Trade and Commerce power or not. That is the position in which he has left us at the moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should be very glad to enter into a legal argument. I think that if this corporation has the power to deal with the building of ships, which it certainly has, because it has done just that, and to deal with ships for the account of foreign purchasers, it has the power to intervene in a contract of that kind. However, I took the opinion of the assistant deputy minister of justice who was acting in his capacity as-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us
see the opinion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I do not know that I have to do that. He is a director of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and he gave it as his opinion that the transaction was within the powers of the corporation. My own departmental solicitor, who is an officer of the Department of Justice, gave the opinion that the transaction was in order from the legal point of view. I relied on those two opinions. If my hon. friend has another opinion I shall consider the fact that he has not practised law very much either.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am
not setting myself up as a lawyer. It does not need a lawyer. It needs only a little common sense to read these things and to see that prima facie they do not cover what has to be done. The minister has become a lot surer about these legal opinions in the last half hour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I just obtained that advice from my deputy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When we first began the discussion I could not make out whether he had any opinion or not. I still think we are entitled to know. Whatever the minister may think about me, there are on this side some hon. members who are quite competent lawyers and I think we are entitled to see the opinion, if one is in writing. If not, maybe we should hear the views of the deputy minister of justice. We would respect his opinion, if that is his opinion. But as it is at present, we are just being treated as we have sometimes been treated before, as people who really need not be answered. The government goes ahead, and it becomes so accustomed to using these powers that it simply does so.


Thomas John Bentley: May I ask the minister a question. I am not going to dispute the legality or otherwise of it. The minister may have given this answer in his statement, which was quite lengthy, and I may have missed it. If so, I should like him to give it again a little more simply and precisely.

Supply-Trade and Commerce Apparently the government came to the rescue of a concern that was in financial difficulties. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, commercial failures have been fairly extensive in the last few years. It is obvious that the government has no intention of coming to the rescue of other commercial enterprises which show indications of failure. What was the peculiar circumstance that brought the government to the rescue in this case, and in what other cases would the government likely come to the rescue of prospective commercial failures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I point out to my hon. friend that the government came to the rescue of itself. The government had guaranteed a $12 million loan to pay for these ships. They did not rescue one shipyard, because after the ships were launched the St. Lawrence Metal and Marine went into receivership. It is in receivership now. The George T. Davie Company turned over to the government all of its physical assets. I do not know that it could have done any more, and its future is pretty well in the hands of the government. It was not to rescue anyone except itself that the government entered into this situation. But if it had not entered in, the ships would not have been delivered. The guarantee of the Chinese government, without ships, would not have been very valuable; and the chances of realizing very much from the sale of the ships which were built to Chinese specifications for a particular trade on the Yangtze river would not have been sufficient to recoup the government to any great extent. I would like to make it clear, though, that the government was helping itself, and no one else.


Thomas John Bentley: I can understand anyone doing anything to help himself. That is common sense. Then, may I ask if the guarantee of the Chinese government is still good, because the government at that time seemed to be more stable than the government of today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I wish to say is that the government of China paid its obligations at the beginning of this year in full, and cfn time. I have considerable confidence that the government of China will continue to do that. It is only an opinion, but I think there is a good deal of evidence to support it.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The minister has told us that the deputy minister of justice is of the opinion, or that he has the opinion of the deputy minister, that this action is within the purview of the statute.
I suggest that the Minister of Justice will not agree with that, and I doubt very much if the deputy minister of justice ever gave such an opinion. Therefore I would like to see the opinion. I have the greatest respect in the world for Mr. Varcoe's opinion, but I do not 
think he ever gave any opinion, as expressed to the committee now by the minister as having come from the deputy minister of justice. The mere fact that he is a director is not important; he is a director of many things, and does not even attend meetings, because he has too many things to do.
I should like to know who it was that, as a lawyer, gave the opinion that this expenditure was within the power of the government under the statute creating the corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that I can say anything more than I have already said. There was the departmental solicitor of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Anger, who was an officer of the Department of Justice; and there was the representative of the Department of Justice on the board of the Canadian Commercial Corporation who, I believe, is Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister himself.


William Alexander McMaster: Should not this have been charged up to the Export Credits Corporation in the first instance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it was a private banking transaction. The loans were actually made by three Canadian chartered banks.


William Alexander McMaster: Are there many other
accounts guaranteed by this corporation which are likely to arrive at the same condition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, this happens to be the only one.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, let us deal with this in an atmosphere of practical common sense. The act, here, is perfectly clear as to the purposes for which this corporation was created. Those purposes are contained in section 4, with a later amendment in the following year providing that this corporation shall have authority to act as purchasing agent on behalf of the Department of National Defence. It has been pointed out-and I am satisfied it is pointed out with accuracy-that the transaction covered by this item does not come within the scope of section 4.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend read section 4 (b) Cii)?


George Alexander Drew: It reads:
To dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and as follows:
The corporation shall comply with any genera] or special direction given by the governor in council or the minister with reference to carrying out its purposes.


George Alexander Drew: Yes-"with reference to carrying out its purposes." But it must be shown that what is being done is within the purposes set out in section 4. It has been contended that they do not come within section 4, and there

is no suggestion of any explanation which would indicate that they do come within that section.
It is not sufficient for a minister of the crown to get up and say, "We think this was a good thing to do." It may be good, or it may be bad. But the first requirement, in dealing with a matter of this sort, is that an explanation be given to the house as to the statutory provision under which the order in council was passed. That is what is being asked now.
It is known to every member of the committee that, if there is a written opinion of Mr. Varcoe, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would send a message to his department that opinion could be brought back here in ten minutes. I do not believe members of the committee should pass this item until the minister is prepared to produce that opinion which, he says, is on file and can be produced in ten minutes, while we are dealing with other matters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. Will my hon. friend concede this, that after this item is passed by this parliament it will be in order in any event.


George Alexander Drew: No, I am not prepared to concede that. And I am glad the minister raised that point, because already we have come to that very idea. You put something forward in the estimates; you pass the estimates, and then have power of a statutory enactment of the House of Commons. Members of the house have a duty to know on what basis they are dealing with estimates when subsequently they acquire statutory power. The Auditor General has pointed out already in his very last report the tendency of this government to deal with matters without examining what the statutory power is. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is well aware that in the last report of the Auditor General there are several reports of transactions of this very kind, carried out with the statutory authority of an order in council, and without adequate coverage by the act itself.
Surely, if there is an opinion of the deputy minister of justice to the effect that this procedure is within the act, the House of Commons is entitled to have that opinion. If it is not yet in written form it could be put in written form in a short time. But surely in a matter of this kind, with a transaction dealing with a guarantee under a mortgage, there must have been some written record, and it should be before us.


William Henry Golding: Is the item carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Henry Golding: Item 639.


Some hon. Members:: No.
29087-154i
Supply-Trade and Commerce


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it
is not carried.


Mr. Abbott:: Vote on it.


George Alexander Drew: Is there going to be no attempt whatever by anyone on the government side of the house to indicate to the committee the statutory power which enables them by order in council to perform a transaction of this kind?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Sections 4 and 5 of the act.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to, on division.
642. Incentive bonus to industry to expedite the production of strategic building materials-further amount required, $135,000.
John Oliver Probe: From time to time the Minister of Trade and Commerce has announced in the house incentive bonuses to various industries for various purposes in connection with the urgent needs of Canadian consumers. My understanding of most of these incentive bonuses is that there has been a payment on the part of the government to certain industries, and that that has been the end of the matter. No guarantee is forthcoming from the industry as to what will be the quid pro quo so far as the Canadian consumer is concerned. I am willing to stand corrected if my understanding is wrong.	What industries
are concerned in this sum of $135,000 asked in addition to the amount passed last session? What amount goes to each of the industries, and what is the quid pro quo to be received for guaranteeing these sums?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were anxious to obtain additional toilet equipment and also additional foundry products. Both were vitally needed in the house-building program. In order to obtain increased production it was necessary to expand the plant. We wished to have no part in the cost of expansion, but we did offer a bonus of two cents per pound for additional production over a period which ended December 31, 1948. It was estimated that the Port Hope Sanitary Manufacturing Company Limited would produce 8,500,000 pounds; they actually produced 8,100,000 pounds and received a bonus of $162,000, which was inside the estimate. The production of the Anthes-Imperial Company was approximately 17,000,000 pounds, with the bonus amounting to $340,000. The original estimate was for only 10,400,000 pounds or $208,000, which meant that there was a balance payable of $132,000 under the terms of the contract.


John Oliver Probe: Was this solely for bathtubs?
2438	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, for soil pipe and foundry-products for housing.


John Oliver Probe: Was the bonus made available to any company that wished to apply for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, any company in the business.


John Oliver Probe: It will be concluded with this payment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all wound up.


Mr. Nicholson:: There was quite a large vote for Crane Limited?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the Port Hope Sanitary.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I discussed this matter in the house some years back at a time when $10,000 houses were being offered for sale with extra plumbing equipment. When a subsidy of this sort is provided, does the government endeavour to find out whether the plumbing supplies are being made available for rural and low-cost housing or whether they are going into luxury hotels and housing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The plumbing fixtures were Touted into priority housing, which my hon. friend knows is low-cost housing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Was there any way of knowing whether Crane Limited, which got a subsidy of $400,000, were using that subsidy in order to make material available for the type of house that was advertised as having an extra bathroom? It seems to me that the man who is installing two bathrooms in a 'house should not receive the benefit of a subsidy from the government. If the subsidy was being used to make plumbing material available for rural housing, where there was no plumbing, or for low-cost housing, with a view to getting the cost down, then I think there would be some justification; but I do not think we should be asked to vote a subsidy or a bonus to be used to provide additional bathroom facilities where one bathroom would do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no doubt that a considerable expansion was necessary both in the toiletware field and in the soil-pipe field. My hon. friend knows that those were the two great bottlenecks in housing two or three years ago. Today there is an ample supply of both owing to the fact that plant facilities have been extended, and as a consequence of this subsidy to which I have made reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has given a complete list of the firms that have received subsidies under this grant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just the two firms.
I Mr. Probe.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the subsidy exhausted or are there any contracts outstanding for the payment of subsidies that would create a contingent liability?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the subsidies were terminated on December 31, 1948.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it contemplated that the department will be looking for further opportunities to enter into such contracts for the expansion of production of building materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the house building supply field is fairly well in balance and seems to be taken care of.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister give us an estimate of the capital cost involved in the expansion undertaken?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not say, except that I do know that it was considerably in excess of the amount received by way of subsidy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
643. Departmental administration-further amount required, $25,000.
Howard Charles Green: I understand that earlier this week the House of Commons in the United Kingdom approved the international convention on safety of life at sea and I was wondering if the Minister of Transport could explain to the house Canada's position with regard to that convention. This press article indicates that so far the United Kingdom is the only country that has approved the convention.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I do not know that I can tell the hon. gentleman a great deal at this stage. The convention has not been submitted to the house although it has been tabled. There are one or two methods that could be followed in order to have it ratified. One method would be amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and another would be to place on the order paper a resolution recommending the adoption of the convention. If Canada decides to implement the convention there will be an item in the estimates in order that this matter may be fully discussed.


Howard Charles Green: Has Canada actually signed the convention?


Lionel Chevrier: The convention has been signed by the delegation, yes, subject to ratification.


Howard Charles Green: How long ago?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think, ten months
ago. I tabled the convention approximately a week after the opening of the session.


William Henry Golding: The item before the committee has to do with telephones, telegrams, postage, printing, stationery and so on, and the discussion should be confined to those things.


Howard Charles Green: With all due deference, I submit that that is a new ruling. We are dealing with the administration item and on all other such items in these supplementary estimates the discussion has not been confined to the actual articles which were to be paid for. I submit that to make a ruling of that kind now would mean that the same thing would apply to the general estimates, which would mean a complete breaking down of the practice which has been followed in dealing with estimates.
The matter I am raising is of great importance on the west coast. Representations are being made to us, as the minister knows, as to whether or not there should be radio operators on the ships. A practice has been followed by some shipping companies of using what they call a combined operator which means that the particular person will have more than one job. At one time he will be looking after the wireless and at another time he will be checking freight or doing some other job about the ship.
There would seem to be considerable danger that a shipwreck will occur because of these radio operators being asked to do more than look after the radio equipment and signals. I understand that radio telephones are being used a great deal and the suggestion is being made that they should replace the wireless. One difficulty with the radio telephone is that in case of accident it cannot be used to communicate with a ship which may be close by. This whole situation is causing uncertainty which may result in the loss of life. I hope the situation is not that serious, but I believe that possibility exists. If this convention is approved by Canada I understand that difficulty will be met, and that then we will have regulations calling for a wireless operator to be on duty. So the whole question is very important. The minister has said that if we approved the convention we probably would require amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. I would hope that whatever steps are to be taken could be taken without further delay, because of the fact that the possibility of loss of life is involved.


Lionel Chevrier: I have received, as have the departmental officials, representations concerning the point brought up by the hon. member; but in order to meet that point, which of course is important, the Canada Shipping Act would have to be amended, as
Supply-Transport
I said a moment ago, either by implementing all the recommendations of the safety of life at sea convention or by bringing down a resolution to that effect. One of the terms of the safety of life at sea convention stipulates that a country ratifying the convention need not do so before 1951. It is a voluminous document, as my hon. friend knows, and the officers of my department feel that before they deal with it substantially they should give it careful consideration. It is not the intention, at this time at least, to amend the Canada Shipping Act; but I believe the officers have in mind the point raised by the hon. member and will do whatever can be done without bringing into effect for the time being the recommendations of the convention.


Howard Charles Green: How can that situation be met without an amendment of the Canada Shipping Act?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know of any way it could be done without amending the act, but the officers of my department are looking into the position to ascertain what can be done.


Howard Charles Green: We also have complaints of infractions of the Canada Shipping Act as it stands at present; that some of the shipping companies are not living up to the act and nothing is being done about it. I wonder if the minister would see that his department makes a check in regard to these complaints. It may be that some of the danger could be avoided by having a closer check on the operation of the ships at the present time and under the present act.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to have that done.


Mr. Hacketi:: The minister will remember that last year a statute was passed which lifted from the Canada Shipping Act some seventy-odd sections, many of which had to do with the safety of crew and passengers. I am referring in particular to the qualification of officers, provisions with respect to the loading of ships, and things of that nature. By the statute they were made subject to revocation by order in council; and the minister will remember that there was a rather protracted discussion on the bill. Is he in a position to state which if any provisions of the Canada Shipping Act have been suspended by order in council as a result of the legislation of 1948?


Lionel Chevrier: Under the legislation to which my hon. friend refers, the minister has to lay on the table of the house a list of those cases in which action has been taken thereunder; and I have already done that.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Young:: I should like to ask the minister a question in reference to the gear on board vessels for the purpose of loading and unloading. Does that come under his department as subject to inspection?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There will be an item a little later on dealing with steamship inspection, and perhaps the hon. member will bring up his question then.


John Oliver Probe: Under this item I should like to make a correction, offer an apology and ask a question, if I may. Last Monday, at page 2311 of Hansard, I referred to certain telegrams from officials of government departments to members of parliament, dealing with official matters, which had been sent collect. While referring to specific departments I mentioned the Department of Labour and in particular the deputy minister of labour. My good friend the Minister of Labour came over here in about ten seconds flat and in his kindly way, if I may use his phrase, told me he thought I was wrong. I looked up my files and was unable to find any telegrams sent collect by the deputy minister of labour. The telegrams in question were from the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Mines and Resources, sent to me collect on official business. May I ask the Minister of Transport, under this item which has to do with telephones, telegrams and postage, whether his department is in the habit of sending collect telegrams to hon. members in the course of handling official correspondence.


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure my hon. friend that we are not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service-
644.	Canals service 

 administration - further amount required, $3,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the minister had brought to his attention the fact that there is a tremendous pile of mud right at the arboretum at the experimental farm, which is very unsanitary and unsightly? It is between Dow's lake and Hartwell's locks, and I should like to know what the department is going to do about it. It will have to be taken out if you are going to put water in the canal. It is an unsightly mess and a disgrace, and I wonder if the minister would look into the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: It had not been brought to
my attention, but I shall see that it is brought to the attention of my officers immediately.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A couple of years ago I brought to the attention of the minister the condition of the retaining walls in a certain section of the canal, which were not in very good

shape, and tfte minister had them fixed up. If he will tell his officers to go along a bit they will find that the walls further on are also in bad shape and in need of repair, and this should be looked after also.


Lionel Chevrier: We have been proceeding gradually with this repair work, and it will take some time to complete it.


William Henry Golding: I would point out that this item has to do with telephones, telegrams and postage, traveling expenses, stationery and so on. Shall the item carry?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No. I should like to know whether this service is operated at a deficit or whether a profit is earned by the operation of these canals. This never appears as a deficit; it is only shown as a service. When we come to the operation of some ferries, for instance, they are always shown as a deficit. I want to know the difference between the term "service" and the word "deficit." This really should appear as a deficit in connection with the operation of the canals. Then I should like to know whether the dominion government owns the canals or whether they are owned by the provinces, and whether they are operated by the Department of Transport. I should like to have the point cleared up, to see whether there is a difference between a service and a deficit; then we can argue the other matter later.


Lionel Chevrier: The item we are dealing with is neither a profit nor a deficit. It is an operating expense in the amount of $3,000. That is the manner in which the accounts having to do with canals and marine services are established. They are not established on a basis of an operating agency such as a car ferry. I suppose that is what my hon. friend has in mind. So far as canals are concerned, they are the property of the dominion government, not of the province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I just wanted to ask the minister a question about the Chignecto canal. I noticed an item the other day to the effect that the government was giving favourable consideration to investigating the possibility of constructing the Chignecto canal. I should like to hear the minister make a statement about that.


Lionel Chevrier: I have nothing to say on the subject. I have received a number of petitions and they are being considered at the moment. I am not in a position at this time to tell my hon. friend what will be done eventually.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the department giving it favourable consideration?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend that, either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
645.	Canals-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $71,470.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will this amount appear as a capital charge also or is this for a loss on operations?


Lionel Chevrier: It is exclusively for operation and maintenance of the canal system. It is a further amount required.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This will be a deficit, then?


Lionel Chevrier: It is neither a deficit nor a surplus.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is it?


Lionel Chevrier: This is an expenditure for operation and maintenance.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: These are operating expenses.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If it does not bring in revenue to the government, then it must be a deficit or a loss. The minister has not yet made this clear to me. He has not made it clear to me what is considered a deficit on services. When we come to vote 660, I suppose we will find it is termed a deficit. That is contrary to the terms under which the province of Prince Edward Island entered confederation in 1873. When we come to that item, I will argue that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
646.	Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers-further amount required, $62,700.
Clarence Gillis: I have two matters I want to bring to the minister's attention under this vote. One of them I have been writing to his department about for approximately four years, but the other one just came up last year. This vote of $62,700 is for the construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation. This is a supplementary amount.
Some four years ago I took up with the Department of Transport the question of removing a number of old sunken hulls that are obstructing navigation in Sydney harbour. They are an eyesore. I have been following that matter up ever since. Within the last couple of months a committee was formed in the city of Sydney for the purpose of having that unsightly mess cleaned up. They wanted the Department of Transport to permit one of their dredges operating in that area either to tow these old hulls to sea or to smash them up in the harbour and allow them to
Supply-Transport
float to sea. There are certain times of the year when the dredge is laid up anyway, and it would not cost the department anything.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


Clarence Gillis: Well, perhaps a little bit of fuel. That is what the department was asked to do. After four long years of agitation and negotiation, the department finally sent a letter about a month ago to the effect that it could not accept any responsibility in the matter. It was a matter for the city to handle.
The city did not sink those ships in the harbour. Harbours come under the Department of Transport. In some cases these old hulls are an interference with navigation. This vote is for aids to navigation. I suggest that the department might spend $15 of the $62,000 to break up these old hulls or tow them out to sea. It is a matter of co-operation. An election may be held this year and cleaning up that mess might help you.
I now deal with the other matter. In many of the harbours, particularly where there are narrow channels, the department sets out buoys to guide ships in and out of the harbour. About four months ago a swordfish fisherman with a boat and equipment which represented about four or six thousand dollars was going out of the harbour at four o'clock in the morning. At that time it is not daylight. One of those buoys that are placed there by the Department of Transport as an aid to navigation broke loose from its moorings owing to lack of proper inspection. The fisherman ran his boat into that buoy and smashed the boat. He lost much equipment and his total loss amounted to approximately $1,500. He felt, and I agree, that he should be compensated for that loss. His boat is tied up and he is losing about a month or so of that particular season, which is a short one. He considers fifty per cent of the damage should be paid by the department.
This fisherman hired a solicitor who made application to the legal department of the Department of Transport. The legal department advised he had no claim upon the government; at least that is the letter I received from the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Clarence Gillis: I will send it back to the minister to refresh his memory.


Lionel Chevrier: You need not send it back. I remember it very well and I will deal with it in a moment.


Clarence Gillis: All right. This man went to a solicitor. His solicitor dealt with the legal department. The legal department informed the solicitor that there was no claim. The

Supply-Transport
solicitor for the fisherman sent all the correspondence to me and I put it in an envelope and mailed it to the minister, asking him to check on the matter. The letter the minister wrote to me merely confirmed the decision the solicitor had received from the legal department. Under those circumstances I think the government is morally and legally obligated to compensate that man because it was owing to neglect on the part of a departmental official in failing to inspect the buoy that the man suffered this loss.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the two matters to which my hon. friend has made reference are not as easily disposed of as he implies. With reference to the first matter, may I say that no one detests sunken craft more than I do when I see them in our rivers and harbours. It is not as easy to dispose of them as the member believes. He seems to be under the impression that all one needs to do is to tow them out into the channel and dispose of them without more ado.
I do not know the particular facts to which he refers, but I do know the general picture in the department. It is as follows: Very often these craft are sunk by people who have no further use for them. Then these people go into bankruptcy. Under the act we are required to notify them to remove the craft. When they do not remove the craft, then we have to take action and very often the cost is high.
My hon. friend complains about what is happening in his constituency. I can tell him what is happening in my own constituency and in the adjoining constituency of Glengarry. A large number of craft have been lying there for at least twenty years because the owners will not remove them or have gone out of business, cannot be found, or have gone into receivership. There are so many matters that come into the picture, it is not so easy to dispose of these craft as one would imagine. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the officers of the Department of Transport are extremely anxious to get rid of these craft wherever it is possible. There are some cases where it can be done and it is done.
With regard to the buoy that was displaced by a storm, there are legal officers in the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice also advises the other departments of government. As a matter of fact we accept the advice of the Department of Justice. In this case, that department ruled that the moving of the buoy was an act of God and that there was no legal liability on the Department of Transport.


Clarence Gillis: There is not much justice there. tMr. Gillis.]


Lionel Chevrier: So I wrote to my hon. friend stating that I was extremely sorry-I am sure I must have told him that-that under the circumstances there was nothing I could do, since there was no legal responsibility. I wish there were some way in which I could help my hon. friend, but legally there is not.


Clarence Gillis: I have heard everybody else blamed, but now we are getting around to having it blamed on God. I think there is something that can be done. I agree that-many of the harbours across Canada have been cluttered up with these ships for twenty years, simply because you have not the kind of legislation which permits you to clean them up. In this particular case the owners of these hulls had been canvassed by a committee from the city council and they said that as far as they were concerned they had no interest in them. They said, "Do what you like with them." That rules out the technicality that the owner is responsible or that legal action must be taken to have them removed. Why do you not change the act and notify anyone in this country who has that kind of mess in any harbour that, if within thirty days he does not do something about it, you will clean it up yourself? You can do that. It is a matter of amending the legislation.
In the other case, I do not know who made the decision but I do not think there is any justice. If the department is responsible for placing the buoy there as an aid to navigation, then there certainly should be some inspection. On the night that buoy went adrift, there was little disturbance in the ocean, as I remember it, because I happened to be at home at the time. I think myself it just lay there for so long without anyone looking after it that whatever was holding it there rusted and rotted away and it went adrift.
This man I know was claiming only half the damage he suffered to his boat and gear. In addition to that, he lost that swordfishing season, which meant perhaps $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 to him. All he was asking for was enough to put that boat back in shape. This is his means of livelihood, I believe the minister should yet reconsider the matter. I can quite understand that an official of the Department of Justice who perhaps has resided here all his life, who has had little to do with the fishing industry and has no conception of it, might, on the basis of a law passed fifty years ago, make a decision that certainly has no application to the kind of thing that I am talking about. I know the minister is a good lawyer, and I have always found him to be a fairly reasonable person. I suggest that he might take a look at the matter again and try to persuade whoever made the decision that, though it may

be in keeping with a law written long ago, it is unjust under present conditions. I know the minister will do that, and I hope that I will hear from him shortly to the effect that those two things are cleared up.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not want the hon. gentleman to go away with a false impression that the decision was made on the law that existed thirty years ago. The decision was made on the law as it exists today.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but it was written thirty years ago.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a question of the law written thirty years ago; it is a question of the law as it exists today.


Clarence Gillis: But you have never changed it for thirty years.


Mr. Archibald:: Every time I listen to a discussion concerning the Department of Transport on matters dealing with lighthouse keepers, buoys and so on I notice that we always come back to what the lawyers say about it. But if it is about farmers, we get social legislation right across the board. Out on the west coast the lighthouse keepers are not getting a square deal in the salaries they receive, the conditions under which they work or the services that are given to them in the way of ships calling at various times, and it all wound up in the disaster of that Egg Island lighthouse which I outlined in the debate on the speech from the throne.
I should like to see a rise in salary for the lighthouse keepers, more adequate services to the lighthouses, and better and stronger buildings built in and around these lighthouse structures.


Howard Charles Green: Some weeks ago a petition was sent in to the Minister of Transport signed by quite a large number of fishermen on the west coast asking that the department place a light on the northerly shore of Nigei island on the south side of Queen Charlotte sound. Apparently such a light would be of great benefit to the fishing vessels and to the fish packers. Has the minister received that petition? If so, will it be possible to have that light installed during the present year?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no recollection of it, but I will see that the matter is looked into immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
649. Steamship inspection-further amount required, $5,000.
Rodney Young: A few minutes ago I asked the minister whether this matter came under his department; I refer to the looking after of gear on board ship for the unloading of car-
Supply-Transport
goes. Is it true that there are only two safety inspectors for the purpose of inspecting that gear in the port of Vancouver at the present time? Their district includes north Vancouver and the docks around the north shore of Burrard inlet. The amount of work that has to be done there calls for actually six or eight inspectors, if it is to be adequately carried out. I do not intend to try to describe to the minister what he knows in his own department better than I do: that is, the difficulty of inspecting tackle which is elevated at some distance off the deck in some cases, and the time that is taken up in such inspections. But on the Vancouver waterfront at the present time, if an inspector is not available, very often the foreman in charge of the longshore gang is asked whether he has any objection to the longshore crew working with the tackle, and he is under some kind of pressure from the companies employing the men not to hold up the work unduly. I believe that the safety measures taken are inadequate, and that the lack of these safety measures is the cause of the high rate of accidents among the longshore fraternity. Would it be possible for the minister to consider increasing in the near future the number of inspectors who have the job of examining the equipment on board ship under federal jurisdiction, since I am assured by him that that equipment does come under his department? It is essential for the safety of these workers that something be done as soon as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a request for an additional number of ship inspectors in the department-I cannot tell my hon. friend how many, but I would think about fourteen-to be distributed across Canada.


Rodney Young: Eight or ten across Canada are not very many. I know it is better than nothing and I am grateful for what the minister has said.


Lionel Chevrier: There are fifty-six already.


Rodney Young: As I say, we have two at the port of Vancouver; and if there are to be eight or ten more, our percentage out of that number would not be great. My suggestion to the minister was that the present number of two be increased to six for the port of Vancouver. The minister knows the number of docks and wharves there are in that port and the distance that has to be covered. If the inspector has to go from the Vancouver side to the north Vancouver side it is a matter of an hour's journey before he reaches the dock where he is called or where his duties take him. For an area of that size and the amount of shipping there is in that port, an increase of one, while it would be welcome,

Supply-Transport
would hardly be sufficient, at least in the opinion of the men who do the work and who made the representations to me.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to give it consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
650. River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital-further amount required, $206,600.
with these estimates and is one reason why no hon. member can correlate them to the point where one knows what one is talking about.
Lionel Chevrier: All my hon. friend needs to do is to add up the two items which I gave him and he will find that the amount I mentioned, namely, $206,600 is the difference between the two. I have said it three times already.


Alan Cockeram: In the estimates last year there appeared $495,278. That was an increase of $227,118 over the previous year. We are now asked to vote another $206,600. It seems to me that this is one of these departments where we get pretty frivolous with the taxpayers' money. Since there is an increase over the previous year of this amount of money I wonder whether the minister will tell us who has this contract and why this amount of money has to be voted at this stage.


Lionel Chevrier: The contract was awarded to Marine Industries Limited for the dredging of the ship channel, extending from the port of Montreal to below Quebec city. The contract provides for the termination of the work in a period of five years. The contractor has the option within any year of doing 20 per cent of the work, and 20 per cent of the work for this year amounts to $2,939,551, or one-fifth of the five-year contract. There was voted in the current fiscal year $2,732,951. There is therefore under the terms of 'the contract, as I stated, a balance of $206,600 owing, if the contractor chooses to do that amount of work. He had not completed it all when the estimates were voted at the last session. He has done so since and that is why the amount is in the estimate.


Alan Cockeram: I may be pretty bad on arithmetic, but I cannot get these figures. The minister talked about $2,939,551 bein'* the total cost of this scheme.


Lionel Chevrier: No; I said that 20 per cent of the contract, or one-fifth of it, amounted to $2,939,551. That is the amount of work that the contractor is entitled to do in any one year. He has done that but he has not received that amount of money. He has been paid $2,732,951, and the difference is the amount in the estimate.


Alan Cockeram: I should like to know how the minister gets that $2 million odd which the contractor has been paid. I have not my own estimates here but I take it that the total in the estimates up to date is $495,278. If those items can be made to jibe with what the minister has given us I shall be happy. The minister is now asking for $206,600, which makes a total of $701,838. These figures do not jibe at all. That is one of the troubles


Alan Cockeram: I know the minister has, but his bookkeeping is different from mine.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member is a stockbroker.


Alan Cockeram: If the minister will tell us the items that make up this one item we can get the figures that he speaks of.


Lionel Chevrier: I told the hon. gentleman a moment ago that Marine Industries Limited were given a five-year contract to dredge the ship channel.


Alan Cockeram: I have got that here, and the figure is $2,939,000.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not say that. I told my hon. friend that under the contract they were entitled to do one-fifth of the work each year, and that 20 per cent or one-fifth of the work came to the figure which I gave which was $2,939,551. That is one-fifth of the total contract. In the main estimates last year $2,732,951 was voted. There is therefore a balance of $206,600 left to which these contractors are entitled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-mail subsidies and steamship subventions-western local services- 651. Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte islands, service between-further amount required $147,935.	'
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between-further amount required $171 -065.	'
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between-further amount required, $60,000.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain to which company the first two items were paid, the amount of $147,935 and $171,065?


Lionel Chevrier: I speak from memory. I think it is the Union steamship company.


Howard Charles Green: May I have the amount paid to each.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. On the western route- that is Prince Rupert and Queen Charlotte islands service, $147,935.


Howard Charles Green: To whom was that paid?


Lionel Chevrier: To the Union Steamships Limited. On the Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia and the service between those ports, $171,065. Again that is

Union Steamships Limited. On the route Victoria and west coast Vancouver Island service and between the intermediate ports, $60,000; that is the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Howard Charles Green: After all, these are supplementary estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Subsidies were provided in the main estimates. On what basis are these extra amounts provided?


Lionel Chevrier: Almost exclusively on the increased costs of labour and materials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
654. Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,150,000 already appropriated to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1948-49 of the difference (estimated by the board of transport commissioners for Canada and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport, as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1948 under the tariffs approved by the following companies: Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway, including Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company, and New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; Cumberland Railway and Coal Company; Dominion Atlantic Railway; Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company; Sydney and Louisburg Railway; Temiscouata Railway Company-further amount required, $98,486.22.
Clarence Gillis: Has the minister any idea what amount was paid by way of subsidy and subvention to the Sydney and Louisburg Railway in the year 1948?


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell my hon. friend what was paid under this vote for the year 1948. It was $1,248,000, and the Sydney and Louisburg Railway got a portion of it but I have not a breakdown of it. If my hon. friend wants it I can get it and give it to him later.


Clarence Gillis: It comes within the Maritime Freight Rates Act?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air service-civil aviation division-*
656.	Contribution to the international civil aviation organization as Canada's portion of the financial assistance to the government of Iceland in respect of the provision, operation and maintenance of certain air navigation services, $122,000.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is a contribution which Canada makes to the government of Iceland in respect of the provision, operation and maintenance of certain aids to air navigation on the north Atlantic. It is a contri-
29087-155J
Supp ly-Transport
bution which Canada made in 1948. It was in May of that year, too late to be included in the estimates. This is an international obligation divided among a number of countries. Canada pays 9-3 per cent; the United Kingdom, 11-11 per cent; Sweden 2-8 per cent; Denmark 1-8 per cent; the Netherlands 5-6 per cent and the United States 61-7 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: Are they annual payments?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, this payment of $122,000 covers the period ending December 31, 1948, and $12,000 for the first quarter of 1949. The cost for 1949 will be $50,000.


Howard Charles Green: The other evening I suggested
to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that a statement should be made by the government in the near future on Canada's international aviation policy. The last statement was made by him back in 1944, and we have had nothing since that time to indicate whether there has been any change in the policy, or what it is at the present time.
I believe it is of importance, because just two days ago there was a press dispatch from Washington to the effect that the United States government considers the Canadian-American air transport agreement obsolete. That press dispatch goes on to set out a statement made by Mr. Garison Norton, assistant secretary of state for communications in the United States. He said;
Renegotiation of the agreement is an important and outstanding problem.
Apparently the present agreement was negotiated in February of 1945. He continues:
Our present Canadian transport agreement is an obsolete document which goes back some years and which, for various reasons, we have never been able to have brought into the form in which we have most of our air transport agreements today.
Then the article sets out that Newfoundland's union with Canada is believed to have brought the question to a head. It goes on to state;
Various air lines which use the huge airport at Gander, Newfoundland, now under Canadian jurisdiction, are reported wondering what is to become of their rights there.
The Canadian government has notified them that their existing rights-although not covered in the Canadian-American agreement-will remain in force until June 30, pending a permanent decision.
The fact that Gander airport now comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government makes it very important that we know what Canada's policy is on international aviation. Would the minister tell us whether this press dispatch from Washington is correct, and whether any negotiations are now under way with the United States government? Perhaps after the Easter recess he

Supply-Transport
could make a statement to the house giving the Canadian government's international aviation policy.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to interrupt his trend of thought by stating that I now have the statement for which the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked a moment ago. The amount paid to the Sydney and Louisburg Railway was $324,343 in 1948.
Then, reverting to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver South, let me say I have no doubt the house is entitled to a full statement on the position of ICAO, and on government policy generally. However, I suggest this would not be the proper time to discuss it, because if the hon. member would look closely at the item he would see that it is not really a matter on which the subject could be discussed.
I would be prepared however to make a statement after the Easter recess. I could make it now, but I believe it would take too long. In order to deal satisfactorily with this matter it would take some little while. However with respect to the position at Gander, now that the union has been accomplished the position has changed. It is the intention to bring the policy with reference to aviation at Gander in line with the Canadian policy. In other words, it is a fact that we will be entering into negotiations with foreign aircraft corporations and with companies from the United States. We will probably be dealing with the governments of those countries, through the Department of External Affairs, so that the policy in air matters will be uniform all across the board.
The position at Gander is such that the present rights have been extended for a period of three months from the date of union, and they will expire at the end of June. The position is the same with reference to the United States. So that during chat time negotiations will be carried on. They have already been started. Some will be continued during the Easter recess, and it is hoped that satisfactory arrangements will be reached with foreign air carriers and foreign countries having rights at Gander, as well as with trans-border services going into the United States during that time. I am hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be made with those countries.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister make a detailed statement on the international aviation policy after the Easter recess?


Lionel Chevrier: I have it fully in mind to make a complete statement on the whole position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it fair to say the likelihood is that foreign aircraft will have the same 
freedoms at Gander under the new agreement that they have at other Canadian airports?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: More or less, then?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, we will wait and hear the statement.


Lionel Chevrier: That will depend upon the rights Canada will acquire elsewhere.


Alan Cockeram: In view of the minister's statement, are we right in voting this money?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Alan Cockeram: Who said yes? Inquire into it before you say yes. In view of the minister's statement, are we justified in voting this amount of money for the purpose indicated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is ICAO.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
657.	Issue of radio receiving licences-(Transport Department only)-further amount required. $23,800.
Alan Cockeram: No, item 656 is not carried.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I need answer the question because, in the first place, the vote has been passed; and in the second place the recommendation is that it be passed. If parliament decided it should not be passed, then our aircraft would not have the advantage of these aids to air navigation on the way to Great Britain and back.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: We are discussing item 657.


Alan Cockeram: No, I am on item 656.


Lionel Chevrier: It was carried.


An hon. Member:: You missed the bus.


Alan Cockeram: The minister has got ahead of his time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If we are discussing item 657 involving the sum of $23,800, it will be noted that the largest part of that item is $20,000 which appears as payments to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in lieu of commissions to issuers. It will be recalled that about a year and a half ago the system was changed. Until that time the cost of collecting the licence fees was deducted from the licence fees collected, and the net amount paid over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. About a year and a half ago by a majority vote of this house it was decided that the gross amount of the licence fees col-

lected should be paid to the C.B.C. and that the taxpayers should bear the cost of collection. I presume that this item of $20,000 represents the additional cost of collection. Can the minister give the gross amount collected by way of licence fees during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949, and the cost of collecting those fees?


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member allow that question to stand? I have the information here somewhere but not just immediately before me.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is there any reason for issuing licences for private radios apart from collecting money for the C.B.C.?


Lionel Chevrier: I think there is, yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is the reason?


Lionel Chevrier: That was decided a long time ago, yet my hon. friend raises this question every time this vote comes up. It was decided that a fee of $2.50 would be charged for radio receiving sets. My hon. friend may not like it, but its collection is the responsibility of the Department of Transport.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is not my question. I want to know what reason there is for this licence fee apart from the collecting of funds for the C.B.C.


Lionel Chevrier: In order to get revenue for the department.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is the only reason there is?
Item stands.
General-
658.	Expenses of the royal commission on national transportation, $10,000.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Could the minister give us the personnel of the royal commission on national transportation?


Lionel Chevrier: The chairman is the Hon. Mr. Turgeon, who was recently high commissioner for Canada in Eire. The other members are Professor Innis of the university of Toronto and Professor Angus of the university of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Is this the only amount being voted for the expenses of this royal commission?


Lionel Chevrier: I think it is.


Howard Charles Green: Is there an item in the estimates for 1949-50?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How much?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps my hon. friend could look it up.
Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: I have not the estimates here. When will this royal commission commence its hearings?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that a meeting took place this morning between the chairman, if not the full commission, and the counsel for the provinces who have just completed argument in the application for a twenty per cent increase in freight rates before the board of transport commissioners, and my information is that the first hearing will take place early in May.


Howard Charles Green: Will that be a public hearing?


Lionel Chevrier: That will be the first public hearing, which I believe will be in the city of Ottawa, and then I understand the commission will proceed across the country.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that there is no item in the main estimates for the expenses of this commission. Is the minister sure that there is something provided for the commission?


Lionel Chevrier: If there is not, there will have to be an item in the supplementaries because the commission certainly cannot carry on without expenditures and I can assure my hon. friend they will be far more than $10,000.


Howard Charles Green: It is just one year ago today that the Minister of Transport announced in the house that the government had instructed the board of transport commissioners to review the whole freight rate structure of Canada, having in mind particularly any discriminations that might exist. Can the minister tell us what is to happen to that investigation? The royal commission on transportation will commence their sittings next month. Will there also be hearings by the board of transport commissioners pursuant, to the instructions given to them a year ago?"


Lionel Chevrier: Those hearings were started: when the board moved out to Vancouver to hear representations with reference to the removal of the mountain differential. Those were hearings within the meaning of P.C. 1487. Since then the board have been carrying on investigations with reference to the waybills, which is a matter of considerable importance. The board must get information on this before it can proceed further. I presume the board will want to have discussions with the members of the royal commission, if they have not already done so,, so that there will be no duplication of work. The board certainly intends to continue its investigations.


Howard Charles Green: Will the board of transport commissioners hold public hearings pursuant

Supply-Transport
to the order in council or will the public hearings be confined to the royal commission?


Lionel Chevrier: I presume that the royal commission will hold public hearings, but the board of transport commissioners will decide their own procedure. They have already held public hearings and I presume they will continue.


Howard Charles Green: They held public hearings only on the mountain differential. As the minister knows, I submitted some weeks ago that that did not constitute a compliance with the order in council, that it was a separate matter. It looks now as though the board of transport commissioners will not hold public hearings to deal with the question of discriminations.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that and I hope that my hon. friend did not take that meaning from what I said.


Howard Charles Green: The royal commission has no power to deal with freight rates under its instructions. Any hope for the removal of discriminations must come from action by the board of transport commissioners. Apparently the royal commission has taken the ball and the board of transport commissioners will not be in position to make a finding with regard to the removal of discriminations until the royal commission has reported, which may be a year or two years hence. When does the minister expect a report from the royal commission on transportation?


Lionel Chevrier: The royal commission on transportation have not yet started their hearings and it would be folly for me or any other hon. member of this committee to attempt to say when their hearings will be completed. I made a forecast when I was discussing this last year. I have no intention of making another one; but if a full and complete investigation, such as is contemplated by the terms of reference, is carried out certainly it will take some time-I would not like to say how long.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not aiming at any special period, then?


Lionel Chevrier: Not at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the unfortunate feature is that in the meantime these discriminations continue.


Lionel Chevrier: When my hon. friend says that, let me point out that as far as rates are concerned Canada has been far better off than any other country. Thus far there has been just one 21 per cent increase in freight rates. In Great Britain there has been a 68 per cent increase and in the United States a IMr. Green.]
55 per cent increase; and the 21 per cent increase in Canada came almost two years after the application was made.


Howard Charles Green: I mentioned discriminations, and the minister is not dealing with those at all; he is dealing with increases. Of course each increase makes the discriminations that much worse.


Lionel Chevrier: But there has been only one increase, though there is at present an application by the railway association for a second increase, which has not been disposed of and may not be for some time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
659.	Acquisition of properties in Canada for JJ.S. authorities-further amount required, $16,250.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item, covering the acquisition of properties in Canada for United States authorities?


Lionel Chevrier: That was a demobilization and reconversion item which was carried on during the war, for the acquisition of properties in Canada for United States authorities. This amount is to provide for the payment of 1948 taxes on properties in the city of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, which are held under lease from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company by the Department of Transport. These taxes were paid by United States authorities and are now paid by us. This amount is broken down into two items because there are two leases, both in Prince Rupert. They amount to $6,728 for one and $9,522 for the other.


Howard Charles Green: But the item says they are acquisitions for the United States government. Does that mean the United States government is now leasing these properties in Prince Rupert?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is the Canadian government that has taken over these properties from the United States and is paying the taxes on them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government-owned enterprises-deficits-transport-
660.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $904,000 already appropriated, to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1948-49 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1948-further amount required, $315,880.75.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: My belief with regard to this item is that it concerns a government-owned

service and not a government enterprise, and for that reason it should not appear here as if it were chargeable against Prince Edward Island as a deficit. In order to prove to the minister that this is a service I am going to quote from an order in council passed at the court of Windsor on June 26, 1873, which reads:
That the dominion government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services, viz.:-
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the dominion . . .
And such other charges as may be incident to and connected with the services which by the British North America Act, 1867, appertain to the general government, and as are or may be allowed to the other provinces.
I cannot see why each year this should appear as a deficit. It is purely a service under a contract entered into in 1873, so why should it appear in the public accounts as a deficit? If it is not a deficit in the case of the canals, for the same kind of service, why should it be a deficit in the case of ferry boats?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. friend, who raises this question every year. The reason it is set out this way is that it has been so recommended by the Duncan commission. At page 28 the report of that commission states:
We further recommend that, so far as the ferry boat service is concerned, it should not be run as part of the railway operations, but should be run by the railway administration under separate account for the department.
And the recommendation goes on:
We feel that, by reason of its association with railway accounts, this service does not get the attention it should receive.
Because the Duncan commission felt that way about it, the department has always included a separate item set out in that manner, in order to establish a difference between the Prince Edward Island car ferry and other services of the Department of Transport. The reason the word "deficit" is used in this appropriation is that the operating revenues of the service are applied against the operating expenses, and the deficiency is correctly termed a deficit. I wish I could meet the request of my hon. friend. He brought up the matter last year; he brought it up in the committee on railways and shipping, where he cross-examined the railway witnesses, and they gave him the answer I am giving now. Until there is some better reason, it strikes me the item should remain as it is.
Supp ly-Transport


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Why should not the minister use that same argument in connection with the operation of the canals? I do not see that there is any difference; they are both deficits.


Lionel Chevrier: I suggest to my hon. friend that on the canals no tolls are charged, whereas tolls are charged here.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Quite right; and according to the terms of our agreement on coming into confederation there should be no tolls on the ferry. The minister knows that as well as I do. If the government of this country would give us our dues according to the terms of confederation, we would not have tolls on the ferry either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
657. Issue of radio receiving licences-(Transport Department only)-further amount required, $23,800.
Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Eglinton asked for some information which I did not have at the time but which I now have. The gross revenue from the collection of radio receiving licences was $4,695,000, and the cost of collection was $250,239. The gross amount available to the C.B.C. from the sale of licences was $4,695,000. The amount of commissions deducted by sellers was $345,000, and the total revenue was $5,040,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to be quite clear on this. The total cost of collection of radio licence fees would include both the item of $250,239 and the item of $345,000, being the commissions paid. That would make the total cost of collection $595,239?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. gentleman is correct in that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a little more than the previous year. Again the cost of collection is running around 12 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: The receipts are a little higher, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The cost of collection is running around 12 per cent of the total fees collected. That is pretty high.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
TRADE AND COMMERCE Loans and investments-
664. To provide for the purchase and placing in storage of strategic reserves of materials, $3,250,000.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Here we have rather a large item of three and a quarter million dollars for the purchase and placing in storage of strategic reserves of materials. I wonder if the minister would tell the house the kind of materials which have been placed in storage and from whom we principally purchase them.
2450	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce Mr. Howe: Mr. Chairman, this item is for the purchase of two materials only; one is tin and the other is antimony. Tin is under international allocation. Quantities have been allocated to Canada from year to year. The situation in Malaya, which is the principal source of tin, is disturbed. At the end of 1948 it was found that Canada had not taken up its full allocation of tin for the year.
The munitions advisory board, a board of businessmen with some experience in military supply matters, examined the situation and strongly recommended to the government that it should take up the balance of its allocation for 1948 as a precautionary measure. The provisions of the international agreement are that if allocations are not taken up in any year future allocations may be cut back to the amount actually taken. That was thought to be a dangerous situation; it was felt that prices are likely to advance rather than decline. The world situation is tight. All in all, the munitions advisory board recommended that we take up this allocation, and that has carried the judgment of the experts in my own department. The result is that we have obtained authority from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to purchase tin in the amount indicated.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Does this mean we shall have to take up our allocation each year if we do not use it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; we regard the present stockpile as adequate. If conditions ease we may sell out the stockpile at any time. At the moment we could do so at a profit.
The other provision concerned a certain quantity of antimony. One of the principal sources of this material is China. We have placed an order with the Chinese government for a certain quantity of antimony. It has not yet been delivered, but the provision in the estimates is for the payment thereof.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the method by which these purchases are made, and more particularly the authority under which purchases of these strategic materials are made by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Payment was by an advance from the treasury which is made under the authority of an order in council. We are now asking for the appropriation of the funds required to make the purchase. The purchase was under an international allocation. Certain quantities of the material were allocated to us and that was purchased from these sources of supply which are the sources for any Canadian purchaser who buys under allocation.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be wise to have some statutory provision for the purchase of these strategic materials? Apparently there is to be quite a bit of that done from now on,


and it would seem to be advisable to have the procedure for doing it set out; to have measures enacted for authorizing the payment by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not thought that we need go beyond these two materials. The other recommendation had to do with quartz crystals, which come chiefly from Brazil. The department examined the quartz crystal situation and it is believed supplies are adequate to protect any situation that is likely to arise. Those are the three recommendations that were made.
Canada is a surplus country in most of the critical materials. For example, we are surplus in copper, zinc, lead, tungsten and a number of other metals. There is not much use in stockpiling materials we have in abundance. I think, therefore, that no general provision is required. There will be a small provision in the main estimates to take care of this shipment of antimony which has not yet arrived, there will be a small provision either in the main estimates, or in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
627. Canadian government travel bureau-to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada-provided in main estimates under Trade and Commerce -further amount required, $87,000.
Mr. Murphy:: I see the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) is not present. Before this item is passed, I wonder whether the minister would consider giving the house a statement of policy with respect to the tourist industry? Perhaps there are other items that might be considered in the meantime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak as acting minister, these are the last of the further supplementary estimates. It is desirable to have these dealt with in another place and to get the final consent of the crown before tomorrow night. We have passed the end of the fiscal year to which these apply. I will undertake, therefore, to deal with any questions my hon. friend may have in mind.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I was wondering, then, if the minister would be kind enough, and I have no doubt he would, to give the house a statement of government policy with respect to the tourist industry. We are all aware that for several years there has not been a statement of policy in respect to this industry which we believe is of vital importance to our economy.
This travel bureau has, I think, been under ten different ministries since 1934. During the life of this parliament it has been, I

believe, under four different ministries. To my knowledge, we have not had what I think we are entitled to, that is an announcement as to how the government intends to proceed to develop this industry. We know some advertising is being done. For instance, we understand it is the intention of the bureau to open film libraries in the United States. I believe the minister will agree with me that this project is worthy of a great deal more consideration than it has apparently received.
For instance, I should like to know if the ministry really has in mind the opening of these film libraries. Where are the films to be taken? Are they to be taken in the various provinces? Is the advertising in the various publications to be allocated according to the areas from which the greatest number would come? I contend that this is sales advertising, Mr. Chairman. There is one point I should like to emphasize tonight, in view of the fact there is a possibility these film libraries might be opened up. On the staff of each of the libraries in these cities there should be a competent person who could give a talk on certain areas in Canada. There might be thirty or forty of these libraries throughout the United States.
There are other questions with respect to advertising to which I believe we are entitled to have answers. Quite candidly, I say to the minister that this year I believe the advertising has been much more appropriate than it has been in the past. I wonder if the minister could answer these questions now, so that we could make some progress. I do not wish to delay the house, but perhaps we could finish this item in a very few minutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the federal tourist bureau is really a co-ordinating agency for other tourist activities in Canada. Every province in Canada has its own tourist agency which handles advertising having to do with the attractions of that province. Our railways and shipping companies also have tourist publicity relating to their own particular resorts. The federal tourist bureau handles advertising on a national scale. In other words, it advertises all of Canada. The inquiries that come to it are usually sent to other agencies to be dealt with. If someone is interested in a visit to Ontario, the tourist department of the government of Ontario is advised, and so on. If he wants a trip down the St. Lawrence, the proper travel agency there is advised. The advertising has been stepped up from year to year. I was minister in charge of this department from 1935 to 1939, and the appropriations of those days were less than half the present one. I think the quality of the advertising has also been
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply improved as a result of experience as to the type of advertising that interests our friends to the south.
Then there are other activities of the department. Recently there has been wide distribution in the United States of films showing Canadian recreational opportunities. This work has been carried on by a group of United States moving picture companies which have banded together in what is called the Canadian co-operative project; and without expenditure of any funds on the part of Canada, those interested in the project have worked with this bureau to choose films and to make in Canada films that could be shown in the United States and which would have entertainment appeal as well as value in advertising Canada.
As to film libraries, I presume my hon. friend refers to the activities of the film board. Is that so?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no activities of the travel bureau having to do with film libraries in the United States, but perhaps I am out of date. I think the Minister of Finance is more familiar with that matter. He says he knows about the film board. I think he can perhaps answer my hon. friend's question on the next item which has to do with the film board. I may say that this particular $87,000 arises through a special advertising effort made in connection with Canada's winter resorts. The improvement in our dollar balance arising out of the tourist traffic last summer was such that it was felt that some special advertising was warranted to help us bring in United States dollars during the winter season.


Joseph Warner Murphy: When in February I spoke in the house on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I urged the government to consider setting up a standing committee to co-operate and work with the minister to develop this industry which to me is highly important. I said-and I think most hon. members will agree-that this tourist bureau had been treated as an adjunct. I was sincere when I spoke the other night on this industry. As I see it, we should be developing a billion dollar industry. I do not think any hon. member in this house, under these conditions and in these times, is satisfied with a ten per cent increase per year in our tourist industry. It is not enough. I do not think that the industry has received from the government the attention that it warrants.
When I suggested the committee, I felt that this industry should be dealt with on a businesslike basis. It did not make any difference

Supply-Reconstruction and Supply to us whether the committee was composed of six from the government benches or seventy per cent and thirty per cent from the opposition. It would not make any difference. I think there are enough members in this House of Commons, keenly interested in this tourist industry, who are only too anxious and willing to have this committee set up, to work together and really develop the tourist industry. Can the minister give to the committee any information with respect to that request? I am satisfied that if the committee were set up after Easter we would be able to get the experts in advertising and in sales from companies who have made a success of their own development and business, and that a great deal of useful information could be obtained as a basis for bringing this industry up to the level which it really demands. Can the minister make a statement with regard to that matter?
With respect to libraries, I may have been a little bit presumptuous. I understood that some of the provinces have small film libraries here and there in many parts of the United States, and that is the country from which we expect to get the much-needed United States dollars. Somehow or other I had the idea that it was the intention of this government to open up, under this travel bureau, film libraries in the United States. My point was this. I think it is most advisable that such action be taken. I think the provinces themselves should suggest the films that could be taken and these would be stored in those libraries.
But to me the most important part of the question is selling the tourist industry to these people. There is no use in having the films in the libraries if they are not going to be shown. Our tourist business comes to this country through people who may have been here for a week, two weeks or a month, as the case may be. They are ambassadors. We are simply selling good will. The more of those whom we can approach, either by having them come here or by showing them what we have to offer, the better it will be, because that is where our market will be. Even at the present level of our income from the tourist business, I think that this country can increase it not only ten per cent but a great deal more. I think our aim should be at least twenty-five per cent per year. According to the figures which I have given before, and of which the house is fully aware, even then we would not be getting our share of what we could rightly claim of the amount spent by Americans on vacation.
Can the minister tell us whether or not they would seriously consider that suggestion? I think it is important that we have men who are willing and able to co-operate


with the minister for the sole purpose of developing this most important industry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I fully agree with my hon. friend as to the importance of the industry. I also fully agree with him as to the objectives of this branch of the government. As to the appointment of a committee, he will appreciate the fact that all I can do is to call his remarks to the attention of my colleague, and ask him to give the matter his careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
628. National film board, Including the motion picture bureau-provided in main estimates under national revenue-distribution of films-further amount required, $20,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to make a few remarks on this item and to ask a few questions of the Minister of Finance, who says he knows all the answers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not all the answers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Rather, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he knew the answers. The film board is much like the tourist bureau. It has been under a great number of ministers. The first minister, Mr. Euler, when he was setting up that board, said there would be only one paid official and that they were not setting up the board in order to create jobs. But at the present time there are almost six hundred employees in there, although that is not the number who were in there a few years ago. There were over seven hundred in there a few years ago. I have criticized the national film board for some years. I am glad I have done so for this reason. There is a definite improvement in the national film board pictures, although I must say that the film the national film board took of the opening of parliament is a disgrace to any organization.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought it was wonderful.
I saw it last night.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They must have had the minister's face in focus. They did not have anybody else's in focus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't blame the film board for the minister's face.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are judges of male beauty, I think.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is a lot of room for improvement yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the minister's face?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope the minister does not take that personally. I did not mean his face,
I meant the national film board.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke about the tourist industry. I agree with him that films should be used in the United States for advertising, but in the United States the national film board should not be the agency for distributing them. That should be left with the tourist bureau, which has men who are trained for that purpose. As the hon. gentleman said, the films should be under the supervision of the different provinces in co-operation with the tourist bureau.
This item deals with distribution of films, and I shall deal entirely with that. It calls for $20,000 in addition to what was voted last year. Last year the estimate for distribution amounted to $57,826. In his report Mr. Sellar, the Auditor General, brought to light the fact that the distribution was not carried on the way it should be. There are phantom showings of the national film board pictures and that is under distribution. Some of the men who are in the employ of the national film board do not carry out their duties. They say that they have shown films here, there and in the other place and they have not done so.
Mention has been made of distribution in the United States. I should like to ask the minister to make a note of this question and answer it when I am through. I understand that a year ago the film board had a man in Chicago whose name was Wesley Green. He was in the office of the national film board and walked out with $7,000 worth of films which, according to my information, have never been returned to the board. I should like to know whether that is correct or not.
I shall read a list of the bureaux or offices of the national film board outside of Canada. According to a return tabled in answer to a question of mine on February 23 of this year, the national film board has one office in Chicago, one in London, England, one in New York and one in Mexico. According to the return the Mexico office shows only two employees, but the Toronto Star Weekly or the Saturday Night of a month or so ago showed a picture of the receptionist of the national film board's Mexico office sunning herself on a beach in Mexico.


Clarence Gillis: It might have been a Wednesday afternoon.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I object to the national film board offices distributing films in the United States, and also to the way they are carrying on business. I hold in my hand a sheet from a film magazine which contains an advertisement of the national film board of Canada, 620 Fifth avenue, New York City, and 400 West Madison street, Chicago, Illinois. This
7, 1949	2453
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply is not an advertisement for tourists to come to Canada. What does it say? It says:
The answer to this question may necessitate reviewing his life from birth . . .
Why won't Tommy eat?
16 mm sound-2 reels-colour National film board of Canada
Is that going to help Canada's trade? Is that going to help the tourist industry? I think it is an absolute disgrace. This advertisement was brought to my attention by at least fifty people across Canada and the United States.
I have a letter from the director of administration of the library of congress of the United States. I asked him a question regarding the distribution and the set-up of the film board in the United States, and this is what he has to say:
The committee desires that before another budget is presented the whole matter be restudied with a view to (1) determining the extent to which it is practicable for the government to carry on this kind of activity, and (2) whether or not the library of congress is the logical agency to administer if it is determined that the expenditure of public funds for such a purpose is necessary.
I understand that the whole film set-up of the United States is being liquidated at the present time in order that they may start off anew and see what can be done. That is something which should be done here.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I heard an hon. member say "carried". I do not know who it was, but I am not going to hurry, and I shall tell the committee why. Last year the estimates for the national film board were not brought down until about eleven o'clock on the last night the house sat. In 1947 the same thing happened; therefore I am going to take my time no matter what the hon. member may say.


Some hon. Members:: Take your time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Don't hurry at all.


Some hon. Members:: Very interesting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are following you with bated breath.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is one thing that has been brought to my attention by commercial photographers across Canada. In one department I believe there is an expenditure of some $121,000 for making just ordinary still pictures. Commercial photographers wonder why employees of the national film board are allowed to sell films or pictures and have their own names on them. I am going to mention the names of two employees. One is George Hunter and the other Frank Royal. One picture was taken down in Mexico and was shown here not long ago. It was in one
2454	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply of the magazines in the United States, and evidently the New York office or the Chicago office sold to some firm in the United States a series called: "Let's all sing together." Some firm in the United States is advertising these films which were made by the national film board. I do not believe that that should be done. The board was not set up to sell films to other countries, unless they are films for trade purposes or films to advertise our industry.
I asked what the traveling, hotel and meals expenses were for the national film board during 1948 and was told that the hotels, meals and taxi expenses amounted to $89,000. The amount for transportation is $100,283.79, for entertainment $1,550.98, and for moving expenses $1,840.20.
Another question I should like to ask arises from the fact that the Ottawa Journal of this evening states "Carr Tells of '45 Negotiations With Liberals." It states that Mr. Paul Martin and Mr. Alan McLean were interviewed. I wonder if the McLean who is director of the national film board is a brother of this McLean, who is national organizer for the Liberal party.
Here is an advertisement in the magazine called "Photography" entitled Let's All Sing Together, and which gives a list of all the productions of the national film board. But this appears as an advertisement of Library Films Incorporated of New York.
The national film board have been taking pictures right across the country, some of which are good and some not so good. It was brought to my attention from New Brunswick that the film board went to a point called Hartman's pool-and the Minister of Fisheries will know where that is. The film board paid men to go there and jig for salmon. That is a procedure of gaffing them-and one which is entirely against the law. Yet the board has done that in other places. I wonder if there should not be some restrictions against that outfit for doing things for which the ordinary man would be arrested?


Clarence Gillis: Jigging them is not gaffing them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is jigging?


Clarence Gillis: Catching them on the hook without bait on it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But that is the same thing.


Clarence Gillis: A gaff is a long pole with a sharp end on it. It is a different operation altogether.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They used three-pronged hooks without any bait on them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is spearing them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They yank those up and down, which is against the law. Yet the national film board were allowed to do this, and I say it is entirely wrong.


Mr. Mayhew:: It was codfish you saw, not salmon.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was salmon they were after; it was salmon they caught; it was salmon they took pictures of. The national film board made a picture called People Between, and stated that it was made for UNRRA. This picture was taken in China. Mr. Grant McLean went there to take it; but as it was thought that it might offend Chiang Kai-shek's government the Department of External Affairs said it should not be shown in Canada. They are trying to sell that picture. I would ask the minister to comment upon that.
In the taking of that picture alone there were traveling expenses of over $879.50 paid by the national film board to save time through returning cameramen by air to London.
I have seen some pictures turned out by the national film board which I have felt are not up to snuff, and could be much better. In this connection I would ask whether we have not some good camera directors in Canada? If so, why was it necessary for the board to go to the United States and employ men there?
An item in another issue of "Photography" states:
Back from a flying trip to the Northwest Territories and into the Arctic Circle directing motion picture newsreels and stills for the national film board, Canadian government agency, is Hamilton Wright, Jr., of New York city. Wright left San Juan, Puerto Rico, early in February at 80 above zero. Fifty-one hours later, including a stop-over in New York, he arrived at The Pas.
Why is it that we have to engage American camera directors?
Mention was made of the stills department.
I know that every commercial photographer across Canada feels as I do in this matter, because I have had letters from over five hundred of them, and also from press photographers, objecting to the stills department which last year took 167,854 photographs, at a rate of more than 500 a day. They are selling these in competition with the ordinary man who pays taxes to the Minister of Finance. I say that is unfair competition, and should be stopped.
There is the further fact that estimates of the national film board are not correct estimates. In those estimates there should be reflected the fact that last year the Department of Public Works paid out, so far as I can learn, $34,000 on new improvements in

the twelve buildings occupied here in Ottawa by the national film board. Besides that the Department of Public Works paid for all telephone, operating and building expenses. If the film board were under proper direction and management it could be made to operate in the best interests of the people.
We have film councils right across Canada, all of which are doing good work. But in many instances they have had to buy or rent films from other agencies to show to the people, despite the fact that the national film board has distributors and other men who go around the country showing films. I would ask the minister to give me an answer to my questions.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding all the bad things of which the film board is supposed to be guilty, I know one good thing it does. It allows us to have its films at Fort William on trust. I have enjoyed hour after hour seeing on film the great beauties to be seen in Canada. These are the tourist attractions which show our beautiful caves, surrounded by large stones which have an appeal for the tourists who come here from the United States, and who certainly have their eyes opened when they see the films turned out by the national film board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just a moment. I hope the hon. member does not think I am saying anything against the film board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I criticize it only so that it may be better. I have not said that pictures taken across the country have not been good. Perhaps the films the hon. member saw were taken by some other organization.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I have not extensive knowledge of the affairs of the national film board. Unfortunately the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had an engagement of long standing to address the Ontario Liberal Association, and could not be here this evening.
I have come prepared to answer questions with respect to this particular item, but I am afraid I cannot deal with questions relating to the general administration of the film board, as they have been set out by the hon. member for Peterborough West. I shall see however that those questions are brought to the attention of the minister who, I have no doubt, will answer them when the main estimates of the film board are before the committee.
This estimate is for an additional $20,000 for international distribution of national films through Canadian missions abroad. In 1947-48 the estimate was for $i?6,000. Trea-
7, 1949	2455
Supply-Reconstruction and Supply sury board was taking a strict view of expenditures of the film board in 1948, and the amount was cut down to $76,000. It was found from experience that that was too drastic and this $20,000 is required to provide the distribution which it is felt is necessary for these films in our missions abroad.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister think that the national film board should carry on with its stills departments? Would that be part of their distribution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not given that question any consideration. I have seen some splendid pictures which they have taken of members of parliament.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do you think that pictures of members of parliament are an asset?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that those I have seen are quite good.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, could the Minister of Finance answer my inquiry regarding film depots in the United States and whether the films would be made by the film board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in position to make a statement. I listened to what my hon. friend said and if my colleague brings in an estimate to treasury board for that purpose it will receive sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that it is the desire of most hon. members to dispose of these estimates. If that is so I would move:
That this house do sit this day beyond the hour of ten-thirty p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can there not be some understanding as to how long we will sit?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that there is only one item left and I would hope that it would not be very long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would depend on what the minister has to say.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member
expects that, because we want it to be short, commitments will be made by the minister, I must say at once that that is not likely. I do not think that any member of the house would wish to sit very long. If it seems that

Supply-Health and Welfare a debate is developing that will take a long time I think it could be understood that we will move to adjourn both the debate and the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At eleven o'clock perhaps?


Mr. Coldwell:: The item has to do with old age pensions, something which usually gives rise to considerable discussion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not at all sure that this is an item on which future policy with respect to old age pensions can be discussed. If hon. members wish to have a deadline set, I have no objection because I think that at this moment we would require the unanimous consent of hon. members who are here to proceed beyond the usual hour.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to object.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think it should be understood that if a situation develops which would take us beyond a reasonable hour both the debate and the house should be adjourned. Perhaps we can go on for half an hour and see what the prospects are at that time. I would be quite prepared to accept a suggestion about adjourning both the item and the house if in half an hour that seems to be the desire of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fair enough.


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

[Stage Direction]
Welfare branch-old age pensions (including pensions to the blind) -
607. Administration-further amount required, $5,500.
Howard Charles Green: In view of the lateness of the hour I shall speak only for a few minutes although I regret that the government has seen fit not to follow through with the items in their regular order but to skip this item and then bring it on at the last. I think that is hardly fair to the senior citizens of Canada.
In the last few days there has been an important development in the field of old age pensions. I refer to the announcement by the government of Ontario that believing that the basic-


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Will the hon. member permit me to make an observation?


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to raise a point of order but I should like to explain what this item is about.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor and I do not propose to yield it to the minister. When the minister did not get up before there is no reason why I should be forced to take my seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not trying to make the hon. gentleman take his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Howard Charles Green: As I was saying, there has been an important development in the field of old age pensions in the last few days in that the government of the province of Ontario has announced that believing that the basic old age pension should be increased from $30 to $40 per month for single pensioners it will now pay to all old age pensioners in the province one-quarter of the $10 required to bring the basic pension up to the $40 per month.


Mr. Marlin:: I rise to a point of order. I think I should explain to the hon. gentleman what this item is about.


Howard Charles Green: That is the chairman's duty, not the duty of the minister.


Peter Francis Martin: I am raising a point of order. This additional amount of $5,500 is required to supplement the expenditures made during the year 1948-49 in regard to the blindness of applicants for blind pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act. This item is in respect of expenditures during the last fiscal year and I submit with great respect that any discussion with regard to future policy is out of order under this item. I think that is a fair statement to make and I am sure it will commend itself to the hon. gentleman.


Howard Charles Green: This item is entitled:
Old age pensions (including pensions to the blind) -
Administration-further amount required.


George James McIlraith: What year?


Howard Charles Green: In discussing these administration items we have not been confined to the actual expenditures covered by the amount to be voted. This question has been up before on other administration items. During the consideration of the supplementary estimates the discussion has not been confined in the manner suggested by the minister. If the minister will just leave me alone for a few minutes I will finish my speech and a lot of time will be saved.
As I was saying when the minister raised the point of order, the province of Ontario is now going to pay one-quarter of the $10 additional required to bring the basic old age pension up from $30 to $40. They are also continuing to add an additional sum up to $10 per month to the basic pension. The result

will be that an old age pensioner in Ontario can get a total of $42.50 per month.


Mr. Raid:: May I ask a question pertaining to this matter? Does the hon. member know that some provinces have granted supplementary allowance with a means test, and others have not? For instance, British Columbia granted $10 a month without a means test for the recipient. Can the hon. member say whether the increase in Ontario has been granted to everyone, or is it still on the basis of the means test?


Howard Charles Green: I am simply citing the Ontario action.


Thomas Reid: That is important, because you said all would get it.


Howard Charles Green: No, I said it would be possible for an old age pensioner in Ontario to get up to $42.50. The main point is that the province of Ontario has now taken the stand that the basic pension should be $40 per month rather than $30.


Arthur Henry Williams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: No; I am going ahead with my speech.


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not think the hon. member should wander too far into the other provinces in regard to this item, which is only a supplementary item after all.


Howard Charles Green: I am not doing the wandering; it is the people who keep interrupting me. I repeat that if the dominion will pay three-quarters of the additional $10 required to bring the basic pension up from $30 to $40, the result will be in some of the provinces at least that the single old age pensioner will get a total of $50 per month.
With regard to the question of increasing the basic rate, the next move is clearly up to the dominion. I believe, and the Progressive Conservative party believes, the time has come to increase that basic old age pension. I suggest it should be raised to at least $40 per month, and I propose to point out to the committee three reasons why I believe that should be done. The first is that the basic pension was set by the present government at $30 a month in 1947, two years ago. It was inadequate at that time, as was admitted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If hon. members will refer to page 4744 of Hansard, for that session they will find that the minister gave this answer on being questioned about the amount of $30:
I do not say, and no one says, that $30 a month is enough for a person to live on.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Further in the same debate he said:
An old age pension in this country was never intended to cover the complete cost of living; it is a maintenance grant. That is all it can do.


Mr. Quelch:: Never meant for what?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To live completely on. That is
what I am saying.


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have submitted that a discussion of policy is out of order under this item, which I have explained is for an expenditure made during the last fiscal year in respect to the examination of blind pensioners. I do not altogether like to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Howard Charles Green: Then why do it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do so because I think you are out of order, and if I did not do it with regard to you I should be perfectly illogical in contending that anyone else should be precluded from speaking. I think a minister in charge of an item owes it to the committee to treat all hon. members alike. That is why I am submitting that a discussion of policy is out of order under this item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word with respect to the point of order. A short time ago I had occasion to address a communication to the Auditor General in relation to another item of expenditure; I need not indicate what it was, because that is not the point. I have a copy of the Auditor General's letter in my hand, and in his reply he indicated that once a sum of money had been voted to the government for a general purpose it was within the jurisdiction of the government to decide how that money was to be spent. I submit that if this privilege is given to the government, this committee has the right, when we are voting an item for administration, to say the things on which we would like that money to be spent. The item before us deals with administration. The minister tells us that this money is to be used for a specific purpose, but the item is headed "administration" and that refers to the general policy. So I think we should be permitted to discuss these matters under administration now, just as we do on the main estimates.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is exactly the same point the minister raised a few moments ago, and at that time allowed me to go on. I submit that the minister has no right to raise the same point of order twice. It is exactly the same thing on which you ruled a few moments ago.


William Henry Golding: If I were to express my opinion on these matters, where you have a supplementary estimate I would say you
24S8

Supply-Health and Welfare could not go into the whole field of the administration of the department. The rule is very clear, that a speech in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. If you will look at the details on page 17 you will find that this item has reference to old age pensions and pensions to the blind. If in the debate on a supplementary estimate you are trying to cover the whole field of activities of the department,
I think that would be out of order. The rule is clear that you should be specific; but we do not want to waste a great deal of time arguing that point tonight.


Howard Charles Green: The first argument I was putting forward in support of the increase in the basic pension to at least $40 a month was that two years ago the minister himself admitted that $30 a month was inadequate for a person to live on. The cost of living index for Canada on June 1, 1947, stood at 134.9 as compared with the years 1935-39. On March 1, 1949, the index had gone up over 24 points, to 159.2. So if $30 was inadequate in 1947 it is very much more inadequate in 1949. The second argument I submit is that last year the war veterans' allowance was fixed by the dominion government at $40 per month. In that case the veteran is the charge of the dominion government alone. This year the war veterans' allowance for a single man may be increased from $40 to $50.


Mr. Warren:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Howard Charles Green: No, I am not answering any questions.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted without his consent.


Howard Charles Green: I am not answering any questions; I am trying to get through as quickly as possible.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is easily answered. Why not answer me? It is not a waste of time.


Howard Charles Green: For the sake of the committee I am trying not to waste time. I would not mind answering all the questions that could be asked if it were not so late. Last year, as I say, the war veterans' allowance was fixed at $40, and this year provision has been made so that at least certain recipients of that allowance can get up to $50. The action of another department of this government clearly shows that that department at least considers that $40 is a basic payment and is willing to pay an additional $10 per month.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I put a question to the hon. gentleman? If he would just answer my question, which is a reasonable one-
[The Deputy Chairman.]


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member should resume his seat.


Howard Charles Green: The third argument I wish to place before the house is that the money required to pay this increased basic pension would, of course, have to be paid by the Canadian people. They have shown that they are in favour of an increase in the amount paid. On February 23,	1949, a
Gallup poll reported on this question of the amount people thought should be paid by way of old age pensions. The report reads:
The old age pension rate issue holds keen interest amongst Canadian voters, the great majority of whom would favour notably higher benefits.
At another point the article reads:
The amounts advocated in the most recent study were: $20 or less, one per cent; $21 to $30, 4 per cent;-
-so that at the present time the government is only meeting the wishes of 5 per cent of the people queried in this poll.
$31 to $40, 11 per cent; $41 to $50, 29 per cent; $51 to $60, 17 per cent; $61 to $99, 21 per cent; $100 or over, 9 per cent; no suggestion offered, 8 per cent.
This poll virtually indicates that the vast majority of the people of Canada believe the old age pension should be increased. They are taking into consideration of course the amounts actually received which, in some provinces, are over $30 at the present time.
These senior citizens of Canada and our blind citizens are in a trapped group. They can secure no increase in their wages. They are on a fixed income. The cost of their living has gone up. I know in my own city of Vancouver many of them are in a tragic position. They are not given any help at all by the present budget. They seem to be the forgotten men and women of Canada, in these days of huge national income and of large surpluses. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough for Canada in this year 1949. I urge that the government at this session raise the basic pension to at least $40.
With these old people time is of great importance. A year from now many of them will have passed away. They are always faced with that time element. I do urge the government to increase the basic pension at this session to at least $40 per month. I point out that it had better act quickly because if it does not act at this session, the new Progressive Conservative government will put through this increase.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this item of course does not interfere with the general administration or policy of the department in so far as old age pensions are concerned. In view of the amount, and in view of the fact

that it can be taken care of in another way,
I would move that item No. 607 be withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution is reported I would recall that I indicated earlier I had an objection to one item of these estimates. Before expressing opposition to the reporting at this time, simply upon the basis of the national defence estimates discussed earlier, I would once again urge the government to give an undertaking, in view of the discussion that has taken place, to set up a select committee to inquire into the present plans and future requirements of the Department of National Defence. Failing that, and simply as an expression of opposition to the unwillingness to give such an undertaking, I would certainly oppose the reporting at the present time.


William Henry Golding: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

['In my opinion the yeas have it.\nSchedule agreed to: yeas, 75; nays, 32.']
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1949, the following sum be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
The sum of $100,904,073.87 being the amount of each of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether that figure allows for the reduction of $5,500?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it does not; it should be amended accordingly.


Alphonse Fournier: I move that it be amended by decreasing the amount by $5,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), I wish to state my objection to this method of cutting off discussion of this very important question. It is quite clear that that is all that was done. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, particularly in view of the rumours in the press that something is going to be done for these people at this session, that the Minister of
Supply-Ways and Means National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) owes it to this house and to the country to make an announcement at the earliest possible moment. If he is not prepared to make it tonight, he should make a statement by tomorrow afternoon, before this house adjourns for the Easter recess.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I reply to what the hon. gentleman has said. He will have every opportunity in the budget debate, as he has had throughout this session, and I want to say to him that we on this side will take second place to no group in this house with regard to what we have done and are doing for the old age pensioners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try and tell that to the old age pensioners.


Mr. Ross (Si. Paul's):: The Minister of
National Health and Welfare has made a statement to the effect that every hon. member has had every opportunity of speaking in connection with the subject which has just been brought up by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I want to tell the minister that in the forty minutes allotted to a member he cannot deal properly with more than one subject. The minister does not need to leave the impression that every hon. member has had an opportunity of speaking on this subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I just want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. He indicated that the hon. member who made the protest would have an opportunity of speaking in the budget debate. I ask the minister if all hon. members in the house are going to have that opportunity, and if the minister will give the house the assurance that the budget debate will be allowed to run its full course so that every hon. member in this house who wishes to speak in that debate will have that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a light matter at all, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of National Health and Welfare has put that suggestion forward as a reason why there should not be discussion on this item now. That is an important question.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he put that reason forward seriously, then my request for an undertaking on his part on behalf of the government is a fair one. Every hon. member in this house should be assured that he will have the opportunity of discussing this or any other question in the budget debate.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a debatable motion, even though the minister has risen to try to cut off debate.

Supply-Ways and Means Mr. Abbott: We are in committee.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, we are in committee, but the motion is a debatable one. The amendment is debatable because the amendment now is that the amount of the estimate be reduced by a certain sum of money, namely, some $5,000.
Those of us who believe that all that is necessary should be given to the department to deal with pensions for the blind and for old age pensioners are not in favour of reducing the amount by $1 when it is to be used for that particular purpose. I am sorry the minister used the method that he adopted tonight in stopping the debate, because one hon. gentleman had been allowed to proceed with this matter, and particularly when the members of the house were good enough, shall I say, to agree to the suggestion that we should sit beyond the hour of adjournment.
The minister rose in his place and appeared to be quite annoyed at any criticism being leveled at the department in connection with old age pensions. Let me point out to him that the C.C.F. group in this house two years ago urged that the basic pension should be raised to $50 a month, and that motion was ruled out of order at the time. What I am going to point out is this. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has stated, in those two years the cost of living has risen by twenty-four points. As the controls have been removed, the cost of living has risen. The result is that the old age pensioners, who were to get $30 a month two years ago, are today getting the equivalent in purchasing power of $22.50 per month, which means a considerable reduction in their standard of living.
I think the government owes it to the house and to the country to grant a substantial increase in pensions to the old age pensioners and to the blind in this country.
I have always believed that the pensions should be uniform across the country and that the whole amount should be paid from the federal treasury so that there would not be this competition among the provinces, which I think is bad for the old age pensioners, for the provinces and for the general public. I am urging that the government take the opportunity of announcing to the people of this country that the old age pension will be raised so that at least the standard of living, such as it was, will be restored.
In this country where we have had such large budgetary surpluses I think that could well be done. Our senior citizens, as they are called nowadays, and the persons who are blind are entitled to something better than 
they are getting. I am sorry the minister chose the method he did of ending the debate tonight. I am not going to say any more at this stage, because I know that the house desires to go through with the arrangements that have been made. I did want to join with others, however, in making this protest against the manner in which the debate was closed tonight.


John Oliver Probe: I am glad that the amendment was brought in because it gives me an opportunity now, without being ruled out of order, to put before this committee a resolution which was presented last summer I believe by the Canadian Federation of the Blind to all the political parties in the House of Commons. In the public accounts there are listed certain miscellaneous grants to various blind organizations: The Canadian National Institute for the Blind, L'Association Canadienne Francaise des Aveugles, L'lnstitut Nazareth de Montreal and the Montreal Association for the Blind; and the Canadian Federation of the Blind has presented to all political parties in this house this petition which I will read so that it will be on the record:
Whereas the Canadian Federation of the Blind is an organization operating throughout Canada with a federal charter obtained in 1928, and duly recognized by the Secretary of State, and is directed by sightless people with the assistance of sighted associate members for the promotion and protection of the interests of the blind, and
Whereas our national executive is of the opinion that being a democratic organization of the blind we are in the best position to understand and advise in matters pertaining to the blind and to give the most effective administration in their interests.
Therefore be it resolved that we request the C.C.F. party-
In this case.
-to consider the advisability of proposing legislation which will include the Canadian Federation of the Blind as a major agency in blind welfare work throughout the dominion, and that the Canadian Federation of the Blind be given an appropriation from the federal treasury.
That is the end of the petition from the Canadian Federation of the Blind, signed by the president, C. A. Pettapiece of Regina. I support that resolution; and I should like to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare consider this petition-that is, for distribution of federal funds to the various blind welfare organizations throughout Canada-on the same basis on which it is making contributions to the four associations that I previously mentioned.


William Henry Golding: Shall I report the resolution as amended?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have not put the question on the amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works.


William Henry Golding: The amendment was carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What has all the speaking been on then?


William Henry Golding: I will put the amendment now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking for a standing vote on the amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: It was in committee of supply that I moved it.


William Henry Golding: Shall I report the resolution?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In committee of ways and means, Mr. Chairman, I asked whether the amount of money that you read out took account of the reduction of $5,500. The answer of the Minister of Finance was no. Whereupon the Minister of Public Works moved an amendment that the amount be reduced by $5,500.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The resolution should have carried the correct figure. It could not have been for any other figure. It should have been that. It was a clerical error.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the change was made by an amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works. It is to his amendment that all this speaking has been going on. I ask for a standing vote on the amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All the speaking is out of order, because the committee of supply has only voted $100,898,573.87, and that is the amount it should have been in the motion which I moved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the motion was moved, the Minister of National Health and Welfare reduced it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was reading the Illustrated London News at the time and did not notice what was going on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that we must have a vote on the amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was no amendment at all. My motion in committee of ways and means is:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1949, the following sum be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
The sum of $100,898,573.87 being the amount of each of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
It cannot be any other figure because that is what the committee of supply has voted.
Supply-Ways and Means


William Henry Golding: Shall I report the resolution?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 232, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1949.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
['On division.\nResolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 232, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1949.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: May we have a copy of this bill?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I should be glad to send one over to my hon. friend.


William Henry Golding: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. The new figure is not in the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The bill which I am presenting now has the right figure in it. I put the correct figure in section 2 of the bill. The printed bill contained the original figure shown in the supplementary estimates as they appeared in the committee. The bill now before the committee shows in place of the figure $100,904,073.87 the figure of $100,898,573.37.


William Henry Golding: Shall clause 1
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
['Shall clause 1\ncarry?']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Some time ago I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare for an assurance, which was a very reasonable request in view of the statement he made to the house. I ask him for that assurance.


William Henry Golding: What is before the committee is clause 3 of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am entitled to ask the minister for an undertaking, and I ask him for that undertaking.
On section 3.


William Henry Golding: Shall section 3 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am going to ask the minister for an undertaking and he might as well make up his mind on that. I am going to ask it on this section and on all other sections. He made a statement to the house, and I now ask if he is prepared to back up that statement with an undertaking or assurance to

Supply-Ways and Means all hon. members of the house. If he does not give that, then his statement was misleading.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the schedule.
['I am going to ask the minister for an undertaking and he might as well make up his mind on that. I am going to ask it on this section and on all other sections. He made a statement to the house, and I now ask if he is prepared to back up that statement with an undertaking or assurance to', 'Supply-Ways and Means all hon. members of the house. If he does not give that, then his statement was misleading.']
William Henry Golding: Shall the schedule carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to ask a question on the schedule. The copy which I have, and which was handed to me by the Clerk of the House, has in it item 607:
National health and welfare-welfare branch-old age pensions (including pensions to the blind) -
607.	Administration-further amount required, $5,500.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My copy has that item struck out, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Knight:: On a point of order, can we have a copy of this bill or not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I say a word. We all know that in the case of these special bills, the copy which is before the committee is the copy which is printed before first reading. When the house and the committee by unanimous consent, which is the only way in which it can be done, gives first, second and third reading all in one stage, it is not possible to have copies for all hon. members. We all know that. I do not think that much purpose is served by asking, "Can we have copies of the bill?" This bill is in the standard form in which bills of the kind have been passed for eighty years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Still speaking to the schedule,
I recognize the validity of what the minister has said. I have seen it done a good many times myself, but that is usually because the schedule that is attached to the bill is the schedule that we passed item by item in committee of supply. This time there has been a change, by the use of a device against which I am registering this protest. Because this schedule that the minister is now asking us to pass contains one item less than the schedule that was presented to us in committee of supply-and an important item, too-I am opposed to it and I ask for a standing vote.


William Henry Golding: All those in favour of the schedule please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


William Henry Golding: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


William Henry Golding: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Schedule agreed to: yeas, 75; nays, 32.


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

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the Corporation of the City of Ottawa, Ottawa Transportation Commission and the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
An act for the granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1949.

Alphonse Fournier: I move that the house do now adjourn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take up Bill No. 82, to provide for the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade. Then Bill No. 190 respecting oil or gas pipe lines. When these bills are passed, if they are passed, we shall take up the motion of the Minister of National Revenue to set up a select committee on radio broadcasting. If there is any possibility of concluding these matters we shall ask the house to take up private bills at 5.45 in the afternoon and we really hope that we shall be able to adjourn at six o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 12.06 a.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
605. To provide for additional expenditures against the authorized commitment program in connection with the orderly establishment and organization of the defence forces of the navy, army and air services on a peacetime basis and to authorize further commitments for future years of $11,708,000-further amount required, $19,622,583.

606. To authorize payment to the international committee of the Red Cross of $98,081.58, being money held in trust on behalf of former German and Italian prisoners of war and Japanese internees, $1.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
608.	General administration-further amount required, $7,500.
609.	Inspection, investigation and audit services- further amount required, $25,000.
610.	Ports, outports and preventive stations, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and temporary buildings and rentals-further amount required, $79,500.

[Stage Direction]
611.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $35,400.
612.	Railway mail service-further amount required, $160,000.
613.	Air and land mail services-further amount required, $100,000.
614.	Audit of revenue, money order, postal note and savings bank business; issue of postage stamps and postal notes-further amount required, $78,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
615.	To authorize the governor in council to grant, subject to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, except paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 9 thereof (a) to Gladys Irene Alice Preece, widow of the late Harry Askam Preece, who was a contributor under the Civil Service Superannuation Act and who died on November 24, 1947, an annual allowance at the rate of $377.78, commencing November 25, 1947; and (b) to Harry Manning Preece, minor son of the late Harry Askam Preece, an annual allowance at the rate of $75.56, commencing November 25, 1947, $1.
PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE Federal district commission-
616.	Maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings, Ottawa, and improvements to the parkways system under the control of the federal district commission-further amount required, $55,000.

[Stage Direction]
617.	General administration and technical services -further amount required, $1,650.

[Stage Direction]
618.	Canada Gazette-further amount required, $25,000.
619.	Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $12,000.

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-New Brunswick-
620.	West Saint John-terminal building for customs and immigration-further amount required, $125,000.
Ontario-
621.	Ottawa-Central Experimental Farm-addition and alterations to chemistry building, $17,000.
Ottawa-East Block - improvements - further amount required, $90,000.
Ottawa-national research building-improvements and repairs-further amount required, $50,000.
Ottawa-parliament buildings-carving, $12,000.
Sault Ste. Marie-public building-further amount required, $200,000.
Supply
Engineering branch-construction, repairs and improvements-harbours and rivers-
Nova Scotia-
622.	Digby-repairs to piers-further amount required, $4,000.
Inverness-maintenance of harbour entrance-further amount required, $3,000.
West Dublin-dredging-further amount required, $15,000.
Quebec-
623.	Cross Point-jetty extension-further amount required, $15,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken-further amount required, $65,000.
Les eboulements-breakwater-further amount required, $5,400.
Petite Riviere Est-harbour improvements-further amount required, $21,000.
Sorel-harbour repairs-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
Ontario-
624.	Morson-wharf replacement-further amount required, $2,500.
Oshawa-revetment wall extension, $14,000.
Port Arthur-breakwater-further amount required, $110,000.
Trenton-wharf extension, $6,000.
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-
625.	Fort Fitzgerald, Alberta-wharf repairs and extension-further amount required, $30,000.
British Columbia and Yukon-
626.	Bear River, Bedwell Sound-float, $7,000. Fraser river-(Kirkland island)-extension of
channel protection-further amount required, $66,000. Gibson's Landing-dredging, $17,000.
Ucluelet west-floats-further amount required,

[Stage Direction]
627. Canadian government travel	bureau-to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada- provided in main estimates under trade and commerce-further amount required, $87,000.
General-
National film board, including the motion picture bureau-provided in main estimates under national revenue-
628.	Distribution of films-further amount required,

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-pensions and other benefits-
629.	To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty-further amount required, $11,343.84.

[Stage Direction]
630.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $1,200.
631.	Citizenship branch-further amount required, $3,779.
Patent and copyright office-
632.	Patent record division-further amount required, $15,000.

[Stage Direction]
633.	Departmental administration-to provide for an additional deputy minister for the Department of Trade and Commerce for a period not exceeding two years commencing February 1, 1949, to be appointed by the governor in council, to be called the associate deputy minister of trade and commerce
[Stage Direction]
Supply
to hold office during pleasure and to have and exercise, under the deputy minister of trade and commerce, such powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as may be specified by such minister, at a salary of $12,000 per annum; order in council P.C. 132/1088 of March 9, 1949, appointing Sydney David Pierce as such associate deputy minister on the terms therein set forth, is ratified; amount required for the 1948-49 fiscal year, $2,000.
Exhibitions-
634.	Exhibitions generally-further amount required, $146,404.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
635.	Statistics-further amount required, $41,533. Canada Grain Act-
636.	Operation and maintenance, including inspection, weighing, registration, etc.-further amount required, $19,300.
Special-
637.	To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses incurred in purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, etc., on behalf of the Department of National Defence, under chapter 51, statutes of 1947-further amount required, $208,000.
638.	To reimburse the Canadian Commercial Corporation for amounts advanced by it as working capital under mortgage security to George T. Davie and Sons Limited (losses on which advances cannot yet be estimated) for the purpose of enabling that company to complete and to deliver ships to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited, which purchased such ships with funds derived mainly from a loan for this purpose guaranteed by Canada under part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act, $850,000.
639.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for expenses incurred from August 1, 1947 to July 31. 1948, in regulating deliveries of grain, allocation of railway cars and administration of regulations relating to maximum prices of grain, $128,367.54.
640.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the deficit incurred from the operations of the wheat board on the 1947 crop account, flax division, for the period August 1, 1947 to July 31, 1948, pursuant to regulations passed under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, as amended, and approved by orders in council P.C. 3038 of July 31, 1947, and P.C. 829 of February 26, 1948, $4,454,250.44.
Demobilization and reconversion- (Provided in main estimates under Reconstruction and Supply) -
641.	To provide for the cost of replacement, repair, reconditioning and salvage of essential buildings, machinery and equipment destroyed or partially destroyed by fire at the Canadian Arsenals Limited, Dominion Arsenals (Val Rose) plant, Quebec City, $275,000.
642.	Incentive bonus to industry to expedite the production of strategic building materials-further amount required, $135,000.

[Stage Direction]
643.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $25,000.
Canals service-
644.	Canals service - administration - further amount required, $3,000.
645.	Canals-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $71,470.
Marine service-
646.	Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers-further amount required, $62,700.
647.	Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, including grant of $3,500 to l'Ecole d'Arts et Metiers de Rimouski, Quebec-further amount required, $3,500.
648.	To provide for the repayment to a proper authority or to the government of the United Kingdom of expected expenses, as defined in section 296 (5) of the Canada Shipping Act, incurred by the said government for the relief, maintenance and repatriation of distressed seamen left behind out of Canada from ships registered in Canada, or of distressed Canadian seamen left behind out of Canada from ships other than of Canadian registry, $1,900.
649.	Steamship inspection-further amount required, $5,000.
650.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital-further amount required, $206,600.
Canadian maritime commission-mail subsidies and steamship subventions-western local services-
651.	Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte islands, service between-further amount required, $147,935.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between-further amount required, $171,065.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between-further amount required, $60,000.
Eastern local services-
652.	Campobello, N.B., and Lubec, Maine, service between-further amount required, $333.33.
Mulgrave and Arichat, N.S., service between-further amount required, $2,000.
Mulgrave and Canso, N.S., service between-further amount required, $12,500.
Mulgrave and Guysboro, N.S., calling at intermediate ports, service between-further amount required, $2,500.
Pictou, Mulgrave and Cheticamp, N.S., service between-further amount required, $2,500.
Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen island, service between-further amount required, $28,000.
Quebec, Natashquan and Harrington, service between-further amount required, $320,500.
Quebec, or Montreal and Gaspe, calling at way ports, service between-further amount required, $66,500.	.
Rimouski, Matane and points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, service between-further amount required, $50,500.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports, west coast of Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island, service between-further amount required, $5,000.
Railway service-Maritime Freight Rates Act-
653.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $4,800,000 already appropriated to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1948-49 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the Canadian National Railway Company and certified by the auditors of the said company to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1948 under the tariffs approved on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways-further amount required, $557,571.80.
654.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,150,000 already appropriated to authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1948-49 of the difference (estimated by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada

and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport, as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1948 under the tariffs approved by the following companies: Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway, including Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company, and New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; Cumberland Railway and Coal Company; Dominion Atlantic Railway; Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company; Sydney and Louisburg Railway; Temiscouata Railway Company-further amount required, $98,486.22.
Pensions and other benefits-
655.	Additional amount in excess of $480 already appropriated to recoup the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia in continuation of a pension granted and to be paid by that board up to the 31st March, 1949, in the sum of $50 per month from May 1, 1948, to the widow of the late E. J. McCoskrie who was formerly employed as port warden at Prince Rupert, B.C., and who was killed while in the performance of his duties-further amount required, $110.
Air service-civil aviation division-
656.	Contribution to the international civil aviation organization as Canada's portion of the financial assistance to the government of Iceland in respect of the provision, operation and maintenance of certain air navigation services, $122,000.
Radio division-
657.	Issue of radio receiving licences-(Transport Department only)-further amount required, $23,800.
General-[DOT]
658.	Expenses of the royal commission on national transportation, $10,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
659.	Acquisition of properties in Canada for U.S. authorities-further amount required, $16,250.
Government-owned enterprises-deficits-transport-
660.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $904,000 already appropriated, to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1948-49 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of
Supply
Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1948-further amount required, $315,880.75.
661.	Amount required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1948-49 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1948; this amount to be applied in the repayment of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, under authority of the Canadian National Railways' Financing and Guarantee Act, 1948-Canadian National Railways, exclusive of eastern lines, $19,244,635.35; eastern lines, $14,288,105.77; total, $33,532,741.12.
662.	To hereby authorize and provide for payment during the fiscal year 1948-49 to Trans-Canada Air Lines to be applied by Trans-Canada Air Lines in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of Trans-Canada Air Lines) resulting from the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines and its subsidiary, Trans-Canada (Atlantic) Limited, during the calendar year 1948; this amount to be applied in the repayment of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund under authority of the Canadian National Railways' Financing and Guarantee Act, 1948-Trans-Canada Air Lines, $1,183,022.16; Trans-Canada (Atlantic) Limited, $1,750,218.22; total, $2,933,240.38.
National harbours board-
663.	To provide for payment to national harbours board, of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficits (exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1948, in the operation of the following -Quebec harbour, $156,400.83; Prescott elevator, $38,709.32; total $195,110.15.

[Stage Direction]
Loans and investments-
664.	To provide for the purchase and placing in storage of strategic reserves of materials, $3,250,000.
665.	To provide for advances to Canadian Arsenals Limited to increase the working capital fund for the operations of the company, $2,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 8, 1949