1949-04-01

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. O. Breilhaupt (Waterloo North) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the second report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to inform the house of certain changes in the ministry on the occasion of the union of Canada and Newfoundland. Hon. James A. MacKinnon has resigned as Minister of Mines and Resources and has been sworn in as a minister without portfolio. He remains a member of the treasury board, and also Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce and Acting Minister of Mines and Resources.
Before announcing the further changes I should like to read to the house Mr. MacKinnon's letter of resignation and my reply. The letter from Mr. MacKinnon is as follows:
Minister of Mines and Resources Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, March 21, 1949.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent:
I have been thinking further along the lines of our recent conversation in which I informed you that my doctor advised me that I should, under no circumstances, consider seeking re-election to the House of Commons. I believe I should now make a public announcement to our friends in Edmonton West, so that they may be able to give immediate consideration to the choice of a candidate to contest the next general election. If you approve, I shall advise the Liberals of Edmonton West accordingly this week end.	.
I have been very happy to be associated with the government responsible for completing the work of the Fathers of Confederation, bringing to a successful conclusion the union with Newfoundland. As
you know, I have been looking forward to being relieved of onerous departmental duties. I might make a further contribution to the harmonious completion of the union with Newfoundland by placing my portfolio at your disposal at this time.
It is, of course, going to be a wrench to sever my connection with a government I have been so happily associated with for so many years, but even apart from the state of my health, I feel it is desirable to keep bringing new blood into the administration, as we have been doing steadily for some years, in order to maintain the combination of experience and youthful energy which has enabled the party to serve Canada so well over the years.
I should be glad, therefore, if you would feel perfectly free to act on this suggestion of mine if it will lit in with your plans.
May I repeat here what I said to you personally- how proud and happy I am to have been associated for so many years with our late leader, Mr. King, and just recently under your own great leadership.
Assuring you of my continuing admiration and loyalty, I am,
Yours faithfully,
Jas. A. MacKinnon
To this letter I replied as follows:
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa,
March 23, 1949.
Hon. James A. MacKinnon, M.P.,
Minister of Mines and Resources,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. MacKinnon:
I am grateful for your characteristically generous letter of March 21. No one can regret more than I do that your health will no longer permit you to face the rigours of a campaign for re-election to the House of Commons, particularly as your retirement will remove one of the small band of colleagues who have been with me since the first day I appeared in the council chamber.
At the same time, I know how arduous and devoted your services have been and how greatly you deserve some relief from the exacting responsibilities you have borne so long and with such distinction.
I agree, therefore, that it would be advisable to make an announcement now of your intention not to be a candidate in the next general elections.
Like you, I am impressed with the importance of doing everything we can to make the people of Newfoundland feel their province is a full partner from the first day of union. Your readiness to make your portfolio available will enable me to make certain rearrangements which will ensure full representation of Newfoundland in the ministry. I am sure all Canadians will be grateful for your patriotic suggestion that you make this personal contribution to the success of the new union.
I am going to ask you, however, to remain in the government as a minister without portfolio at least until the end of the present session. I feel it would be most unfortunate not to have the point of view of Alberta fully represented at the council table in the next few critical months.
It is my hope that the number of supporters of the government who will be returned in Alberta in

The Ministry
the next elections will be such that the only difficulty will be to choose the member who is best qualified to represent the interests and viewpoint of your province in the government of the nation.
I confess, however, it is not going to be easy to find anyone who could serve Alberta and all Canada with greater devotion than you have done over the past decade; and I hope you are going to continue for many years, though with lightened burdens, to contribute of your wisdom and experience to the public interest.
In conclusion, may I thank you again for all the help and encouragement you have given me over the years and, particularly, in these last few difficult months.
With warmest regards,
Yours very sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, many of us who have been in the house with the hon. member who is now relinquishing his post would like to say that we have appreciated his genial manner, his courtesy and his unfailing friendliness toward all of us.
I do not wish to make any reference to the political implications of the correspondence which has been read, but I do wish to say to Mr. MacKinnon how deeply we regret that he is obliged to retire for reasons of health. We wish him many long years to enjoy the honours that are deservedly his.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I join in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Inasmuch as the oldest friendship I have-and it is a very personal friendship-among the membership of the house has been with my old friend from Edmonton West, I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a word about him.
Our friendship goes back a long way. I knew him first when I was a high school student in Regina and he was attending normal school. That makes him older than I, in the normal course of events. I next knew him when I took a hockey club up to Edmonton; and while he did not play hockey, he arranged things so that we did not have a single chance of success. We were defeated. He is the finest wangler-and I do not use that word politically at all-and the greatest arranger of things, with that genial manner, that grand smile, and an outlook which embraces everyone, that I have ever met in my life.
I say to him politically-and in this I pay him the greatest compliment I could pay to anyone in the House of Commons-that we on this side of the house are unanimous in our opinion, one which has become a judgment, that we have always received straight and fine treatment from him, right from the beginning of his holding office until the present time.

I need hardly say that the only difference I have ever had with him has been a political one; and I am content even with that, because he succeeded where he lived, and I succeeded where I lived. I am sure, sir, that all in the House of Commons will agree with me when I say that through his leaving the house will be poorer. And let me add that so far as the welfare of Canada is concerned, it could not have been in better hands than those of my old friend Jim MacKinnon.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Albertan I too would like to say just a word of appreciation of the friendship of the hon. member and of many favours he has done for me, though we have been on opposite sides of the house. May I add I have never taken a matter to Mr. MacKinnon which he did not give his utmost attention and most sympathetic consideration.
He has been helpful to me ever since I came to the house. Being comparatively new in the federal field, naturally I had to look to someone to give me help. I must say-and I acknowledge it freely-that I always received most sympathetic assistance from the minister in every way he could possibly give it.
I regret very much the necessity of his having to leave the house and the ministry at this time. Let me add that the people of Alberta generally, without regard to their political affiliations or colour, will definitely regret seeing Jim MacKinnon leave the administration. He has many friends outside the Liberal party, and many friends outside Alberta.
I extend to him sincerely, on behalf of our party in the House of Commons, the kindest possible wishes for many years of happiness and contentment.


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a word from one of those known to be more closely associated with the urban population of our country might be in order. For a quarter of a century it has been my privilege and pleasure to know Mr. MacKinnon. In those days when he sat in this chamber as a private member-a high privilege for anyone to enjoy-I learned to know and respect him. In common with a mutual friend, the late Allan Fraser, secretary-manager of the National Dairy Council of Canada, in other days we were able to ' espouse the cause of the dairy interests in this country.
It runs through my mind now, sir, that once again, when someone must rise in his place and espouse that cause, we know we have a true friend in Mr. MacKinnon. I do not wish to let this opportunity pass without

saying that between 1935 and 1939, and from that time forward, in company with many other thousands of rural citizens of Canada who were interested in the dairy industry, we knew we always had an adviser and friend in Mr. MacKinnon.
Therefore I pay tribute to him on behalf of the rural members of the house, hoping that in the days to come he in turn will see to it that those who are interested in the dairy industry of Canada may find in him a source of advice and warm feeling toward that industry, and that they will know where to turn to get good advice. I am sure he will be ready and willing on all occasions, whether in this chamber or, as is more likely, in the other place, to look after the interests of those whom he served so well from 1935 on.
I pay tribute to Mr. MacKinnon. I have enjoyed his friendship, and I hope he may be spared many years in another place to serve Canada.


Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I too cannot let this occasion pass without expressing my appreciation of the help the minister has given to me by way of tendering information on the occasions of the many trips I have made into northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
Everywhere I have gone in that part of the country I have met friends of James MacKinnon. At different places I heard about his visits to the areas to which I had gone, and learned of the high regard the people in the far north have for him. I am very sorry to hear that his health makes it imperative for him to retire.
I have a particularly warm feeling for my hon. friend for another reason. Before leaving for my last trip to the far north I had expressed to the minister a desire to get from Norman Wells to Whitehorse. Now to get from Norman Wells to Whitehorse by a Canadian plane means that you must fly down to Fort Nelson and then back to Whitehorse. I had inquired from the Canadian Pacific Air Lines what the ticket would cost, and my memory is that it was just under $500. I was quite prepared to pay that, because I wanted to go via Whitehorse to meet my good friend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) at Dawson.
You can imagine how happy I was when I arrived at Norman Wells from Aklavik to be met by an officer of the United States flying forces. He saluted and said that he was at my service, that he understood that I wanted to go to Whitehorse. At first I refused to accept the trip, having planned to go by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, but when he told me that it would not cost me one dollar, that the plane was at my service, I could hardly refuse. I learned later at Edmonton that the
The Ministry
minister had written to the chief of the United States command, who had sent on the order that saved me just under $500. Therefore, being of Scotch extraction, I want to express to another man of Scotch extraction my warm feelings of appreciation. I do hope that his health will be restored and, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has said, that he will arrive in good health in another place at the far end of this building. After all, that is the anteroom to heaven.


Mr. J. M. Dechene (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this occasion pass without adding my voice to the voices of other hon. members who have expressed friendship and admiration for a man with whom I have been associated for nearly half a century. I do this not only as a member of parliament, and as one who has been associated with the minister in the fight on behalf of Liberalism in Alberta, but as a member of a family with which he has been friendly for years. My wife's family have always had the highest regard for Jim MacKinnon.
I hope that a man of his calibre, of his integrity and of his ability will be found in the ranks of the Liberal party to take his place in the cabinet by the side of the Prime Minister. It is to be regretted that public life has taken so much out of a man whom I have known as strong and virile. It indicates to hon. members of this house what a hard taskmaster politics can be.
I would ask hon. members to bear with me for a moment while I express on behalf of the French Canadians of Alberta, in the language that they speak, their admiration and love for James MacKinnon, in whom they have always had a most true and understanding friend.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, as the representative of close to 50,000 French Canadians in the province of Alberta, I am glad of this opportunity to express in this house the feelings of sincere and deep friendship which they have always entertained for the hon. the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. MacKinnon), and to wish him recovery, on their behalf, so that he may long continue to serve the Liberal party in the other place with the same ability he has displayed during the fifteen years he has spent in this house.
(Text):


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the glowing tributes that have been paid to the hon. minister, I am sure I would be remiss in my duty if I did not convey to him the good feelings that come from his old home place. I appreciate that the west takes credit for having had such a man up in that district, but we in Bruce feel

The Ministry
that we are entitled to the most credit, because that is where the hon. gentleman was born, and I am sure that is where part of his heart is.


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister without portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, this is an entire surprise to me; nevertheless I appreciate these all too flattering comments from the various quarters of this house. I myself particularly like people, and I am deeply touched by what has just been said. I am most grateful.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are days in public life which are pretty grim, but it is gratifying that there can be occasions such as this when members of all parties feel that it is fitting to recognize deserving public service.
Hon. Colin Gibson has resigned as Secretary of State and been appointed Minister of Mines and Resources.
One of our new fellow Canadians, Hon. F. Gordon Bradley, of the new province of Newfoundland, has been sworn to the privy council and appointed Secretary of State of Canada.
We all rejoice in the completion of that project which has been maturing for so many years. As a mark of recognition of his service to Canada and to Newfoundland, the retiring high commissioner, Mr. Charles J. Burchell, K.C., has this morning been sworn to the Privy Council of Canada.
Before concluding this statement I should like to mention the services of four other gentlemen who have rendered exceptional service in connection with the union we are celebrating today. The first is my predecessor, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was Prime Minister throughout the greater part of the negotiations leading to union, and who had a decisive voice in the decisions taken during that period.
I am sure that all my colleagues who shared in these negotiations will feel that I should mention especially the untiring and devoted services of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) who was vice chairman of the Newfoundland committee, and of my parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris).
I feel that all members of the public service would also agree that special mention should be made of the able and devoted service which has been given day in and day out, and often far into the night, by Dr. R. A. MacKay, of the Department of External Affairs.
As we all rejoice in the completion of confederation, they will have a special satisfaction in the knowledge of a task well done for Newfoundland and for all Canada.


On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will the Prime Minister tell us who is the Acting Secretary of State? In other words, who represents Hon. Mr. Bradley in the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Hon. Colin Gibson will continue as Acting Secretary of State until the Secretary of State is entitled to sit in this house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask when the Acting Secretary of State will return to the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He is attending the ceremonies taking place in St. John's today, and we expect he will return on Monday if flying conditions are favourable.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As you, Mr. Speaker, and many hon. members of the house attended the ceremony on parliament hill at noon, I think it fitting to suggest that the proceedings of the broadcast of that ceremony be appended to Hansard of today, and also the formal addresses which were delivered. It seems to be the pleasure of the house that it be done, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, so to instruct those who prepare Hansard.
(See Appendix, page 22 76.)



CALLING OF BY-ELECTIONS TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: In his answer to a question I asked the other day the Prime Minister implied that I should wait until after March 31 to bring to his attention the matter to which I referred. Will he now tell the house when the by-elections in Newfoundland are to be called?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter of fixing a date for by-elections in Newfoundland has not been decided. One of the important factors in reaching a decision will be as accurate a forecast as we can make as to the possibility of having members who might be elected at such byelections take their seats in this house before the end of the session. The hon. member can be assured that elections will be held in Newfoundland in plenty of time to allow

that new province to be represented in this house at the opening of the next ensuing session of parliament.



REFERENCE TO CEREMONIES ON ENTRY INTO CONFEDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Could not more suitable arrangements be made for members of parliament in connection with such commendable patriotic ceremonies as the one which took place this morning at the entrance to these parliament buildings?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When another province is added to the ten now making up the Canadian confederation, whatever errors may have occurred during the ceremony of this morning will serve as a lesson, to enable us to avoid a repetition of them.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Miller be substituted for that of Mr. Hatfield on the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alphonse Fournier: That the name of Mr. Stephenson be substituted for that of Mr. Homuth; and that the name of Mr. Gauthier (Nipissing) be substituted for that of Mr. Golding on the select standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 188, to amend the Railway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and property of people living in the vicinity of railway roundhouses. It adds one paragraph to section 287, subsection 1, of the Railway Act, which empowers the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to specifically require a railway company to install a steam generating system, which is the modern and only completely effective method of preventing the undue emission of smoke and soot
Railway Act Amendment into the atmosphere to the detriment of the surrounding district.
The amendment provides that a municipal council may appeal to the board of transport commissioners, which may take specific action if they deem it warranted under the circumstances. The previous orders did not give the board sufficient power to utilize modern methods of smoke abatement which have been developed since the act was written and the orders of the board passed.
The amendment recognizes the authority of the municipal council, which is empowered to make the request, and authorizes the board of transport commissioners to act if they are satisfied that the situation warrants it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LIVESTOCK PEDIGREE ACT


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 187 (from the Senate), respecting the incorporation of purebred livestock record associations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT FROM APRIL 8 TO APRIL 25

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That when this house adjourns on Friday, April 8th instant, it stand adjourned until Monday, the 25th instant.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the effect of this motion will be that the Prime Minister will attend the commonwealth conference in London. At a time when the length of the adjournment was uncertain, it may not have been regarded as convenient to make the appropriate arrangements; but, as has been indicated by a number of those officially associated with the coming conference, it is regarded as a most important meeting of the leaders of the governments of the member nations of the commonwealth. Canada is the senior, the largest, and in many ways an extremely important dominion of the commonwealth, and I should think that every hon. member of the house would wish to see Canada represented by the Prime Minister when the conference meets. There are particular reasons why-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Drew: It would almost seem that some surprise is felt on the other side of the house at the apparent defection amongst their allies.


Mr. Rowe:: They seem to know the reason why.


Mr. Abboil:: I cannot figure that out.


George Alexander Drew: Having regard to the events to which we are all looking forward next week,
I think it is particularly fitting that Canada should be represented by the head of its government. Not only should the occasion be dignified by his presence, but this house should be represented by its senior minister. There is another reason-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Out with it.


George Alexander Drew: It is only a short time ago that the Prime Minister, quite properly and wisely, saw fit to visit the President of the United States during the course of the discussions leading up to the Atlantic pact. As the Atlantic pact is to be dealt with next week, it would be particularly suitable that the Prime Minister of Canada meet the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and the other dominions, and exchange views, with the special advantage he possesses in the knowledge of the views of our great neighbour to the south of us, which will play such an important part in the general discussions.
There is also the fact that with the signing of the North Atlantic pact there will be many matters which should be discussed at the highest governmental level. It is well known to every hon. member of this house that while the written record may contain the formal exchange of opinions between governments, personal exchange of opinion is also of immense importance at a time like this.
I earnestly hope, therefore, that the adoption of this resolution will bring the assurance that the Prime Minister will attend the conference.


Right Hon.  L. S. Si. Laurenl@Prime Minister: I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks; and I can assure him and the house that, having in view the matters on the agenda for this meeting, Canada will be competently represented.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon.  L. S. Si. Laurenl@Prime Minister: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a department of reconstruction and development with authority to formulate plans for


public works and improvements, housing, community development, research and the conservation and development of the resources of Canada and to carry out such plans; to provide further for the employment of officers, clerks and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department and generally to provide for the proper and efficient administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a letter on behalf of the Toronto committee for a bill of rights, signed by Mr. Irving Himel, Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Mr. B. K. Sandwell, and a number of others, intimating that the United States state department was drafting a treaty for submission to the April meeting of the United Nations general assembly, to include minimum provisions of the original United Nations declaration of human rights in a stronger form for embodiment in international law. Can the Prime Minister say if the government is giving favourable consideration to this proposal?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I believe that a few days ago a letter to that effect was received in the Prime Minister's office and referred to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because of the undertaking given in this house some time ago that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would make a statement on the present situation in international circles of this matter of a bill of human rights. The Secretary of State for External Affairs informed me yesterday, I think, that his statement had been ready for some time and that he had been waiting for an opportunity to make it, but that he felt it should be made at a time when there might be some opportunity for debate, and that other urgent matters had so far prevented him from making the statement.



SUGGESTED REMOVAL FROM MARKET OF DANISH IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: In
view of the rapidly approaching surplus of Canadian-produced butter, will the Minister of Agriculture tell the house whether the government has taken any action to remove

from the market the inferior grade Danish butter purchased last fall, which is now menacing the Canadian butter trade?


James Garfield Gardiner: The last statement issued by the bureau of statistics indicates that the amount of butter in Canada at the end of last month was the same as the amount in storage a year ago at the same time; and last year we did not have quite enough butter at the end of the season. I am not sure what the position will be this year.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: Would the Minister of National Revenue please make a full statement on Monday next as to any additional consideration now being given farmers with regard to the allowance for depreciation on the farm house, because of the preponderant part it plays in the farm business; and also as to the basis on which it is to be calculated?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The Minister of National Revenue is not in the house today, but I shall bring the matter to his attention so that an answer can be given later,



BUILDING MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since the ordinary man in the street still finds it difficult to buy wire nails, will the minister tell the house when we may expect some results from the arrangement about which he told us on March 22, under which some 24,000 additional kegs of nails a month would be manufactured?
While I am on my feet I should like to ask the minister also to state what the situation is to be during this building season in regard to cement, which has been plentiful but is now getting extremely scarce with the coming of warmer weather.


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Delivery of additional wire is being made to the nail plants now, and I presume the month of May will show the full effect of the additional production. My information is that nails are not difficult to buy now, but perhaps my hon. friend is in one of those remote areas where communications are not good.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is the same all over Ontario.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was told at the beginning of the year by the Canada Cement Company that it was expected there would be plenty of cement available from Canadian production for this season's work. About three or four weeks ago I received another call from the president of the cement company, and was advised that he had found it necessary to revise his opinion, that demands for cement were greatly in excess of expectations, but that the company itself is importing a million barrels of cement from the United Kingdom, which, together with its own production, it hoped wrould meet the situation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister say at about what price that United Kingdom cement will sell here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was informed that the cement company intends to absorb a good share of the additional cost, and that the spread, if any, would not be great.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood the minister to refer to "the cement company." Is there only one company manufacturing cement in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no. I was referring to the Canada Cement Company, which produces about ninety per cent of the cement of this country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They have kept their prices down, too.



WAR DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
SUSTAINED THROUGH ENEMY ACTION «
On the orders of the day:
Agar Rodney Adamson: As
today we have a new minister from Newfoundland as Secretary of State, will the Prime Minister bring to his attention the question that was asked yesterday concerning war damage?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall gladly do so.



WINNING OF AWARD BY EDWARD W. BRADLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. Miller (Portage la Prairie):: May
I direct the attention of the house to the fact that a young Portage plains farmer, twenty-four year old Edward W. Bradley, has won the top award for barley in the 1948 national competition sponsored by the brewing and malting industries? In so doing he has brought honour to himself and to the Portage district as well as to the province of Manitoba.
223Q	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Interim, Supply HOUSING



STATEMENT AS TO DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Yesterday the member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) asked if a report could be submitted about the progress being made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the matter of a comprehensive housing project for the city of Toronto and surrounding townships. In answer I might say that despite the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has had many conversations with the mayors of Toronto, not as much progress has been made in the development of a comprehensive program in Toronto and surrounding municipalities as we should like.
The difficulties centre around the lack of land for housing projects in the city of Toronto, and in the provision of services, particularly schools in suburban municipalities. This problem is particularly acute with respect to veterans rental housing. It would have been most desirable to undertake this year the construction of a large number of units for rental to veterans in the Toronto area. But as I said before, despite the fact there have been many conversations, not as much progress has been made as we should like.
With regard to development by private enterprise working with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a number of projects are under way. The largest and most important of these* is a land assembly project in North York. This is being developed by two lending institutions working with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Initially it will provide eight hundred lots for home ownership, and in due course a possible further eight hundred. In addition, some five rental insurance projects are either under way or in the negotiation stage.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or his cabinet received a delegation from the Canadian National retired pensioners association, and is he prepared now to make a statement with regard thereto?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I have not received such a delegation.



INTERIM SUPPLY

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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $5,227,302, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the supplementary estimates (Newfoundland) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $5,411,631.17, being seven-twelfths of the amount of certain items, and the sum of $401,400, being one-sixth of the amount of certain items of the said estimates be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to move this resolution upon which a bill will be founded to provide services in the new province of Newfoundland. In this supply bill I am asking for the usual one-sixth of all items and an additional seven-twelfths of two special items which are provided in the schedule to the bill. It relates almost entirely to the sum of $5 million which represents the settlement of various accounts in taking over inventories on the railway and inventories at Gander airport, and a general settlement of accounts between the dominion and the new province as of the date of union. The major portion of that vote will be required in the first month.
The second item relates to special payments which have to be made in connection with airways and the airport at Gander, an additional one-sixth of the fisheries item, the maintenance and extension of the bait service and a special vote for the unemployment insurance commission. I give the usual undertaking, of course, that the passing of these items does not preclude any member from discussing any item of estimates when such item comes up for vote in the regular way.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There is just one question that I should like to ask the minister. By means of this vote of interim supply, one-sixth is provided for in general and in respect of two items a larger amount is to be voted. For the sake of argument, suppose that the House of Commons never arrived at a point before dissolution where all of the supply had been voted? Suppose that one-sixth had been voted by the house and circumstances compelled dissolution, or it was found convenient for the government to have dissolution, which is within the realm of possibility. Is the government then in a position to carry on under governor general's warrants, regardless of the amount that has been voted by parlia-

ment and regardless of the extent of the expenditures which would have to be made under such warrants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have never had that experience personally, Mr. Chairman, but I understand that under the circumstances outlined by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) the government would have to take the responsibility of asking for governor general's warrants for such amounts as might be necessary to carry on the general public service of Canada and the new services in Newfoundland.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister what the total amount is which it is proposed to have voted in this resolution, Mr. Chairman?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As stated in the resolution, Mr. Chairman, the total amount is $5,227,302, representing one-sixth of the general service. Then, there is seven-twelfths of two special items amounting to $5,411,631.17, and a further sum of $401,400, being one-sixth of special items, the bait service and the unemployment insurance commission, a total of some $11 million.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just one question. The minister says he understands that the situation is as he detailed it. In that connection I should like to ask him if it represents the point of view of the law officers of the crown. I am rather surprised at the rapidity with which he was able to answer it so forthrightly, because thirteen or fourteen years ago the hon. member for Glengarry took a different stand. In view of the stand taken by the hon. member for Glengarry at that time it occurs to me that an opinion must have been secured since. I should like to know from the minister whether that is so, or whether he has had the advantage of reading the dissertation which the hon. member for Glengarry gave on the subject some years ago.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry to say I have not read the dissertation to which my hon. friend refers. I have not taken the opinion of the law officers of the crown. It seemed to me that the question was pretty academic. I shall be prepared to deal with it if the contingency arises.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not academic. The hon. member for Peel a while ago asked a reasonable question regarding the representation of Newfoundland, and whether or not the people of that province of Canada are to receive representation in this house which they should have during this session.


Mr. Case:: I understand that we are dealing with the supplementary estimates for Newfoundland.
Interim Supply
In looking the estimates over I find that they appear to be different from the ordinary supplementary estimates. These are the estimates for the whole year, are they not? They are prepared now as supplementary estimates because of the admission of the province after the estimates were prepared.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is correct. They are entitled "supplementary estimates". As the hon. member knows, when the main estimates were prepared the union of Newfoundland had not been approved; therefore it was considered desirable to have the departments estimate what would be required to extend federal services to Newfoundland for the coming fiscal year. The amount of $55 million odd which is now before the committee represents that estimate.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: They are estimates that in the ordinary course of events would appear in the main estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is quite right, and they will appear in the main estimates next year.


Gordon Graydon: The observations exchanged between the minister and the hon. member for Lake Centre a moment ago raised a question in my mind. I do not think the minister can quite label this discussion as academic, as he attempted to do a few moments ago. This is a little past the theoretical, as the minister would like the committee to believe it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not theoretical. We are
fishing.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, well, if you want to take the minister's place it will be quite all right, because you practically belong to the same party, anyway.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perish the thought!


Gordon Graydon: Another hon. member from the C.C.F. party wants to join.


Mr. Maclnnis:: We are not in the coalition in British Columbia.


Gordon Graydon: No, but you were in Manitoba, and you endorsed it.


The Chairman:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member appears to be irritated because we got out.


Gordon Graydon: When the allies of the government cease their noise I shall go on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is April 1; carry on.


Gordon Graydon: I can understand that nobody appreciates it more than you do.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must insist that hon. members address the Chair and direct their remarks to the resolution. There should not be so many interruptions.

Interim Supply


Gordon Graydon: Having in mind the fact that the minister is definite about the right of the government to meet the demands and the requirements of the general public service by governor general's warrants in the event of a dissolution of parliament, such as was envisaged by the hon. member for Lake Centre, does the power that he says resides in the government cover merely the general public service, or can it be extended to other expenditures of the government as well?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a highly difficult legal question, Mr. Chairman. While I am of course a distinguished member of the legal profession, in matters of this kind I prefer to rely on the law officers of the crown. I have to take their opinions on the question asked by my hon. friend.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall I report the resolution?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $5,227,302 being one-sixth of the amount of each of the items as set forth in the supplementary estimates (Newfoundland) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1950, and
2.	The additional sum of $5,411,631.17, being seven-twelfths of the amount of certain items, and the sum of $401,400 being one-sixth of the amount of certain items of the said estimates, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 189, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I should like to bring up at this time, rather than on second reading, because I
[The Chairman.]
wanted to have an answer from the minister with respect to it. The matter to which I shall refer applies to Newfoundland, as it applies to other parts of Canada.
Evidently the government has in mind a policy which has not yet been disclosed formally to the House of Commons. It would seem however that it has a broad national scheme to improve traffic facilities in urban areas throughout Canada. The amount of that, I take it, will be brought down in the supplementary estimates. Whether it will apply to Newfoundland or not will be a matter for the government to answer. I should fancy, however, that it would. I would ask the minister, after I have finished my observations, to say just how much will be allotted to each province, and to each metropolitan area.
I rise at this time because the Montreal Daily Star of yesterday states:
Ottawa will spend $300 million here. Projects to aid traffic will be started immediately. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on the island of Montreal and district to improve traffic facilities, with work to start on project almost immediately, it was announced in Ottawa this morning and later confirmed by J. O. Asselin, chairman of the city's executive committee.
Then it goes on to deal with a number of projects to be started immediately. I am not in any way speaking critically of it, because I am only anxious that we shall have a full disclosure by the government of that great national plan of which this, of course, must be only a part.
In view of the official nature of this communication, and the heavy and deep headlines which it occasioned in the Montreal paper, envisaging expenditures at once of $300 million, I was going to ask the minister about that plan for the relief of traffic difficulties in other metropolitan areas, including the city of St. John's in Newfoundland. Will he indicate if these items which are now apparently promised by the government will be included in the supplementary estimates to be tabled later in connection with Newfoundland and other parts of Canada.
I should like to have an answer to that, because other parts of this country will be anxious to know just what amounts will be spent on the relief of traffic difficulties in those areas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I read with some interest the article to which my hon. friend has referred. I had not heard of the projects before. The question of the relief of traffic difficulties in Montreal, as of course in other cities, is a matter for the municipal administration of that city, which must assume the responsibility for it, and pay the cost.

The only project I know about at the present time is one of long standing to construct a tunnel under the Lachine canal at St. Remi street. That project has been mooted for years. As the committee knows, the dominion government is responsible for the upkeep of bridges over canals maintained by the dominion government. The tunnel project is one in which, if it is agreed to, part of the cost will be paid by the government and part by the city of Montreal. So far as I am aware, arrangements in that connection have not yet been completed. There is an item in the estimates already tabled providing for the federal contribution to the construction of such a tunnel. There are no plans of which I am aware with respect to projects such as referred to by my hon. friend which have yet been brought to the attention of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further question of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether any further progress had been made in the matter of paying old age pensions in Newfoundland. As the minister will recall, when we were discussing the legislation having to do with the entry of Newfoundland into Canada, a great deal was said about the delay which was likely to ensue in that matter.
The government took the position that there was nothing the federal government could do to pay old age pensions to persons in Newfoundland until the Newfoundland provincial government had passed the necessary provincial legislation and subsequently entered into an agreement with the federal government. I notice that in the estimates attached to the bill we are now discussing there is reference to a sum of $2,719,200 for the dominion's share of old age pensions in Newfoundland, together with an additional $3,000 for administration. Can the minister say whether the commission of government or any body acting on behalf of the province of Newfoundland has brought into being any kind of legislation which would make possible an agreement so that old age pensions might be paid in that province right away?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot say definitely as to that. I did see a dispatch which indicated that the commission of government either had contemplated or had adopted some type of old age pension provision as a provincial statute. That, I am afraid, is something which does not fall directly within my province. I am sorry my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here today. It is a matter which concerns the new provincial government, in any case.
Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then why were the items put in the estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To make the usual provision for the payment of old age pensions. We are proceeding on the assumption that the provincial government will get the necessary authorization to enter into an agreement with the dominion government to pay old age pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That might be done by the provisional government without waiting for a provincial election?


Donald MacInnis: Could it not be done by a provincial government after a provincial election, before March 31, 1950?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it could have been done in several ways. I think it could have been done by the commission of government. It might be done by the provincial government formed prior to a provincial election; and of course it could be done by a government after a provincial election. But that is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the new province. It is something over which the federal government has no control whatsoever.


Gordon Graydon: The point I raised before in that connection-and I believe it was mentioned by other hon. members as well-is that one thing is definite and clear, namely that whatever procedure is going to be followed, the old age pensioners of Newfoundland are going to have to wait a considerable number of months before they receive their cheques. That is definite and clear from what has been said. It may be there are many reasons why that cannot be done. Other members of the government, besides the Minister of Finance, have already tackled the problem. But they have not convinced the opposition very decisively that they have taken a correct position.
One thing seems clear to me, and that is that there was a way by which this could have been done. The Minister of Finance and other ministers have indicated ways in which it could have been done. I am not going to discuss that matter now, because the fact is that it was not done. When, however, self-styled, this all-powerful government was dealing with the representatives of Newfoundland here in Ottawa it seemed to be able to cut all the Gordian knots there were, except that one knot which seemed to tie up old age pension payments.


Mr. Sinclair:: What about provincial rights?


Gordon Graydon: All right, now-


John Ewen Sinclair: Ask your friend right next to you.

Interim Supply


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend is not following me at all.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are all for provincial rights, unless you want it the other way.


Gordon Graydon: You want it all ways.


John Ewen Sinclair: Your friend wants provincial rights.


Gordon Graydon: Your own ministers have indicated ways; I cannot be responsible for that. But it seems to me we have reached the position where, for one reason or another, the red tape could not be cut by this government, constitutionally or otherwise, in order to give the old age pensioners a chance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Cut the constitution; cut it right in two.


Gordon Graydon: The government have never taken the position that they were afraid of their constitutional position with respect to it. They never gave that reason and I think because of that their position is entirely untenable.
Why is it that every time, when some other problem arises or some other obstacle is met, somehow or other the government always seems able to find a way out, but when it comes to paying the old age pensioners of Newfoundland from the date of union they do not seem able to find an answer? I am not going to dwell further on the reasons why this problem arose, but it seems to me that the government should give a firm undertaking. The Minister of Health and Welfare did give an undertaking but it was somewhat indefinite; it was not clear to me, but that may have been my fault. But it will not be my fault if I do not find out from the minister this afternoon what the undertaking of the government really is.
Will this government be prepared to give an assurance now that if the provincial government of Newfoundland, when it is set up and constituted, is prepared to make the old age pensions retroactive to the date of union, March 31 of this year, this government will be prepared to pay its share of those retroactive payments and thereby encourage the provincial government of Newfoundland to bring the old age pensioners up to the date they are properly entitled to?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will meet that one when we come to it. When the provincial government decides what it wants to do, when it is ready to enter into an agreement with the dominion government, we will be ready to enter into an agreement with them. Whether or not we will make it retroactive I cannot state at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: Just as indefinite as ever.


Donald MacInnis: Has the government been approached by the commission of government of Newfoundland to make an agreement in connection with old age pensions? If such approach were made the Minister of Finance should be aware of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as I am aware no approach has been made. I agree with my hon. friend that if such an approach had been made I would have been aware of it.


Mr. Green:: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the chamber and he should know whether any such approach has been made.


Mr. Reid:: I was just about to rise to my feet to say that I thought the remarks of the hon. member for Peel were a little unfair. The act stipulates that the dominion government will pay 75 per cent of the cost, the remaining 25 per cent to be paid by the province. I think it is unfair to ask this government to anticipate what the provincial government of Newfoundland will do, but we have made provisions in the estimates in the hope and expectation that they will decide to come under the old age pensions provisions. It may well be that they might not. Supposing the Newfoundland provincial government say that they do not want to come under the act, would any hon. member apart from those from Newfoundland have the right to get up and criticize that provincial government?


Gordon Graydon: That is what Mayor Bourque says about you.


Thomas Reid: Once the provincial government of Newfoundland decide that they want to come under the act, the provision that we have made for that will apply.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant has overlooked my question. I asked whether or not any representations had been made by Newfoundland with regard to old age pensions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There have not been any.


Thomas Reid: So far as I know, no representations have been made by the provincial government in regard to old age pensions in Newfoundland.


Mr. Jaenicke:: If no representations have been made and if there is no old age pension scheme in Newfoundland now, how does the Minister of Finance arrive at the amount of $2,719,200?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That estimate was made by the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the regular way. I am afraid I am not familiar with the basis upon which they arrived at that estimate, but it is an estimate, as are all these items. If it proves

inadequate the department will have to come back with a supplementary item. It was made in the regular way by the officials of the department concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say
whether the estimated amount will cover the dominion's share for the full twelve months?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid that, for the reason I gave before, I cannot answer that question definitely. It is an estimate made by the departmental officials and I am not personally familiar with the basis upon which the estimate was prepared.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the parliamentary
assistant could answer that question because it seems to me that it is material.
Supply-Agriculture be open for discussion when the regular estimates are being considered?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the outset I gave the usual undertaking in connection with the interim supply that the passing of these items would not prejudice the right of any hon. member to discuss any item, a portion of which is now being voted.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to. [DOT]
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Thomas Reid: Would you mind repeating the question?


Howard Charles Green: The question was whether the item now given to the committee is for the full twelve-months period. In other words, has the dominion government in mind paying pensions from March 31 if the Newfoundland government decide that that is what they want?


Thomas Reid: I am not in a position to give an exact answer, but from the information I have I would say, "yes." After all, the dominion government and the Department of National Health and Welfare anticipated that union would be brought about and they took steps to see that offices were set up and information obtained so that when union took place they would be in a position to proceed with the various things that were in effect in the other provinces. Naturally they obtained information with regard to children in Newfoundland and they put an item in the estimates to take care of pensions to March 31, 1950.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 agreed to.
On the schedule.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the nature of the anticipated development in airways and airports?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that this is largely to cover repairs to the runways at Gander and at Goose Bay. The repairs at Gander are under way now under an existing arrangement. Of course, those were the responsibility of the Newfoundland government, but as air transport is under the federal government we have taken them over. My information is that a substantial part of those repairs were made in the early part of the year because the work is now proceeding.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that all the items appearing in the supplementary estimates will
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administrative service-
5fi3. Departmental administration, further amount required, $2,500.


Gordon Graydon: My understanding was that we were to take up further supplementary estimates after the Newfoundland supply had been disposed of and that the bringing in of agriculture and perhaps external affairs as two additional departments would come after that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These are the supplementary estimates we are taking now.


Gordon Graydon: I see.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For this year just closed.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Has the minister in mind any changes this year in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act? The minister will recall that I have taken up this matter with him several times, as have other members of the house. I refer particularly to the extension of the provisions of the act so that it will include other regions which are not now in the designated area, particularly the whole of the three prairie provinces. There are very good reasons for doing that. I am not going to take the time today to repeat them. because we will have another opportunity on the regular estimates, but I think the house should know at this time whether the minister has any plans to propose to the house before the session is over. It may be that it will require an amendment to the act, or possibly it can be done by regulation, by extending the designated area so as to include other regions which are not now in that area.


James Garfield Gardiner: The votes under which that would come are really the specials, 572, 573 and 574. In a general way I can say that up to the moment there is no intention to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act this year,

Supply-Agriculture
but I can discuss that further under those items when we reach them.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: We are discussing item No. 563?


The Deputy Chairman:: Right.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: You are asking for a further amount of $2,500 for administration. Can you tell me why you should have been out in your estimate for administration? This is money you lack to complete the current fiscal year. When you set up your budget for administrative purposes, it seems to me that you should be able to estimate so as to have sufficient to cover that item.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: The $2,500 under miscellaneous is for one-quarter of Canada's share of charges in connection with the cost of common services of the British commonwealth scientific office in London. The amount is required for the payment of the Department of Agriculture's share of charges for common services of B.C.S.O. in London, England. The national research council absorbs 50 per cent of all charges, the defence research board 25 per cent, and the Department of Agriculture the remaining 25 per cent. These three payments are Canada's share of the charges for B.C.S.O. The major countries at present participating in this scheme are the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand and Canada. The B.C.S.O. liaison offices maintain services to all participant countries through their liaison officers, and carry on scientific work such as reporting on methods for promoting the utilization of scientific and technical results. The total of Canada's share in the above-mentioned connection is $9,627.29 up to December 31, 1948. One-half will be paid by the national research council, one-quarter by the defence research board, and the remaining quarter by the Department of Agriculture, the said sum being approximately $2,500.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is this a part of the permanent staff? These are not temporary employees?


James Garfield Gardiner: These employees are in England. We pay our share. We have an undertaking with these other countries to pay our share of whatever the costs are. Our further share is $2,500.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The items mentioned by the minister would seem to include items of expenditure not necessarily for administrative purposes, not salaries.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is put under miscellaneous in our items in the agricultural estimates, and this is a part of the miscellaneous.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It is a permanent part of the services now?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been there for years.


Mr. Harkness:: I should like to ask the minister if the total of more than one and three-quarter million dollars in the supplementary estimates for his department has already all been spent in the year which ended on the 31st of March. If so, under what authority has the money been spent, not having been voted by parliament? The government now comes along after spending the money, if that is the case, and wants to have it voted.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course these votes that are numbered are separate items, and each one of them has to be voted by the house. When we come to the end of a year it will be found that there are small surpluses under some items, and there are deficits in others. This vote is to take care of some of the deficit amounts. It does not necessarily mean that on balance in the department there is $1,761,000 required in addition to what was voted last year. So far as these particular items are concerned we require more. There may be other places in the department where there are surpluses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the minister can tell us what the balance is in the department? Is this amount of money the balance of what was voted and not spent, or is this actually money which was spent without authority?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no possibility of saying at this moment what it will be. While the accounts are balanced at the end of March, they are not actually closed until we get pretty well on to the end of April. Payments are being made all the time, and it is impossible to say at the moment just what the exact amount will be, but it is not a matter of paying for something that has not already been passed upon. The best illustration of that is the big item, apart from specials. There is an item for compensation for animals slaughtered, further amount required, $100,000. There was no possibility last year of determining exactly what the amount was going to be. What we said was that we were going into certain municipalities to check cattle, and if we were $100,000 short in checking those cattle, we would have to find the $100,000. We are obligated to do that under action which has been taken by the government, and which has been endorsed by parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not want to jump around on these items, but the largest item is $1 million for cutting down apple trees.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Wait till we come to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: When we come to that I will tell you about it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not want to jump around on the various items, but the minister has already referred to an item of $100,000. Referring to this item of $1 million in the same way, is that the same situation? Was any authority voted by the house to pay that $1 million for that purpose?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to explain. Possibly he is not aware exactly how government accounts are run. As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, individual items are voted, and the votes cannot be transferred. In other words, if you vote $10,000 for science service, and $5,000 for some other service, and you do not spend all your money in science service, and you find your expenditures were more in the other service, you would have to come back and ask for a supplementary. One cannot tell until the government accounts have been closed at the end of the year how one comes out. As I said in my budget address, total expenditures this year will be within one per cent of the estimates last year, but as far as individual items are concerned, they are made up fifteen and sixteen months before the moneys have to be spent, and the purpose of supplemen-taries is to get the house to vote moneys for special purposes where the original estimates have been too low.


Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: I should like to refer to item 569.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Wait till we come to it. Let us take the items in order.


Mr. Probe:: I have a question which might come under any of the items. It is my information that salaries in certain sections of the Department of Agriculture have been in arrears for some six or eight weeks now. Will the minister indicate how general that condition is, whether it is an accidental situation in one year, and what is the reason for it? Unless it is casual labour, I imagine their salaries were pretty well provided for when the estimates were made up.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not happen to know of any case where that is true. Salaries are paid in the ordinary way in the department, and I presume they are all paid up to date. There may be some reason for their not being paid at some point, but I do not know what it would be.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not like to make this request, but one of the members of our party is attending the meeting of one of the committees of the house. We have sent for him, and I wonder if the minister would mind holding this item open and passing on to the next one.


James Garfield Gardiner: Very well.
Item stands.
Supply-Agriculture Science service-
565. Science service administration - further amount required, $17,000.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister is in a position to give a report on the investigations made by his department in Saskatchewan with relation to the grasshopper infestation. The other day I asked a question on this subject, and the minister indicated the degree to which his department interested itself in this matter. During the last two or three days I have received four letters from various parts of Saskatchewan requesting reconsideration on the part of the Department of Agriculture of the question of assisting the rural municipalities and the provinces in this connection. I speak without scientific knowledge, but from the information I have gained from these farmers and also from the report of the Saskatchewan department, I believe the threat this year to Saskatchewan wheat farming is the most serious that the province has faced in many years. Whether anything can be done at this time by the federal authorities to alleviate or reduce the danger, I cannot say; but I want to point out to the minister how much these municipalities desire any assistance that may be given by the federal department.
In saying that, I am making no indirect criticism of the provincial department of agriculture, because I want to keep this matter entirely removed from any question of partisanship or any difference of view as to the responsibilities of the federal and provincial departments. I know the minister realizes how serious it is, and if the federal authority can do anything to meet this challenge, which has all the appearances of a provincial disaster that will have widespread repercussions throughout the dominion, that should be done even if it results in some material departure from the relative jurisdictions heretofore assumed by federal and provincial authorities.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure the hon. member realizes that no matter how severe the grasshopper infestation may be this year it cannot possibly be any worse than it has been on other occasions in the past; and from experience I can say that it is never as bad in the first year as in the second or third year. There is no information in regard to the movement of grasshoppers and the infestation that has developed, which is not known either to the department here or to the departments in the prairie provinces. The practice always has been and still is, however, that the work referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre is done by the provincial departments. That is not a matter of either criticism or the shifting of responsibility. The responsibility is admitted; there is no question about

Supply-Agriculture
it at all. The detailed information we have with regard to grasshoppers is obtained from the provinces. If there is a movement of grasshoppers across the state of North Dakota, for instance, or elsewhere toward Canada we check with the United States authorities and get all the information we can. So do the provincial people; but we may take a little more responsibility in regard to getting that information because of the international nature of the situation.
As far as attacking the problem is concerned, or dealing with the situation that exists, that is done by the provincial departments through the municipalities, and it has been carried on in that way for years. No one is suggesting that this procedure should be changed. I have not had a single letter about it from anyone; and I would suggest to any hon. member who is getting letters that he write back to the interested individuals immediately, telling them that the place to write is to the provincial department of agriculture at Regina, where they will get all the information available without the least difficulty. If the department at Regina finds that it requires information it has not got but that we can obtain for it, or if they find that we have some scientific personnel who would be useful to them, or if they find that any of our personnel can be utilized to help them, all they need do is say so and that personnel is made available at once. So the quickest way to get results is to have those concerned write directly to the provincial government and get their directions from them. If we started to mix in that we would be likely to complicate the matter rather than help.


Edward George McCullough: Following what the minister has just said, I would point out that a situation might well develop in which the federal government could take some part and some responsibility other than ^ merely making available scientific information. I do not know what policy is being followed in the other provinces, but my understanding is that the government of Saskatchewan is now selling and distributing in bulk form through the municipalities certain liquids which can be used in the boom sprayers for counteracting the grasshopper infestation.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the method that has always been followed and is still being followed.


Edward George McCullough: But last year, as the minister well knows, the cost to the farmer was $2 to $3 a gallon, which made the cost per acre very high. This year under the provincial policy I understand it is being distributed at a cost of about 75 cents per

acre. But I believe the minister will agree that even this cost is relatively high for a farmer with a small crop. I was through this difficulty in the thirties, and I realize that even though some farmers may undertake the protection of their own farms, the flight of 'hoppers into a certain area may still destroy their crops, as mine have been destroyed. So I would urge the minister to assist financially by subsidizing the cost of the necessary chemicals, in order to help those provinces which may be facing a calamity through this grasshopper infestation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service-
563. Departmental administration-further amount required, $2,500.
Mr. Fulton:: I appreciate very much the kindness of the committee in letting this item stand until I could be here. I had asked to be advised when it was called, but now I find that I have nothing to bring before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
567. Plant protection-further amount required, $12,500.
Mr. McLure:: What is this for, in connection with plant protection? Is it just for traveling expenses, or does it cover assistance of any other kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was a traveling expense item entirely.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: About $200,000 of the supplementary estimates is for traveling expenses; that is another blank cheque we have to vote. In addition to that there is a sum of $6 million for temporary assistance in the main estimates, another blank cheque we have to give. We are never given a breakdown of these items, but we are still asked to vote a total of $6 million, which is quite a bit of money, without having any information concerning it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if we turn to page 14 it will be found that it is for traveling expenses, $12,500, in connection with plant protection. The items that are concerned are seed potatoes in Prince Edward Island, bulbs in British Columbia and elm disease in the central provinces. It is a matter of the traveling expenses of those who are called upon to go out and check on these different operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
569. Compensation for animals slaughtered, $100,000.
Edward George McCullough: This item covers $100,000 for animals slaughtered under


[Stage Direction]
the administration of the Health of Animals Act. I should like to ask the minister if the amount of compensation paid for purebred and grade animals slaughtered varies to any extent? Would he be kind enough to give a full explanation of the policy in that regard?
James Garfield Gardiner: Up to the present the policy has been to pay two-thirds of the maximum valuation which may be placed on the animals. The maximum for grades is $60 and the maximum for purebreds is $150. Only two-thirds of that is paid by way of compensation, so that the maximum amount that can be paid for a grade animal is $40 and the maximum amount for purebreds is $100.
In addition to that, animals which are not condemned outright and which may contain marketable parts return to the person who owned the animal the amount which he gets from the government plus the amount he is paid by the packing house for the marketable parts. In so far as animals that are declared to have T.B. in the greater part of the carcass are concerned, I can well understand that there has been some hardship with prices as high as they have been in recent months. Those people receive very little in addition to what the government pays, and provision is being made to pay more in so far as those animals are concerned.


Mr. Charlton:: Has the government come to any decision as to what extra money is to be paid for those condemned animals?


James Garfield Gardiner: A final decision has not been made and for that reason I am not able to say exactly what it will be. I am able to state that those who are concerned with the matter have been in to see us and they did not ask for any more than we were considering giving, so I think it likely there will be satisfaction when an announcement is finally made.


Edward George McCullough: Will the
minister state who has been interviewing him in that regard? Has it been the cattlemen's association?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, representatives of the counties that have been concerned with the tests that have been made in recent months.


Edward George McCullough: Have there been representations from western delegates?


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been people representing western producers, yes.


Mr. Bradshaw:: Have any estimates been made as to what amount will be paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only doubt at the moment is when we shall start payment, that is as to how far back it shall extend. It is
Supply-Agriculture
obvious it must go back to some date, because we have not finished the testing in a number of counties. Some date has to be determined, but I do not expect there is going to be any great difficulty about that. Nevertheless, it has to be determined before I can make an announcement.


Mr. McKay:: Under this item, animals are destroyed when they are infected with tuberculosis. I think that is the only disease that has been discussed by the minister. What other infections or diseases are considered to be of such a serious character that the animal is destroyed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Cholera in hogs.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to bring to the minister's attention a very important thing, if it has not already been brought to his attention, and that is the fact that in many of these areas, even those in which this system of inspecting cattle is undertaken, the inspection is not efficient. In my own district, in the Carlyle area, a number of residents have become seriously ill from a certain tubercular disease, alleged to have been caused by infected cattle. I urge the minister to see that there are enough veterinarians in those areas to ensure the efficient inspection of cattle, so we can prevent these serious situations from arising.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister any idea how many veterinarians will be taken on from college this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave those figures at an earlier date and I do not happen to have them with me. They will be found in Hansard.


John Alpheus Charlton: I hardly think the minister understands my question. I should like to know the number of new veterinarians that will be coming into the service upon graduation from college this spring.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe that information is on Hansard. My memory is that there are about five hundred in college at present. All of them will not graduate this spring, but those figures have all been given to the house. I can bring them down again if that is desired. I understand that the number in colleges now is considered by those who have knowledge of the situation to be sufficient to practically eliminate the shortage when they have completed their courses, but the shortage will continue for a few years, of course. There is nothing you or I can do about that.


John Alpheus Charlton: There are over one hundred men graduating from the Ontario Veterinary

Supply-Agriculture
College this year. Has the minister no idea as to the number entering the service this spring?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the number once and it appears in Hansard. I am not going to guess at it now.


John Alpheus Charlton: What page of Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could look it up, but you
have as much time as I have to do that.


Mr. Stephenson:: How many areas have been taken on for the purpose of T.B. tests, and is it the purpose of the government to accept those new areas before the tests are completed in the areas already set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are accepting areas, I would say continuously. An order goes out on an average of once every two weeks. It depends on the action taken in the counties. A vote is taken to determine whether or not they desire to make application and, where the circumstances surrounding the application meet the requirements of the act, we take them in. We accept them immediately they come along. That does not mean we go in and start checking them the next day. We may not have the veterinarians to do that, but as soon as veterinarians can be secured we go on with the work.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Can the minister say whether they have started to test any of those new areas they have accepted? Is it fair to start a test in the new areas when there are so many old areas which have lapsed after the government has spent considerable money in setting them up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Sometimes it is a question. Take a county like the one that has been set up recently in Quebec, between the St. Lawrence river and the United States border. About the only natural market they have for their livestock is across into the United States since we have opened the United States boundary line. We naturally give some preference to areas such as that and carry on the investigations there at once. In other places where districts have extended and finally come close together, and where the people are in a county which is in between two counties which have already been done, they have considerable hardship in selling animals even across the road. In those instances we would attempt to go in to clean up that position, and thus get the whole area put into one solid block. We try to follow the different counties in the area in which they make application.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The minister may know the object of my question. For two or three years I have asked him when the department

was going to retest Durham county. When I last asked him the minister said that if I could find veterinarians to do it they would do it. I wonder whether he can give me any assurance that the test will be started there before long.


James Garfield Gardiner: Have you found the veterinarians?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I do not think that is my
job?


Edward George McCullough: Is any publicity being carried on through the department to speed up those areas so that we might wipe out T.B. in our province? I wish to point out to the minister and to the committee that since a number of my constituents have been taken seriously ill something should be done to wipe out T.B. in cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been responsible for the policy being in existence at all. When I say "we" I mean the Department of Agriculture, which went into the areas many years before I had anything to do with it. It is the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa which sold the idea of inspecting areas for T.B., and we had great difficulty. For example, Alberta refused to come in at all or have any part of it until after I became minister. They eventually came in. On the other hand, the maritime provinces had their entire area covered by checks that had been made before I came into the department some fourteen years ago. In Saskatchewan we started at a later date; at about the time that Mr. Motherwell was Minister of Agriculture we started to line up districts, and the officials have been working in all parts of Canada since just prior to the war just as rapidly as we can find veterinarians to do the work. The house has never limited the amount; the government itself has never limited the amount. And when we found it possible to spend more than we have put in the estimates we have come to the house, as we are doing now, and asked for a supplementary vote in order to pay for it. It has not been limited except by the difficulty of finding veterinarians to do the work.
That of course is associated with the question asked by my hon. friend who wishes to know how many veterinarians there are in the colleges. There is a considerable number in the colleges and in their senior years they are being given work. They are being put out, along with fully qualified veterinarians, to cover these districts more rapidly than they would otherwise be covered. We employ all we can get during the summer months.


Edward George McCullough: The minister did not quite answer my question. I think the minister will agree with me that in order


[Stage Direction]
to have a vote which would conform with the setting up of these areas the people must understand the situation. That requires education. I am sure the minister will agree with me on that. It is not wholly a question of having veterinarians, although I know that is a real problem. I would urge the minister to speed up the education of our people so that they will see the need of this work.
John Alpheus Charlton: I want to point out to the
minister that he must have misunderstood my question. A moment ago he made the statement that I had asked how many students there were in the colleges. I did not ask that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member asked how many were coming out this spring, which is pretty much the same thing.


John Alpheus Charlton: Taken on by the department this spring.


Joseph Henry Harris: I want to make an observation. The minister knows that the incidence of hog cholera was very great in days gone by. I am speaking of a quarter of a century ago, before the department had such good control of hog feeding areas close to large centres of population. What was referred to as hog cholera was probably swine fever instead of cholera in the full sense of the term. It was a costly item, not so much for the department itself, because at that time their control was not as good as it is now. It was a costly item to those who were engaged in that particular line of work. I am thinking back, sir, to the days of the first war when at Camp Borden some bright minds thought that what was going to waste should be used in the production of more pork. I do not like to mention names of those who are dead and gone, but the tragedy of Colonel Low at Camp Borden cost the government perhaps $100,000. The difficulty was not only at Camp Borden but in a good many other military areas.
I congratulate the department through you, sir, on taking careful and definite control over the feeding of hogs from waste from hotels, military camps and what not. My purpose in rising now is to ask you to see to it that that is continued for the general economy of Canada. Having said that, I should like to put on record some of the difficulties which your department will find when it is administering this act. I do not refer to difficulties in administering the act but in the remedial ideas which might be inculcated in the minds of those who are feeding animals with this waste material which should be conserved.
I want to delay the committee a moment or two to recite one fact which might be for the general advantage of the whole industry in the days to come. If you listen to the radio every day you will hear soap operas urging
Supply-Agriculture
the people of Canada to use more and more soap of different kinds. Soap, an alkali product, finds its way into the kitchens where waste material is conserved to be sold to those who are feeding that material to produce more and more pork products. The net result of the whole equation is this. Twenty years ago sixty-four million pounds of soap were consumed in Canada. Today almost double that quantity is consumed, a great deal of it in the kitchens of the Chateau Laurier, thej restaurant in the parliament buildings and in other places. It is washed down and finds its way into the garbage can. From the garbage can it finds its way into the stomach of the hog. In the hog producing centres where hogs are fed garbage it sets up a fever. This is the fever which your department, Mr. Minister, sometimes calls hog cholera; and we are now asked to vote $100,000 to compensate for any losses which might be sustained in this connection.
However I would ask the minister's department to do some research work. If they did they would find a line of demarcation between swine fever, which arises from the feeding of garbage

from such places as our parliamentary restaurant here-and hog cholera which, I believe the minister will agree with me, is almost on a par with what is known south of the equator as foot and mouth disease.
I hope the minister's department will spend some of this money to guide and direct those who are operating establishments of the kind I have mentioned, which produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of pork products for the general advantage of. Canada. Those instructions would act as a guide in the matter of feeding, and not only by way of taking bacteriological data. I have in mind the position taken by officers of the department, that once the product is boiled and steamed, that is sufficient procedure to take before feeding. I would ask the department to go a little further and determine the alkalinity of the resultant food product collected from restaurants in the urban centres. The department should seek to find some method of neutralizing that alkalinity which, to my mind and the minds of many others who have had some experience in this matter, sets up this so-called swine fever. This disease proves itself devastating to the interests of farmers who make their living from the feeding of hogs. I would ask the department to see if it cannot find some method of controlling these large feeding establishments -and when I use the word "large" I am asking hon. members through you, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the voice of experience; because it is only twenty-eight years ago that I left the feeding of animals, found myself

Supply-Agriculture
leasing my premises and coming here to accept the great and high privilege of sitting in this community; perhaps I should say this communion.
If I may, by way of an aside I would say that sometimes I think I made a mistake when I left the pigs and came into politics. Perhaps I would have been far better off had I stayed with the pigs. It may be that I should write a book which, after three decades, is something one should be allowed to do.
Returning to my original theme, and speaking seriously for the general advantage of the industry in Canada, I do hope that through you, Mr. Chairman, I may ask the minister to take some portion of this $100,000, a vote with which I am heartily in accord, and see if further developments cannot be made in the research which has been under way for the last quarter century, so that the innocent, ordinary farmer's son who goes into this line of business-and by the way, a very profitable line of business-may be guided in the feeding of these waste products and turning them into real money. I should hope that some portion of this vote might be used for research work along the lines I have indicated. I trust I have made myself clear to the minister. If I have not I should be only too happy to answer one or two questions, only to be sure that he understands what I have been saying.
To speak briefly, hog cholera is not like the foot and mouth disease. It is foreign to this country. But the lesser form of swine fever, caused by excessive alkali found in the soaps which find their way into the garbage cans-* soaps which are excessively and unnecessarily advertised in soap operas-is a curse to the hog-feeding trade which uses garbage as a feeding base.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say, with regard to what has been said, that it would be impossible for me to say that part of this item would be taken. What the hon. member has said refers to the preceding item, the vote of $54,000 which deals with the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Act. That deals with the general operation of the branch of the department to which the hon. member has referred.
I shall see that the hon. member's remarks are brought to the attention of the officials. I am sure they will be fully aware of the importance of what he has said. But in case they are not, I shall bring them to their attention.


Joseph Henry Harris: I thank the minister; I shall add what I have said to the $54,000 question.


Edward George McCullough: May I make a suggestion to the minister which I believe to be worthy of consideration. In the west we have what is known as Bang's disease or contagious abortion in many herds. I understand that in humans it is called undulant fever. Many head of stock are lost through this disease.
May I suggest to the minister that where through the Animal Contagious Diseases Act it is possible to take care of tuberculosis, the prevention of Bang's disease should also be considered and, if possible, should come under the same administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
571.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $75,335.
Mr. Nowlan:: I would like to draw one matter to the minister's attention. While I do not think there has been a change in the law in this respect, I believe there was a change in its administration last year, which may be reflected to some extent in the figures we have before us. In cold storage construction, because of fair wages legislation it was necessary to have the approval of the Department of Labour of wages which were fixed. Heretofore there has been a clause in contracts stating that the individual or firm building a cold storage plant would comply with the provisions of the act.
Last year, the year for which this money is voted, the contract was changed. Instead of having a general clause, a schedule was set out in the contract enumerating the wages to be paid. At least in one particular instance of which I have knowledge, those wages were based upon the scale obtaining in an urban centre many miles away. Those wage rates, of course, were subject to union negotiations and other matters of the kind. Undoubtedly the wages in those urban areas would have been considered fair and reasonable. But the rate set forth in the contract of which I am speaking was much higher than that then prevailing in the rural area in which the cold storage plant was being built. There were further supplementary provisions stating that overtime should be paid for anything over eight hours, that there should be a five-day week and other conditions.
The whole contract was changed, in so far as that clause was concerned, with the net result that the subsidy payable under this vote was thereby increased by the additional cost. What is more important, the scale of wages in the rural community in question is entirely dislocated, with the result that farmers and other persons employing help are threatened with an attempted migration

toward the one contractor or organization engaged in the construction of the cold storage plant. It would appear to me that the section in the original contract is preferable. I am wondering why the change was made and if the minister could see that some consideration is given to this matter so that we can avoid having rules that are absolutely inapplicable to the conditions prevailing.


Mr. Moore:: The honey producer co-operatives in a number of provinces have reported that there is quite a surplus of honey at the present time. I was wondering whether the Department of Agriculture and the various honey producer co-operatives could not get in touch with the Canadian Commercial Corporation with a view to having them seek markets for this surplus. I recall that a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that in some instances the Canadian Commercial Corporation assisted private industries in getting markets for their products. There is no question that if that could be done the honey producers of Canada would be much indebted.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has not answered the question asked by the hon. member.


James Garfield Gardiner: I listened to what the hon. member had to say and I notice that there is an item for one plant in Nova Scotia. I do not know whether that is the one that he was referring to. The item for canning, United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia Limited, is for $19,988 and I presume that is the item that has been spoken to. I shall look into all the features that have been mentioned by the hon. member and see to it that if any mistakes have been made we do not repeat them.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was not wondering about the minister answering my question now because we will have an opportunity later on when we can deal more effectively with this matter. When the general estimates are before us I should like the minister to provide us with a copy of the specifications now required for the construction of these plants. I am sure that they would be of interest to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in view of the great shortage of building materials.
I believe the minister will find that a change was made in the specifications after a change had been made in the personnel of the department. As a result of those changes, instead of having one thickness of sheeting, a double thickness was required which entails a considerable expense and an extra use of material which apparently was in short supply. I presume that these specifications vary in the different parts of the country depending upon the geographical location.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall have all the details here when the general estimates are before the committee.


Edward George McCullough: Does this subsidy include anything for the maintenance or running charges of cold storage warehouses?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is to cover only the capital cost. When a co-operative or private individual or corporation proposes to build a cold storage plant which the public may utilize, if application is made to the government before operations are commenced the government may pay thirty per cent of the cost. Half is paid in the first year and the rest is spread over the next four years. This v/ould not apply only to the parts of the premises that are used for cold storage; it would apply to that part used by management for the operation of the plant. But if a creamery or some other business is carried on in the same building a clear division is made as between that part and the part utilized for cold storage.


Mr. Jones:: Do I understand that the conversion of a common storage into cold storage would not warrant a subsidy? In Summer-land they are converting a common storage into a cold storage and they want to know whether they can get the subsidy.


James Garfield Gardiner: Each case is considered on its merits. The regulations are that application must be made to the government before any work is done or before any contract is let. The first act is to make application. If a plant is already being used for some other purpose, or if an addition is going to be made, consideration would have to be given to that particular case. There might be some difficulty in the case of a conversion from common to cold storage. I would want to have a check made of the case before saying it could or could not be done.


Owen Lewis Jones: An application is now in.


James Garfield Gardiner: Has it been dealt with?


Owen Lewis Jones: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be dealt with on the basis I have set out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
572.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment-further amount required. $61,729.
Wilfrid Garfield Case: There are no details for this item and the next two following items, which together total $1,486,729. Perhaps the minister could make a statement with regard to these items.

Supply-A griculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I can explain the whole three. The first item is to provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, and the amount asked for is $61,729. The origin of this vote is this: Back about 1936 the United States raised an objection to syrup from the province of Quebec on the ground that it contained lead poison. The syrup complained about was analysed and it was found that the complaint was justified. The syrup which had been condemned for human consumption was utilized in the manufacture of cigarette tobacco so we did not lose the sale. However, we gave an undertaking that we would co-operate with the province of Quebec and the maple syrup producers to eliminate this trouble.
Some person had made buckets which would not rust by putting a lead coating on them. After the sap had been in the pail some chemical action took place which absorbed some of the ingredients of the lead into the syrup and produced lead poison. We undertook, in co-operation with the provincial government and the owners of the bucket, to pay one-third of the cost of removing this equipment. This has been progressing year after year. The reason for this supplementary amount is that they took out of operation equipment to the value of $61,729 over and above the vote of last year. We are simply asking that that be voted in order that payments can be made under our agreement to pay one-third.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This applies only to the province of Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: There was $300,000 in the estimates last year. Does this vote mean that a total of $361,729 is being expended just for buckets?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not only buckets; it is the vats that are used for boiling down the syrup. All this equipment is of a similar type. A total of $300,000 has been spent every year since the year I spoke of, or up until the war began. During the war it was cut down, not because we stopped it, but because they could not get the substitutes for the equipment. Since the end of the war it has been $300,000, and we are stepping it up in order to get rid of this payment as rapidly as possible.


Mr. Hazen:: For how many more years do you expect to have to pay it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not certain, but I hope it will not be very many more.


Douglas King Hazen: Was any definite estimate made when the agreement was entered into?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. There was an amount, which is not in my mind at the moment-it is too long ago-that the equipment was valued at. I believe it was thought at that time that it would take about five or six years, but as I stated a moment ago the war came on in about the middle of that period. When the war was over we decided to try to get rid of this as rapidly as we could. We have not been holding the expenditure down; we have been saying, "go ahead and clean it up as fast as you can and we will meet the payments." The operators in connection with that are the provincial government, not we. Whatever they bill us for we pay.


Douglas King Hazen: Can you tell us the number of persons who are benefiting under this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, most of the producers of syrup in the province of Quebec. I cannot give you the exact number offhand, but it is nearly all of them.


John Alpheus Charlton: Had they all purchased this equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that there was a time when all the buckets we had in the province of Ontario were so rusty that you wondered whether or not you could put them up. Naturally when someone came around with a type of bucket that was not going to rust at all, and was going to look very nice, everybody would buy it provided the price was not too high. Apparently they had a good salesman, and they sold this kind of equipment to nearly everybody. Probably we would never have discovered anything particularly wrong with it if it had not been that we were exporting syrup. I think we ran into difficulties because the Americans were running into the same difficulties with the same kind of equipment on the other side of the line, and therefore they checked on ours and brought up the same question.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was none of this equipment sold in Ontario at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: If there was we would be prepared to take care of it in the same way, but no Ontario government has brought it to our attention so far.


Edward George McCullough: I understand from the minister's remarks that the administration is under the provincial governments, and that the federal government pays out this amount to assist in removing these poor containers in order to protect the health of the people. In driving through some parts of the province of Ontario I have noticed some very rusty looking buckets. I suppose that they are some that have not yet been taken in.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the rusty ones apparently were all right; it was the ones that would not rust.


Edward George McCullough: They were still in use. I take it that the department intends to renew all buckets. At any rate, I should like to know what administration you have to see that all of these faulty buckets are taken in and destroyed so that they cannot be used any more.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is carried on by the province, but of course it is checked by our officials before we make payment. If you had had the experience that some of us have had in getting payments passed by treasury board, you would realize that they do not pay anything unless they are absolutely convinced that it ought to be paid for what has been done. In other words, a very complete check is made. The provincial government see that it is all paid, and then they bill us for one-third of it. The farmer pays one-third, the province pays one-third and we pay one-third, but we are absolutely satisfied that the buckets have been replaced before we pay anything. As a matter of fact, new ones have been bought, and that is what we pay for.


Mr. Hackett:: Can the minister say what the cost is of the total replacements up to date?


James Garfield Gardiner: Speaking from memory- and I would not want to be held too closely to this-I think that the vote for the three years prior to the war was $300,000 each year, and I think most of it was spent each year. After the war we started off with the same amount, $300,000, and we have been working on it now for either two or three years. This year they have spent $61,729 more than the $300,000.


Mr. Campbell:: I think this whole discussion should have been held in camera, because we are just beginning to find out now that since 1937 we have been using maple syrup that has contained lead poison.


James Garfield Gardiner: It never was held in camera. It has been up here so many times that I know the story quite well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
573.	To provide for assistance to the province of Nova Scotia in the removal of aged maple trees and of least desirable varieties in Nova Scotia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Explanations have been made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture which started the discussion about the impossibility of estimating exactly, and at the end of the year 29087-142J
Supply-Agriculture
there has to be a little juggling back and forth to get the books cleaned up. That explanation may apply to most of the items, but it certainly does not apply to this item. In this case the amount that was voted last year was $500,000. That was spent, and in addition another $1 million was spent. In other words, there was three times as much spent as was voted. Therefore any explanation, such as the one already given by the two ministers, certainly does not apply to this item.
As a matter of fact, it seems to me to illustrate clearly that this government pays very little attention to the money which is voted by parliament, or whether money is voted by parliament at all. They just proceed to spend it and then try to find an explanation for it afterward.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This has not been spent yet.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A lot of it has.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Minister of Agriculture gave an explanation in an interjection in the budget debate. He said that the government had been authorized to uproot 240,000 trees, and that the program was to cover three years, but they had found that the whole thing could be done in the one year. Therefore they spent the whole $1,500,000 which ordinarily would have been spread over three years. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that this $1 million is to a very large extent that direct beneficence which the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply spoke about as having been extended to Digby-Annapolis-Kings during the by-election, and it is a part of the same money that the Minister of Finance mentioned when he wrote a letter to these people. Before the item is passed, I think we certainly should have a much better explanation than we have had up to date.


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend says, I gave a short explanation of this in the budget debate. I am rather amused at the remarks of the hon. member for Regina City. I do not think there is anyone in the house who has been more insistent about getting money spent for certain purposes, and having announcements made with regard to the spending of money that has never been voted by this house, than the hon. member for Regina City.


John Ewen Sinclair: Assiniboia.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, my friend, the hon. member for Regina City was making some remarks a few moments ago. With regard to this particular item, it really had nothing to do with the by-election in Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I think my hon. friends will understand that before I am through. I have never

Supply-Agriculture
heard any less proper criticism than that which has been made of the statement made some time ago by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, in commenting upon certain things which were being discussed at the time, made some reference to the amount of money which had been spent in the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
It is foolish to think that the money spent, to which the hon. member was referring, had anything to do with the by-election. The expenditure started back in 1939, and has amounted to between $1,500,000 and $3 million a year ever since. It had nothing to do with any general election or by-election; it had to do with the fact that before the war the Annapolis valley was selling eighty per cent of its apples to Great Britain. The day the war started, or within a very few days afterward, Great Britain said they were not going to buy any apples in the first year of the war, and that was the fact with which we were confronted, as were the people of the province of Nova Scotia. Eighty per cent of their market was completely gone, so they came here and asked for some consideration of their position; and it was agreed that any industry, particularly any part of the industry of agriculture, that was subject to difficulties of that kind arising purely from the war should be given some consideration.
As I said a moment ago, from that time down to the present the matter has been considered every year; and in spite of the fact that we lost the Digby-Annapolis-Kings by-election, in spite of the fact that my friend represents the constituency now and sits on the other side of the house, we are giving the matter exactly the same consideration this year that we gave it any other year. The delegation is in Ottawa now, for the third time. That is the same number of times they have been here every year since 1939. I am not in a position to say this afternoon what we are going to do for them, but in the light of what we have done in the past I know we are going to do something this year, because they are still in difficulties.


An hon. Member:: So are you.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if we are it is not because of anything having to do with this. More than a year ago, before there was any talk at all about a by-election in Nova Scotia, two or three members of the government of that province and a very strong delegation, including C.C.F.'ers, Conservatives and Liberals, came here and submitted to the government the position in which they found themselves. They said they should not go on indefinitely spending the money they were putting up themselves and the money we

were spending and the losses some other people were taking, and they proposed a plan under which they would pull out a certain number of trees over a three-year period, if we would finance that undertaking. At the same time they proposed that the provincial government would finance the grafting of other trees-and there was no political graft in that job, which was not done by our government. They simply said that one job was the pulling out of trees and the planting of others. Another job was cutting the limbs off some of the trees and grafting new varieties on them. The grafting is a bigger and more expensive job per tree than the other, but it gets production at an earlier date, since it does not take so long for a tree to produce when it is treated in this way as it does if you pull out one tree and put in another one. The province undertook to finance the grafting job, and suggested that we finance the pulling out of the trees; and it was suggested that we should take out a number of trees each year until markets were found for the remaining varieties of apples, when it would be possible to cut down on the other payments.
So we started on that job. No one anticipated that it would be found possible to pull out these trees as rapidly as it was done; but they pulled the full number, completing then-work early in the season before there was any by-election at all called in the valley. The hon. member will know more about that than I do. I believe the number of trees intended to be dealt with in the first year was exceeded in a very short period of time. Then they came back to us and said, "You agreed to pull 240,000 trees. We can pull 300,000 trees this year. Let us get this job over with, and that will make it possible to consider a reduction at an earlier date than otherwise would be possible of the costs down in that area to the federal government". The provincial government asked us to consider allowing them to go ahead. The provincial government actually arranged for the pulling of the trees and billed us with the cost. So we said "All right; go ahead and carry out your three-year contract", which was 240,000 trees, and they did that just as rapidly as they had been proceeding with what was provided for in the first year of the contract.
I repeat, and emphasize, that we had nothing whatever to do with the speed at which they were proceeding. The work was being carried out by the people in Nova Scotia, not by us. After they had pulled their full number of trees contracted for in the first year they simply came back and said, "Can we go on and pull the remainder"? I submitted the question to council, and after the Department of Finance had looked into the


[Stage Direction]
matter they agreed that in the long run it would probably pay us better to have these trees pulled as rapidly as possible than to stretch it out and have to take care of the apples grown on those trees from year to year, for which there was no market. We have been buying those apples, putting them in cans, or having them dehydrated and then at the end of the season giving some of them away, after incurring a great deal of expense. The decision was that it would be better to have these trees pulled out as rapidly as possible. We told them to go ahead and pull the full number required under the agreement.
That agreement, by the way, had been previously submitted to this house and passed upon. Last year the house voted an amount sufficient to cover the cost for the first year, and in doing so endorsed the contract for the whole three years. The only criticism that might be made is that when this work was completed, which was after the election was over, they said they could still go on and pull another sixty thousand trees, and we told them to go ahead. So, instead of costing us $500,000 the whole thing cost $1,500,000, and this vote covers the extra million.
It is all very well to make these slighting, offhand remarks about by-elections and so on, but I think my hon. friend opposite, the member elected, would be the first to admit the truth of everything I have said, namely that in the first instance the contract had nothing to do with any by-election or general election; in the second place that it was the right thing to do, because in this way we cut down the amount we are going to have to put up from year to year from now on in supporting the marketing of the surplus apples of the province of Nova Scotia. There is the further fact that we went ahead and assumed obligations after the by-election was all over, which is a clear indication that this had nothing whatever to do with any byelection and was not a handout to anyone in order to get votes. If we in this house are going to expect things to be done by any government, I do not care whether it be this government or a future government that is appealed to, every time someone proposes an expenditure in some part of the country, those coming from that area cannot be saying the only thing he has in mind is the next election. If that kind of argument is going to be utilized, then we are going to be in difficulty all the time. It will be difficult to get the money to start with, and it will certainly be difficult to carry on. There was never any thought of a by-election or anything having to do with a by-election in connection with this particular expenditure. I repeat that I think the member from that constituency will be the first to agree with me.
Supply-A griculture
Gordon Graydon: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: Is the member now quoting from the letter?


Gordon Graydon: I am quoting from a report that appeared in the Halifax Herald.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) heard the letter read at the meeting.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is this before or after the by-election?


Gordon Graydon: This was on January 6.
Mr. Abbott, in acknowledging receipt of the resolution, said he was very glad to know of the expression of appreciation, but regretted this appreciation had not "taken the form of a larger vote for the government in the recent by-election."


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said the other day, one should not attempt to be humorous in a letter.


Gordon Graydon: As I said, if the minister is in trouble-


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in any trouble.

Supply-Agriculture


Gordon Graydon: It is very nice of him to suggest he is not, but I think he is. However, he need not blame the members on this side of the house for that, he should blame his colleagues.


Mr.   Abfcoil@: I am glad this matter has come up. I was not in the house when this press report first came to the attention of the house. I wrote a letter to my very good friend the secretary of the apple growers association, and I said I was gratified at the expression of appreciation. Then, I added a sentence in a semi-humorous vein, "I am sorry that the appreciation did not take the form of more votes in the by-election," and I put a couple of exclamation marks after that sentence. Those exclamation marks did not appear in the press report, of course. As I said, it only proves that one should not try to be humorous in a letter.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before this item carries, and since I am being put more or less in the position of the nut in the nutcracker, I should like to say a word or two. I do not want to be caught up in any argument about the beneficences or otherwise of this government. As a matter of fact, I never did see the letter to which reference has been made, although I have some slight knowledge of its background. I think the minister certainly will not question the references which have been made in the press. I do know there was a personal relationship between himself and the person to whom the letter was written.
I want to say that in general I agree entirely with what the Minister of Agriculture has said with respect to this vote. It is true that the matter was started many years ago. It is true that this government has carried on this policy, and although a change in its administration was made a year ago when the provincial government was brought in, it is something that existed long before the by-election. Certainly, appropriations were made prior to the election. I am not saying that more favourable consideration may not have been given because of the by-election, because of course I was not in a position to know of those matters. Certainly, so far as it was concerned, there was no question of political implication at the time the appropriation was made. No one had any control over that, least of all the Minister of Agriculture.
The Liberal party in its advertising throughout the campaign used language which was even more extreme than that which may have been jocularly used by the Minister of Finance in portraying the beneficence of this government to the constituents of Digby-Annapolis-Kings. Certainly, every effort was made so that those people would

not feel like voting for any other party at that time.
In view of the many remarks that have been made, I think I should say that the moneys have been properly spent. Undoubtedly, in the expenditure of government funds, criticism can be made of certain minor details. These would be of a minor nature and do not reflect on the expenditure of this money as a whole.
I am happy to know that negotiations are being concluded, and that the minister is prepared to finalize those on a basis similar to the ones which he has concluded in the past few years. I may say that is a happy announcement to the people of the Annapolis valley.


Douglas King Hazen: Can the minister tell us how many people have received a share of this money?


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe all the growers in the valley. There has been a difference of opinion as to how many there are. I have been saying there are about 4,500, but some people tell me there are not that many.


Douglas King Hazen: The cheques must have been sent out and there must be a record of them.


James Garfield Gardiner: The money is paid to the provincial governments and the cheques go out from them.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


Mr. L. O. Breiihaupi (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, may I revert for a moment to the presentation of reports by committees? I should like to present the second report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Jack William Corber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Mildred Ida Acres Wells.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Wilhelmina Doris Guenette Parkes.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 35, for the relief of Anita Phyllis Ticktin Sacks.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Sylvia Feldman Blant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Doris Arvilla Jackson Legassick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Rose Klein Levin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Thelma Wil-helmina Wintonyk Colter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Doris Mac-Arthur Richards Arnold.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Mary Mathe-son Baker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Vivian Pauline Davies White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Helen Hawthorne Kuhn Ellis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Joseph Octave Jules Lapointe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Nena Ruthen Teitelbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Annie Gwendoline Mabel Gammon Noble.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Margaret Catherine McDonald White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Howard Vincent Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Matilda Schneider Hutter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Robert William Phillips.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Ethel Rose Katz Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Edith Cecelia Cole Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Agnes Mathie-son Metsos.-Mr. Winkler. [DOT]
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Dorothy Fern Brown Lacoste.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Sylvia Barnett Shane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Louise Solt-anoff Rudy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Armand Bois-clair.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Mary Robertson Pangman Elder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Merilda Nor-mand Maury.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Janet Stevenson Ivory Stein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Reba Schul-man Schecter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Helen Fulton Burns Clark..-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Lyford Homer George.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Joan Winni-fred Lewis Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Frances Lenora Roe Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Philip Victor Thomas Rodbourn.-Mr. Timmins.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Dorothy Edith Entwistle Lorimer.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of William Christie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Priscilla Ben-ning Peart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Margaret Nelson Smith Calvert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Shirley Pearl Claman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Lillian Helena Cross Page.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Rosario Proulx.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Micheline Lefebvre Simpson..-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Catherina Koszak Tymczuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Anne Warnes Rice.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No 77, for the relief of Joseph Edmond Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Grace Lambert Sturgeon.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Mary Middleton Thompson.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Gordon Aylmer Thistle Shirres.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Walter Jasper Blake.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Margaret Murray McKinnon Trenholm.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Walter Wilson McBroom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No 92, for the relief of Mabel Florence Dunk Wright.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Thomas Somerville.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Leon Desrosiers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No 95, for the relief of June Lucille Odell Woolnough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Christopher Edmond Cobham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Jack Zelinsky. 

Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No 98, for the relief of Morna Elsa Kott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Doris Christina Meldrum Franklin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No	100,	for	the	relief	of Francis
Thomas Lariviere.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	101,	for	the	relief	of Maurice
Abraham Rodier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	102,	for	the	relief	of Liselotte
Karola Roer Goode.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill	No	103,	for	the relief of Albert
Labreche.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Bessie Drink-water Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No 105, for the relief of Bessie Shafer Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Ludmila Mach Morawetz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Ernest Cecil George Thackway.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of May Garnet Greene Lofting.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Henry John Bobinski.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Mary Eileen Birks Moorhouse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Florence Ruby Robbins Cumby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Kathleen Elizabeth Flookes Kerr.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Berthe Marie Madeleine Brunet Egar.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Mary Alice Eva Rivard Sharkey.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill	No.	115,	for	the	relief	of	Evelyn
Florence Brigden Piper.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill	No.	116,	for	the	relief	of	Beatrice
Violet Hudson Hineson.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill	No.	117,	for	the	relief	of	Fernand
Dupuis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	118,	for	the	relief	of	Frances
Strakosch Alexander.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Peonie Taub Joseph.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Doris Mabel Garwood Cunningham Watt.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill	No.	121,	for	the	relief	of	Marion
Dorothy Hill Parker Jeffryes.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Ada Bailen Dubman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Sarah Patricia Crowley King.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Lola Dulcenia Hill Morton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Hilda Hodg-kinson Connolly.-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte).
Bill	No.	131,	for	the	relief	of	Norma
Thompson Farrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	132,	for	the	relief	of	Harold
Charles Boyes.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	133,	for	the	relief	of	Sophie
Goldenberg Kovacs Feldheim.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Eva Brolofsky Richman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	135,	for	the	relief	of	Arland
Farmer Webster.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Wynifred Guinevere Withrow Couch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Ogilvie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Dorothy Edith Croft Douglas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Corinne Schlein Gottlieb.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	140,	for	the	relief	of	Zelma
Alexander Singer.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 141, for the relief of Katherine Adamakos Koussaya.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Margaret Hyams Boldovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Frederick Cecil Carratt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Anne Harris Shelter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Virginia Therese Scott Gillespie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Ruth Ellen Jones Palamar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Ida Ker Davies Kinnon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Arthur Filteau. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Karl Kastner. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Wilson Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Jean Martha Spiller Little.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	152,	for	the	relief	of	Violette
Blanche Heuff McKenna.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Amos Nicol.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of George Henry Burney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	155,	for	the	relief	of	Leonne
Dufresne Patenaude.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	156,	for	the	relief	of	Audrey
Blanche Duncan Myers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Brenda Denise Fuller Martin.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill	No.	158,	for	the	relief	of	Suzanne
Gundermann Wallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Margaret Ellen Joan Clayton Dullege.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Laura Goldstein Rosen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Doris Mazer Goldsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	162,	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie
Violet Schratwiser Cadham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Ross Robert Baskin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Ann Frances Gray Hirst.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Effie Violet Mugford Knox.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Freda Hersch Nishmas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Mildred Davidon Liberman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Raymond Joseph Louis Guay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Hyman Herbert Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Dorothy Mary Ward Bryant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Audrey Frances Stokes Lambert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Mary Catherine O'Connell Ball.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 173, for the relief of Stephen Henry Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Diane Grossman Botner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Rosina Templeton Mclndoe Corliss.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Lily Tansky Dratofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Anna Rose-marin Barsuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Christy Margaret Chisholm Cook.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Maud Ross Travers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Mary McDowell Hyslop Forbes Cahill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of William Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Vera Mildred Holley Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Ruth Gorofsky Hall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Rita Latour Shugar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Margaret Martin Stewart Scofield.-Mr. Winkler.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gagnon:: On division.


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

Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 80 respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.


Gordon Graydon: I should not think it would be necessary for anyone to rise because I am sure the hon. member for Halifax is most anxious to give an explanation of the bill he is sponsoring. I hope he will not be denied that opportunity.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 80, which was letter M of the Senate, is a simple bill intended to make three changes in the internal organization of the company respecting the board of directors and the date of the annual meeting.
The Dominion Atlantic Railway Company was incorporated by act of this parliament in 1895, and pursuant to section 6 (c) of the Railway Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 170, it has been named a work for the general advantage of Canada. This railway has been operating continuously since its incorporation. It has a terminus in Halifax, and runs through the Annapolis valley, serving the towns of Wolfville, Wind-29087-143
Private Bills
sor, Kentville, Annapolis Royal and Digby with a terminus in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
The first section of the bill permits the company to elect a maximum of ten rather than a maximum of five directors, which is the present provision. The company wishes to be in a position to appoint, by the proper procedure under its bylaws, local businessmen to the board of the company.
Section 2 deals with the date of the annual meeting. The provision of the present act requires the company to have its annual meeting in October. This has been found inconvenient because of the length of time which elapses from the conclusion of the company's fiscal year to the date of the annual meeting. The amendment will provide for the annual meeting to be held on the second Tuesday in April.
The other change with respect to the board of directors will be to do away with the automatic retirement of one director each year. This provision has been found unworkable, and the company wishes to come within the general provisions of the Railway Act with respect to the retirement of directors.


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

Mr. Edouard Rinfret (Outremont) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 84, respecting the pension fund society of the Bank of Montreal.


Gordon Graydon: The same observations apply to this bill.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The explanatory notes given in connection with this bill are sufficiently comprehensive to cover the discussion, but I wish to point out to hon. members that the bill which incorporated this pension fund at the beginning was very wide in its scope and power. I would point out that 48-49 Victoria said:
May invest, hold and administer the same.
With all the accompanying powers. In 1936, chapter 59 of 1 Edward VIII was passed, section 1 reading:
Without restricting or limiting the application of any of the terms or provisions of section one of chapter thirteen of the statutes of Canada, 1885, the capacity, right and power of the corporation . . .
And so on. It has been found that the limitations, or apparent limitations, which were given by chapter 59 were in fact a restriction of the wider powers which had been given in 48-49 Victoria, and that is the reason why the bill is before us.

Private Bills
I should like to call hon. members' attention to the fact that under the original act of incorporation section 7 provided:
The corporation shall, at all times, when thereunto required by the governor or by either house of parliament, make a full return of their property, and of their receipts and expenditure, for such period, and with such details and other information as the governor or either house of parliament requires.
There are therefore provided under section 7 of the original act of incorporation all the guarantees that this house may require as to the placements or investments to be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on banking and commerce.

John Horace Dickey: the second reading of Bill No. 124 to incorporate the North West Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) gave a very detailed and lucid description of the bill he moved before. I would ask that he give a similar explanation in the present instance. It is a most important measure and one which demands a detailed explanation before the house could give its decision on second reading.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who appears as sponsor for the bill has not instructed me with respect to its provisions or its intentions. I am unable to give any explanation to the hon. member except that which appears in the bill itself.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps my hearing was defective, but I thought I heard the hon. member for Halifax move second reading. I was wondering if we could have an explanation from him?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. J. W. Burton (Humboldt) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 125 (from the Senate) to incorporate the Sisters of Saint Elizabeth Hospital.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Sisters of Saint Elizabeth are an order of nursing sisters and this bill is to meet their request for incorporation under the laws of Canada. As their mother house and main hospital are in the constituency which I have the honour to

represent, I feel that I am indeed privileged to have the honour to sponsor this bill.
May I, at this time, pay a tribute to all those in the nursing profession-be they lay people or members of religious orders. These people make possible the operation of our hospitals in all parts of our country. They are, so to speak, the Marthas of our health services.
From the pioneer days of our Humboldt district in 1903, up to 1912, we did not have the benefit of a hospital, the nearest being over eighty miles away, with only prairie trails for roads. With the means of transportation of that time, a trip of that length was difficult for a person in good health; but when it came to taking our sick and injured to hospital, few people nowadays can imagine the additional suffering caused to the patient and the anxiety of the family.
In 1912 a small group of nursing sisters who had come from Hungary opened a small hospital in the town of Humboldt. By good management on the part of the sisters, and the generosity of the people of that district, two large additions have been added to the original building and, as years went by, up-to-date and modern equipment has been installed, so that now the care and services rendered in this hospital compare very favourably with the larger hospitals in the cities.
While the members of this order of nursing sisters belong to the Roman Catholic church, people of all religious denominations in the entire district that it serves feel that it is a community undertaking for the benefit of all.
Very often a member of the United Church and at other times a member of the Anglican Church was president of the hospital ladies aid. A few years ago there was urgent need to have a new heating plant and laundry built, and a member of the Jewish faith headed the finance committee in the appeal for funds. In my opinion our hospital has played its full part in furthering a spirit of good will and co-operation among all the people, in addition to taking care of our sick and injured.
As the years went by, following urgent requests from people of other districts, they opened hospitals at Cudworth and Macklin, Saskatchewan, which brought to those districts the same benefits and services that we experience in ours.
In 1915, the sisters in charge obtained incorporation under the laws of the province of Saskatchewan, and in view of the fact that requests have come from beyond the province for extension of their services to other parts, they would now like the wider charter that this bill would provide.
I will not take the time of the house to go into any of the details concerning the finan-

cial affairs and other matters in which some members may be interested; but if this is referred to the committee on private bills, I shall be more than pleased to give any member the fullest possible information. In the meantime, may I solicit the unanimous support of hon. members of the house for this bill.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who so eloquently and ably has spoken on second reading of the bill deserves credit not only for drawing the attention of the house to the principle and provisions of the measure itself, but for the fact that he has given the house an opportunity to express its views and sentiments with respect to the humanitarian work this institution now purposes to perform under a new basis of incorporation, a procedure which has been followed by similar institutions performing similar services in every part of our land.
I liked particularly his reference to those who were identified with the institution, and those whom it serves. One of the points I tried to stress in a debate which took place only a few days ago was that in certain fields of our Canadian endeavour neither race nor creed, religion nor political affiliations are the concern of the people involved. I was pleased therefore to hear the words of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton).
I was also impressed with what he said about the nursing profession. I often wonder if the modesty of the members of that profession, and their desire to avoid publicity in the splendid and useful service they perform throughout the dominion, day and night, for the relief of suffering, leads us to a point where we are apt to take their services for granted. Therefore at this time I would take this opportunity of joining with the hon. member to pay tribute to the nursing profession. It is a noble one, and one which has deep-rooted and important traditions in our land. I believe I may say that the members of that profession, and those who through the years have gone about doing good, deserve the unqualified tribute and praise of members of the House of, Commons. I take this opportunity to add a few words to the able expressions of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) and to say to the nursing profession that the work they have performed and the services they have rendered have not been forgotten by the legislative body of which we are members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.
29087-143}
1.	1949	2253
Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monl-morency) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (illegal organizations) and the Canadian Citizenship Act (loss of Canadian citizenship).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I scarcely need to stress the importance of the bill of which I now move second reading. I have already done so. In the past objection was raised to my bill on the grounds that it would hamper freedom of speech and would inevitably favour undercover communistic activity. One thing is certain. Should my bill become law, communistic propaganda would be paralysed to a large extent in Canada, because communists would be unable to use the mail or to address the public as a means of propagating their ideology. As for their underground activities, that concerns the R.C.M.P. Last year, it was contended that the approval of my bill would favour, in communist dominated countries, propaganda against freedom of speech within their own boundaries. In my opinion, the trial of His Eminence Cardinal Mindszenty, Hungarian primate, is a stinging rebuttal to those who believe that freedom of opinion still exists in Russia or in countries under its domination. May I be permitted, in that connection, to quote President Truman, as follows:
The conviction of the Hungarian prelate is the infamous act of a kangaroo court.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in every country where communists have managed to penetrate, they have always done so with the help of freedom of speech which is, and rightly, the stamp of democracy. However, no sooner had they gained power in the countries they now control than the very freedom of speech they had used as a means to an end immediately vanished.
Communists are against every form of religion and in order to destroy them in our own country they do not hesitate to use every medium of propaganda at their disposal. In this, I agree with His Eminence Cardinal Spellman. I believe it is high time to deprive them of their means of propaganda.
It should be remembered that we are Christians and that every day the house opens its sittings with the following prayer:
That peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations. These, and all other necessaries for them and for us, we humbly beg in the name and through the mediation of Jesus Christ, our most blessed Lord and Saviour.

Criminal Code
Hon. members know tnat only one hour is set aside at stated intervals to allow for a vote on this bill. May I, therefore, once again, as I have done in the past, request hon. members to stop their filibustering which, though seemingly in support of the bill, only serves to prevent the question from being put during the hour set aside for this purpose by the rules of the house.
If some clause of the bill does not suit them, they need only object when it is considered in committee. Moreover, I would advise these hon. gentlemen that every year, as long as I am a member of this house, I shall introduce this bill which I deem essential to any democracy concerned with protecting itself.


Mr. William Irvine (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this measure and in doing so I hope my hon. friend will not characterize my effort as a filibuster. May I say to him that if he brings in a bill like this every year as he just said he would, if I am in the house with him I shall oppose it every year without thinking anything whatsoever about filibustering. The hon. member made reference to the importance of the measure. I am beginning to fear that it has an importance which he has failed so far to sense.
Not only would this bill get rid of the communist propaganda to which the hon. member objects; it might eventually get rid of nearly everybody in this house. I do not know whether my hon. friend has noticed that he makes no attempt to define in his measure just what communism means. He wants to rule out communism or the communist party, he wants to deprive them of the rights of citizenship which every Canadian citizen should enjoy, but he also extends the provisions of his bill to those who hold similar ideas. I have heard hon. members in this house charge nearly everybody with having those ideas. Certainly they have been imputed often to the group to which I belong. I have heard hon. members actually charge the government with having socialistic and communistic ideas. I notice that some of the most prominent citizens of Canada have been charged with that sort of thing. In fact it was not long since that I heard that Premier Manning was charged with that by some recalcitrants.
If we are going to have a law as rigid as this it should define exactly the type of crime that is going to be charged against those who are supposed to be in violation of it. I believe the people of Canada have been asking for a bill of rights and I think they should have a bill of rights. So far no bill of rights has made its appearance, but here we have a bill of wrongs that we are asked to support in the name of all that is best in

this country, in the name of Christianity, in the name of liberty and so forth.
Yet in the very name of those great and sacred things I am asking this house to reject it. It is neither Christian nor democratic nor has it that sense of liberty which we so much prize, at least in words if not in deeds. I would say that this is merely a reflex of, or perhaps it is symptomatic of, a reactionary hysteria which threatens to overwhelm sane judgment and sweep it from that position of predominance which properly it should hold in the affairs of state. No matter how dangerous communist philosophy and practice may be, we must not be so panic-stricken that we adopt their methods against ourselves before they have a chance to do so. In reality that is what we are doing by this bill. The tendency is not confined to this bill. We have seen tendencies in other respects throughout the country generally. We have seen certain religious groups subjected to treatment which was far from being democratic. We have seen touches of racial discrimination. We have seen legislation granted to prohibit the organization of labour, and we have seen a tendency not long ago in this very city to stand in the way of freedom of speech.
I point out to the house that the bill now before us is nothing more or less than the restoration of that pernicious principle which was in section 98 of the criminal code, and which was removed some years ago after many discussions had taken place in the house with respect thereto. Section 98 of the criminal code was conceived in hysteria and born in iniquity. During its life it disgraced the name of freedom and democracy. It was passed in 1919, and the late Mr. Woodsworth, who used to lead the group to which I belong, was a victim of that same measure. He spent a good deal of his time in the house trying to remove it, not because he had been a victim of it, but because he loved liberty and knew that such legislation was the very reverse of the principle of liberty. It was repealed in 1936. That legislation had pretty much the same effect that this bill would have. Under that legislation bibles that were printed in other languages were confiscated by policemen because they did not understand the languages in which they were written, and thought that they might be subversive.
I should like to refer my hon. friend to something said by the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, one of the great statesmen from Quebec, who sat in this house with great honour to himself and to the people who elected him, and who performed great services for the nation. In speaking against a measure that in spirit is precisely the same

as the measure that my hon. friend is now sponsoring, Mr. Lapointe had this to say, after having been reminded that bibles in the English language were confiscated as well as bibles in foreign languages, and I refer to page 3899 of Hansard of June 19, 1936. Mr. Lapointe said:
I did not know that, but it makes the matter so much worse.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Do you not think conditions have changed?


William Irvine: I continue to read:
A man was arrested because he had in his possession a copy of Plato's Republic. In the United States, under a similar provision, a man was arrested because he had in his possession some literature that happened to have been written by Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and later president of the United States. When the man told that to the officer who arrested him, the officer replied, "Well, we will take care of you now and we will get that man Jefferson afterwards."
That is just an idea of the absurdity you can expect from ill-conceived legislation such as we have here. I think the people of Canada will credit the removal of that nefarious measure, section 98, from the statute books of Canada to the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
For the edification of my hon. friend opposite, let me quote some further utterances of his distinguished compatriot on a measure exactly the same as this. He said:
I have said that war regulations should not be converted into peace statutes.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Conditions have changed
since that time.


William Irvine: The principle of liberty does not change. The fears of people change, and sometimes people who are nervous become so afraid of nothing that they run from shadows. Sometimes the thing they fear most is liberty itself, although they do not quite realize that is so. I continue with the quotation:
The order in council which I have quoted shows that the liberties of the citizens were infringed. In time of war this has to be done, but to do it in time of peace is a precedent which should not be created. Liberty is like air; we appreciate its values more when we are deprived of it. To govern is to foresee. After all it is possible that there may come a government with views and ideals different from those entertained by hon. members opposite and myself, and they could use the precedent so created to prevent the freedom of the people in other directions.
He goes on to say:
Benjamin Franklin said once, and I agree with this idea, that those who are ready to sacrifice liberty for the purpose of achieving some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. British justice, which holds every man innocent until he is proved guilty, is the surest safeguard against excesses, whether coming from communists or fascists, or an
Criminal Code
arbitrary dictatorship, from the left or from the right. We submit this legislation, not because we sympathize with revolutionaires but because we love and desire to protect the law-abiding and truthseeking citizens of this country.
I quote those words tonight, not only because they are apropos, but because they carry down through the years that fine, broad, vigorous spirit of democracy so characteristic of their author.
May I say to my hon. friend that I hope he appreciates how different his position is in his present role as sponsor of this measure to the part played by his distinguished compatriot whose words I have quoted, and who was instrumental in removing from the statute books of Canada vicious legislation similar to the statute now proposed by my hon. friend. I can assure my hon. friend, who is the sponsor of this bill, that he will bring no honour to himself, to this parliament or to his nation, nor will anything he has said in support of the measure be quoted by anyone in years to come except as proof of a lingering tendency toward fascism.
There might be a good excuse for legislation of this kind if we were not already sufficiently protected against anyone who might desire to upset our government, or by violence seek to usurp power. Again in this connection I must turn to one of our best authorities, the same right hon. gentleman I have been quoting. I refer my hon. friend to Hansard for 1936, volume 4, at page 3899, where the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe said:
There Is no sense of proportion in an enactment of this kind.
That also applies to this bill.
I showed that provision to an eminent professor of law at the university of Paris only two months ago. He said to me, "This is a blot on the statutes of any land," and it is. We have said that we must protect ourselves against disorderly elements. I repeat what I have said many times before. We have in the criminal code, which is based on the common law of England, all the provisions which make English law and British justice sufficient to meet all emergencies. The common law relating to sedition is already in our criminal code and always has been.


Wilfrid Lacroix: But communistic ideology was not spreading at that time.


William Irvine: Then Mr. Lapointe went on to quote sections 133 and 134 of the criminal code, and to give further proof that now, without further legislation of this kind, we are amply protected against any danger of the sort my hon. friend seems to fear. So the bill adds nothing to our legal protection, but it does deprive Canadian citizens of their liberties. In this connection I want to quote something said by Mr. Woodsworth in 1933. Referring to men who had been imprisoned
225S

Criminal Code
under section 98 he said, at page 2096 of
Hansard:
I should like to point out that these men did not commit any overt act whatever. They were not convicted of urging the use of force, nor were they convicted of using force. They were convicted of belonging to an association which was said to be affiliated with a body in Russia which did believe in the use of force; on that type of evidence they were convicted . . .
They were convicted for holding a certain belief, and I say that is something quite new in British law.
I point out that they would not need to commit an overt act under the legislation now proposed. So in this bill we are to be subjected to a penalty for having an idea; if you happen to have one that somebody thinks is wrong you may have to pay $5,000 or go to jail for twenty years. About the only person who would be safe under such a measure is a person who never had and never expected to have an idea; and I sincerely hope my hon. friend will some time have an idea and therefore qualify to come under the legislation he is now proposing. Then in 1922, at page 1390 of Hansard, Mr. Woodsworth had this to say, in connection with the same type of legislation:
I would suggest that we should be in keeping with the very best British practice if we condemned men only when they committed some overt act and not for merely thinking this or the other thing. In Japan, I believe, there is now a law against dangerous thoughts, and we seem to be approaching very near to the autocratic imperialism of Japan when we undertake to decide whether or not a man harbours dangerous ideas.
It is conceivable that a measure of this kind might pass the house if it were not considered. I recall that last year my hon. friend who is sponsoring this legislation wanted the bill passed before it was explained and discussed. As I say, if that had happened it might have passed; but it is not likely that such a bill could possibly pass this parliament. I doubt whether any hon. member has failed to grasp its implications, because by our training and traditions we hold the conviction that the right of a person to think, the right of a person to organize his fellows in support of an idea, the right of a citizen to speak or write in support of an idea, are liberties of which as a democracy we boast, and which we will not yield. Indeed, these very liberties are held up in contrast to Russia and Russian methods. If this legislation were to pass we should be bringing into practice, by deliberate act of parliament, those features of communism which we say we fear most. It is said that the communists suppress their opponents by force, and that they gain control of countries by force.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: It is true, too.


William Irvine: I am not doubting it. These are the chief arguments against communism in this country. In this country many perhaps would have been following the communists if it had not been for the very fact that they use force, and the people of this country say, "We do not need to use force. We can get anything the people of this country want by the ballot; therefore we do not use force." But if you take that right away from them; if you say they must not express their opinions, they must not write articles, they must not propagandize their ideas, they must not be allowed to run for parliament, they must not be allowed to sit in parliament: then you say to them that the only way they can ever come to power in this country is not by the ballot but by force. Thus you say to all the people of Canada, "If the things the communists advocate are good, you cannot get them by the ballot; you must get them by force." So the difficulty is removed and they say, "All right; if that is the only way we can get what we want, then we will join." So you are doing a very dangerous thing if you give them that great lever, which most decidedly you will be placing in their hands if you take from them the right which we all enjoy to propagate whatever idea we may have and leave it to the people themselves, by their ballot, to decide what it is they want. If we adopt the methods of the communists and eliminate our opponents, then we are on a level with communism in the worst and most objectionable features of its philosophy.
If a bill similar to this were adopted in Russia we would be speaking against it, holding it up as an example of the worst kind of dictatorship and the smothering of liberty. Presumably if this bill were to pass, the communists in Russia would be pleased indeed, because it would be an acknowledgment that the parliament of Canada had adopted the tactics of communism, finding that the only way to keep peace.


Pierre Gauthier: The comparison is far-fetched.


William Irvine: The argument is absolutely logical and sound, and the definite outcome of the kind of legislation proposed here.


Pierre Gauthier: It does not
stand up.


Mr. Blackmore:: Your bill is so loosely worded it could mean anything.


Pierre Gauthier: The bill could be amended.


William Irvine: I know of no way of amending a rotten egg, and this bill is just that.


Pierre Gauthier: Speaking of communism?


William Irvine: No. I am not speaking of communism, but I am trying to protect us from communistic methods.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: You are scoring a great victory for them.


William Irvine: Your bill would be a greater victory for them.


Pierre Gauthier: No.


William Irvine: A much greater victory for them; that is the reason why I am opposing it. People will naturally say, if we pass legislation of this kind, "Since we have accepted the worst in communism, why not accept the best of it?"
The outlawing of a movement which is alleged to achieve its purposes by other than lawful means does not hurt or hinder that movement. On the contrary, it strengthens it and drives it underground, and there it festers. There, they perfect their ideas and await their opportunity until the people are sorely pressed by circumstances or some other event makes it feasible for them to show themselves and make their coup.
Let me say this, sir-I see the time is running out-


Pierre Gauthier: You are killing it.


William Irvine: Killing time?


Pierre Gauthier: Yes.


William Irvine: I hope I am killing the bill also because that is what I am using the time for. Let me put this to my hon. friend: If restrictions of this kind could have prevented communism, what about Russia? Was there ever a country in the world where there were more restrictions, where there were more things that people could not do, where the police force were on the track of almost every man that had an idea? Where did communism come first? Against all the philosophy of Marx, against all the prophecies that he made, communism came in the most backward country and not in the most industrialized country. The reason it came there first was that the policies of the czars drove the communists underground and those communists adopted the very methods the czars adopted to keep them down. When the communists gained power they continued to use the very same method.
That is precisely the reason why we should never touch legislation of this kind in Canada. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the best way you could select to put forward and make successful the thing that you are trying to stop would be to pass
Criminal Code
legislation such as this. If you do, you are already spiritual converts to it. To pass this legislation means that you yourself have sanctioned the obscurantism and the suppression which is associated with communism. Having been first spiritually sold to the wrong idea, the other does not matter so much. I say that if people are not allowed to say what they think, to thresh out their ideas in the battle of ideas with other people, and to have it proven to them that their ideas are wrong or right as the case may be, if they are never allowed to air them except amongst their own kind, their ideas do indeed become dangerous.
I repeat that oppressive laws do not stop that which they are designed to stop. As I have said, Russia is an outstanding example of that. I would therefore advise my hon. friends of the Bourbon school to forget some things, if they can, and learn some other things from history. The sponsor will probably argue that we are taking this liberty away because the communists would abuse it. In fact, he said that tonight in his speech. If we allow them liberty, they will abuse liberty. Let them abuse it until they break the law of our country and then we have that law by which we can handle them. You cannot prevent them from abusing liberty without losing liberty yourself, because you are passing a law which will be applicable to anyone in the country who comes under its provisions. Such an argument is as stupid as would be the argument that we should abolish motorcars and highways because bank robbers sometimes use both to get away with their loot.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: You have succeeded, then.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour reserved for public and private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business that was under consideration at six o'clock. I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Friday, April 1, at 10.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute.
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
573. To provide for assistance to the province of Nova Scotia in the removal of aged apple trees and of least desirable varieties in Nova Scotia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $1,000,000.
['Yes, this is the item to cover the cost of the subsidy on wheat for domestic consumption from about August 1 of last year, when the policy was introduced, until it was discontinued. My hon. friend is correct; that is what this $17,200,000 is for, and it includes a similar item for loss of interest to the wheat board as a result of supplying wheat at those prices for domestic consumption.']
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before the recess I had asked the minister a question about the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which he said I might ask at this time. I asked him whether there were any plans in his department to extend the operations of that act in order to cover all three of the prairie provinces instead of just the designated area as at the present time. If I remember the answer correctly, it was that no amendments to that act were contemplated during this session. I am asking the minister now whether it would be necessary to have an amendment to the act or whether the designated area could be extended by a change in the regulations themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, there is no item here for P.F.R.A., which simply means there is no additional amount to be voted. But to answer the question, as I said, there is no intention of bringing in any amendment to the act. Some time ago, during the discussions between the provinces and the dominion, a proposal was made with regard to financing, to the effect that legislation might be set up which would apply the principles of the P.F.R.A. to all of Canada. That was dropped about two years ago.
The present position is that there is no more reason for applying P.F.R.A. to the area outside of what is known as the Palliser triangle in the western provinces than there is for applying it to any other provinces in Canada. I do not think there is any justification for applying it to any area outside of what is known generally as the Palliser triangle. I think I have communicated to the hon. member by letter the method by which the areas have been determined. I think we have been just as liberal in defining those boundaries as we possibly could be under the provisions of the act.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister will recall that last year certain projects were undertaken by his department, in which the personnel and the P.F.R.A. machinery were used in cooperation with the provinces. I have in mind the marshlands of Nova Scotia and the work being done in Lillooet, British Columbia. In about June of last year the minister announced that his department, in co-operation with the provinces, was prepared to take on such special projects as may be found desirable outside the boundaries of the desig-

nated areas of P.F.R.A. Is that policy to be followed this year in areas other than those which I have mentioned? The minister knows the case I am leading up to, namely, the projects which have been outlined in the area around Dauphin, where an extensive survey has been made by the P.F.R.A. engineers and plans are being drawn up. Inquiries are being made regularly by the municipalities concerned as to the extent to which the Department of Agriculture here is prepared to act to finance the projects which have been drawn up. Has the minister made any commitments to date to the province of Manitoba, to any municipality or to any person, with regard to the extent to which these projects will be financed, or whether they will be financed at all by the federal Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under "specials" there is a vote of $200,000 in the regular estimates for this coming year, which can be utilized to assist in paying for projects such as, say, the Dauphin project. That would not be carried out as a P.F.R.A. project or even under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, although the engineers who might do the engineering work in connection with the project may be the same engineers as do operate under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
The only way in which the benefits of that vote can be obtained, in say the Dauphin district, would be for the provincial government to assume what is after all their primary responsibility of determining that something ought to be done, and then apply to this government for assistance in the doing of it.
Generally speaking the proposal is that it should be a three-way proposition, the province to pay one-third, the farmers concerned one-third through the municipality or directly, and the government here to assume a similar amount. That is the general plan to be followed, but each project would have to be considered on its merits.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The specific question I asked the minister was whether to date he has made any commitments to Manitoba, to any municipality or to any person in connection with these projects. I am asking that deliberately because I think it is time that it should be cleared up. Rumours are going around. I am not blaming the minister for the rumours, but rumours are going around that commitments have been made, and in order to clear up the thing-


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say quite definitely that there have been no commitments at all with regard to it. I have stated very definitely to the minister in Manitoba, and have also written him to that effect, and I have

also stated very definitely to the municipalities, that we will undertake absolutely no commitments until we have received some proposal from the province.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Do I take it then that the minister's department has not received a definite proposal from Manitoba? The minister shakes his head.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, we have not.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to point out to the minister that under the special item to which he referred $200,000 has been allotted for such work as that. That is a small amount in comparison with the amount of work that needs to be done. I am sure that the problem we have in our area is not a singular problem. It exists in other parts of Canada. At this time I would urge the minister when he brings down further supplementary estimates this year to increase the item quite substantially, because if the projects which are now being reviewed in that area are properly undertaken, even if the federal government supplies only one-third of the cost, it will run into a substantial amount of money. May I say at this time it is money that will be well spent, because the amount of damage which has been done through flooding and other causes in that area far exceeds even in one season the whole $200,000 which is in that item.


James Garfield Gardiner: To shorten the discussion, may I say there is no item here which covers it. There has been an item of $200,000 in the vote for the last two years, and this is the third time it has been put in. We have been saying all the time just exactly what I have said tonight. I have said it here on the floor of the house every session. In other words, there has been $200,000 each year, which makes $400,000 in all which has not been spent at all, although it has been voted each year. Another $200,000 is to be voted this year, and no one has made use of it or even attempted to make use of it in any province in Canada. If no one makes use of it this year, and I have anything to do with it next year, I am going to drop it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad the minister said that. In the first place, to keep his arithmetic correct, I am not so sure that we have $400,000 because $200,000 was voted two years in a row. If the money is not used it is not there.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was there and it could have been used. If the proposition had been accepted at the time, and the provincial government had made their representation, in all probability it would have been spent; but I do not think the job is going to cost anything
Supply-Agriculture
like what that amount of money indicates. That amount of money is not all for Manitoba, it is for right across the country, and any figures I can remember would show that the $200,000, which means $600,000 in expenditures, would more than cover the cost of what is proposed.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not like to take part in a discussion on the supplementary estimates, but I want to call attention to one point. We are supposed to be a democracy. It seems to me that we are fast becoming an autocracy. We had an exhibition of that this morning in the case of taking in Newfoundland.
Item 573 has to do with the removal of aged apple trees in Nova Scotia and provides the sum of $1 million for that purpose. Item 574 has to do with raspberries in British Columbia and provides the sum of $425,000. The House of Commons is going to get the raspberry back home in the constituencies if we pass items like these in the supplementary estimates. No wonder the toilers and the workers are finding difficulty in buying bread and milk. They are beginning to wonder what the House of Commons is for. We might just as well go home if matters like these are proposed.
At one time Nova Scotia had a market in Britain for about three million barrels of apples, and the government destroyed the whole thing, wiped it right out. Dissolution is coming very shortly. It nearly came the other night, and it might have come. What is the House of Commons for? I do not want to say anything unkind about the minister. He has been very courteous and kind to many of us who have imposed on him by sending so many letters and all that sort of thing. He has been a very hard worker. I do not like this way of doing business. But the House of Commons is giving up responsible government. What I would like to say about this estimate is that I do not think it is necessary to throw preferential trade overboard. That was referred to last night in connection with this business. If we continue to do this, where will we wind up?
I come from a great taxpaying city, one which supplies nearly 31 per cent of the income and sales tax from which this vote comes. Mr. Fielding, who was a good lawyer, said that no sales tax should be over 6 per cent.
What is the House of Commons for? We might as well close up our doors and go home; that is what we might as well do, if we are going to pass items like this. Otherwise we will hear the raspberry song, as we hear it at hockey matches and all that kind of thing. Let me say in conclusion that I have great respect for the Minister

Supply-Agriculture
of Finance, but I do not like to see him doing business this way.


William Henry Golding: I must ask hon. members to discuss the item before the committee, namely item 573.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall take only a few moments. I realize the matter I was discussing only a few moments ago does not come strictly under the procedure of uprooting trees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Stick to the item or we will never get through.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to stick to the item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I say a word? I realize that it may be impossible to handle these supplementary estimates tonight. But we do wish to point out to the committee that these are special supplementaries for last year. I appreciate that this is the first occasion upon which the committee has had an opportunity to discuss estimates. But I wonder if it would be possible for members of the committee to restrict their observations this evening to those particular matters which it is not likely may be dealt with in the general estimates.
These are final supplementaries, as I have said, of items which have been passed. All these votes in the main or primary estimates were passed. If we cannot conclude them this evening, we should not try to do so. But I think perhaps with the co-operation of the committee it might be possible to do so if we could restrict our discussions to matters of special importance in connection with these supplementary estimates concerning which there would not be an opportunity for discussion on the main estimates.


Gordon Graydon: Concerning what the minister has said, may I just say this in extenuation of circumstances which have arisen, that while there is a general disposition to have these disposed of at as early a time as possible, I think the situation is attributable to one root cause. I think the reason most hon. members take the opportunity to deal with these matters now is that so many of the estimates are thrown at the committee in the very last days of the session. Many members find it almost impossible, because of the pressure of business, to be able properly to debate them.
I do suggest in all kindness to the minister, and with a constructive desire to have this done properly, that the government should take department after department, and give us a chance during the session, at intervals

here and there, to discuss departmental estimates, instead of having some departments- not just "some"; I should say "many"-facing members for the first time after they have waited about five months to speak on certain items, and finding that they do not have that opportunity before prorogation.
I am not speaking critically at all, but rather from the experience of many years in the house. I think perhaps I have given the root cause of these estimates not going through more quickly tonight.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have only one observation to make, and it is that the estimates were tabled this year, as they were in past years, in good time. However, hon. members are familiar with the rules, and they know that when the government wishes to have a department opened a motion is required to go into supply. Invariably advantage is taken of that to discuss grievances of one kind or another. Opposition members are seldom willing to allow more than one or two departments to be opened on a given date, and the result is that it usually takes two or three weeks to have all the departments opened for discussion. I am not criticizing that practice at all. But I do point out that it is not entirely the fault of the government that an opportunity is not afforded earlier in the session for the discussion of estimates of any department.


Gordon Graydon: Some of them hold them back, and you know that, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order, order.


Gordon Graydon: Sure they do.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Dauphin.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: But I must ask the hon. member not to pursue the subject-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Take it up on the main estimates.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: On a point of order, let me point out that I attempted to raise the question when the administration item was before the committee, but the minister advised me to wait until we got to the special item. I have taken his advice on the subject.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Perhaps I should not have, but I did. I do not intend to transgress the rules of the house, but I should like to ask
one question if I may.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Go ahead.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: And I shall be prepared to drop it then. The minister has indicated

that the same vote will be included under the special item as was included last year and the year before, namely $200,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in now.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What I want to ask is this: In view of that, and the discussion we have had in connection with this special project in the Dauphin area, will he now say that this government is prepared to finance those projects to the extent of one-third of the cost, whatever it may be?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I cannot say that. A submission must be made by the provincial government, and it must be considered first by my department and then presented to council before I can say it will be done. The first step must be taken by the province.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will stick strictly to the item. Before the dinner recess the minister gave us a very interesting dissertation on the art of moving aged apple trees. He also informed us-and I was glad to find it out- it was a mere coincidence that this million dollars happened to be paid in Nova Scotia at the time a by-election was on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not been paid yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, I have not had an answer to the first question I asked when the discussion started earlier today, and that is this: Under what authority has this million dollars been paid to these apple-tree owners without the authority of parliament? Without going into all the other details we have heard so far, I think we should have a definite answer to that question. I heard the Minister of Finance say a moment ago that it had not been paid yet; but I understood it had been paid.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not been paid; your understanding is incorrect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understood the people who owned them had received payment; is that not so?


James Garfield Gardiner: Except for the part that was not voted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Payment has not been made for anything that has not yet been voted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He would not understand that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as I can understand, from what the Minister of Agriculture said the other day this million dollars, or a fair part of it, has already been paid out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it has not been paid.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the reason I have asked this question. And now, after all this discussion on the matter, which has taken up a great deal of time today, we have the
Supply-Agriculture
Minister of Finance saying that the money has not been paid.


Gordon Graydon: He looked up the book.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If he had said it in the first place-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said it this afternoon.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But, on the basis that it was paid, I was quite unable to understand why it had been done without the authority of parliament for that amount.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now you understand it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Because no matter how worthy the purpose may be-and I do not dispute for a moment that the purpose was good-the principle of the government's paying out a large sum of money without having the authority of parliament to do so I think everyone will agree is definitely bad. And as I understood this money was paid, that is what happened in this case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, it did not.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know just offhand what was in the statement, word for word, that was made in answer to the statement made by the financial critic, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, when he was speaking earlier in the session, but the intention of the answer was to indicate that we had undertaken to pay the cost of pulling out 240,000 trees. Here I am speaking from memory. There were to be some 60,000 this year and so many next year and so on. The number that was referred to in the agreement that was reached and which was explained to the committee at the time the vote was made this year was 240,000 trees.
We authorized the provincial government to go ahead and pull out those trees, which were covered by the agreement for this year. The provincial government does the job; this government does not do it. They have the trees pulled out and we are presumed to pay the cost. That payment is made to the provincial government. I am not in a position to say whether the provincial government paid the farmers when they made the agreement with them to have the trees pulled out or whether they paid the persons who pulled out the trees. The payments which have been made to the provincial government are quite a different thing. That money will be paid to the provincial government when it is voted here.


Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario):: We
might just as well have the facts about this. I think the ministers should get together. On February 4 last the minister gave certain information, which is reported on page 261 of Hansard. If I can read English correctly that

Supply-A griculture
information was entirely contrary to what the Minister of Finance is now giving. I then stated that I understood there had been $500,000 in the estimates for last year but that $1,500,000 had been spent. Then the minister interposed a remark and I asked, "Is my arithmetic wrong?" The Minister of Agriculture then replied:
No. The arithmetic is right. But the provision was for the pulling up of 240,000 trees and the pulling was to have taken three years. But it was found that the trees could all be pulled in the one year.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is absolutely correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I complained about then and what I say now is that we are entitled to have the facts. According to what the Minister of Agriculture said, $500,000 had been voted but $1,500,000 had been spent when there was no authority. That is what he said on February 4. Then on April 1-I do not know whether there is any significance in the date -the Minister of Finance tells us that the money has not been spent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us get this straight. The provincial government was informed that this government would recommend a supplementary estimate to take care of these additional costs. That is what is before the committee now. The money has not been paid because it has not yet been voted. The Minister of Agriculture did not say that it had been paid by the dominion government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I simply said that the trees had been pulled out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the
Minister of Finance will convey that information to the Minister of Agriculture we will be able to get things straightened and get ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing that needs to be straightened. That statement says that 240,000 trees were to be pulled out and that number has been pulled out. However, there is no suggestion that they have been paid up.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister gave that as the reason why the money had been paid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There was not only the suggestion but the statement on February 4 that they had been paid for. I asked the minister if that was correct and he said it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that your arithmetic was correct, not that your statement was :orrect.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to restate that my arithmetic was quite simple. I said that $500,000 had been pro-

vided in the estimates but that an additional $1 million had been spent. That was simple enough and the minister said that it was correct. Now we have the Minister of Finance giving an explanation of this, but it comes very late. As I say, it is April 1.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I think we are labouring under a misunderstanding inasmuch as there has been a firm commitment to spend this money which has not been voted. It was made in anticipation that we would vote it. I think that is a sound argument.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The dominion government
stated to the provincial government that it would recommend a supplementary estimate for an additional $1 million and that is what is being done. Parliament will either vote it or not vote it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
574. To provide assistance to the producers of raspberries in British Columbia, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $425,000.
['The dominion government\nstated to the provincial government that it would recommend a supplementary estimate for an additional $1 million and that is what is being done. Parliament will either vote it or not vote it.']
Howard Charles Green: Will the Minister of Agriculture explain this vote.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think this vote requires any explanation because it has been up at least six times this year. However, I have no objection to making an explanation. A year ago the berry growers of British Columbia found themselves in almost the same position as the apple growers of the Annapolis valley had found themselves in ten years ago. The British had been buying their S02 berries but last year they said that they would not purchase any more. I am perhaps putting it a little too definitely; I should have put it that they suggested that they did not think they would be able to find dollars with which to buy them.
The producers of these berries had considerable acreages last year. Irrespective of what they did about it, it was too late in the season for them to think about doing otherwise. They thought that they probably could find a market for them if we could not prevail upon the British to buy them.
They came to the government and asked us to guarantee their accounts at the bank to an extent which would permit them to get fertilizer, which is the same thing the apple growers were concerned with, then to get baskets or boxes in which the berries are placed when picked, and then to secure barrels in which the berries would be finally placed to be shipped. They said that, unless they could get this advance, under the conditions then existing they would not be in a position to deal with the situation which would develop. So we gave them that guarantee.


Howard Charles Green: That was for the 1948 crop?


James Garfield Gardiner: We gave them that guarantee in order to assist them to get containers for the 1948 crop and fertilizer as well. The total amount was considerably less than this sum. The berries were picked and they had hopes of being able to sell them. They were put in the barrels but they then found difficulties in marketing the product. They then asked us to deal with the situation on the same basis as we had been dealing with apples and some other products.
As a result there is required this sum of money to pay the guarantee which was consented to by this house last year, and then an added sum in order to pay for the berries themselves. In other words, the government has become responsible for the financing of the berries. I am informed that they have had only $3,000 up to date, but there is $425,000 involved in the cost of putting up the product. We have agreed to pay what was undertaken last year and in addition an amount which will cover the actual cost to the growers so that they can proceed with their operations this year.
We have an undertaking, both from the producers and the provincial government, which has been much concerned with the matter, that acreages will be cut down this year to a point where they will more nearly approach the possible market. I may say that the acreages have been cut down somewhat by the floods and they are undertaking to cut them even more.


Howard Charles Green: Has any help been given in 1949?


James Garfield Gardiner: This money will go to them immediately and be distributed and in that way some help will be provided. As to what is going to happen in the coming year, they have said, and the provincial government have assured us, that they will not take action this year in the production of SO2 berries which will require assistance.


Howard Charles Green: What portion of last year's crop has been sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot say that offhand. There are some berries now stored in the United States for which they say they will have a market. My understanding is that, so far as the producers of these berries are concerned, they only had $3,000 out of a total cost of $425,000.


Howard Charles Green: I am not criticizing the vote.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I am very glad to know that Vancouver South is at last producing a few berries. The berries that are being sold are what are known as S02 berries. They are in solution. The berries that are in storage in
Supply-Agriculture
the United States are frozen berries. I appreciate very much the assistance of the hon. member for Vancouver South. I think the minister should go further and point out that we are now being paid 12 cents a pound under the latest order. It is a very small proportion of our crop. During the war we were encouraged by the government to increase our production of berries in the province of British Columbia, and we did so. Eighty-five per cent of the berries are grown in my riding. When the foreign exchange regulations came into effect, we had no market for our surplus. We put our surplus berries into what we call S02. It is a solution that preserves them for future canning purposes. The rest of our berries were sold or stored in cold storage in the United States. We have sold some berries over there, and some are not sold. I want to say on behalf of the people of my riding, where 85 per cent of the berries are grown, that we think we have received a very fair deal from the government because they have taken over a surplus, as well as giving us fertilizer. They took over the surplus at a price less than we were accustomed to receiving in wartime. Speaking from memory I believe the price is 12 cents a pound.
One thing that we do object to is the delay. Prior to the war we were getting 4$ to 5 cents of the total cost for berries. During the war we paid 4J to 5J cents a pound for picking berries. As the minister stated, a large percentage of the producers of berries in the Fraser valley have not to date received the cost of picking, let alone a profit or return to themselves that they might use for taxes, living purposes, or anything else. I think that the minister has been very fair. I do not suggest that there is any fault on the part of his department, but there is definitely fault on the part of the treasury board and the Department of Finance because they should expedite payment of this money so that the farmers of the Fraser valley can at least get the cost of their production returned.


Mr. Wright:: Why was this matter not dealt with under the Agricultural Prices Support Act? Could the payments not have been made under that act instead of by a special vote such as this?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a floor price that is being put under berries. As a matter of fact, the greater part of it is to pay for the containers the cost of which we guarantee. It is not putting a price under berries in that sense at all. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, we pay 12 cents for the actual berries that are in the containers, but the part of the payment which forms the basis of the vote does not have to do with price. It has to do with the guaran-

Supply-External Affairs tee we gave so that they could go to the bank last year and finance the containers and fertilizers.


Edward George McCullough: Would the minister explain to the committee the subsidy on fertilizer to these British Columbia berry growers? What is the policy of the government in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is exactly the same as it was with regard to the containers. We guarantee their accounts at the bank, and they purchase fertilizer and use it.


Edward George McCullough: The full
amount?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I do not know that it is quite the full amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
577.	International civil aviation organization, $196,200.
John Oliver Probe: There are two votes for the international civil aviation organization, No. 577 in the amount of $196,200, and No. 656 on page 11, in the amount of $122,000. Will whoever is acting for the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain what those two votes are, and why there are two votes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: By decision of the second assembly of the international civil aviation organization, the Canadian government was assigned fifteen units on a scaled contribution, out of a total of 304J units for the period July 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948, and 15 units out of 305J for the calendar year 1949. By decision of the assembly the fiscal year of the organization has been changed to conform with the calendar year. The fiscal year previously was from July 1 to June 30. Accordingly the last fiscal period would be the six months from July 1 to December 31, 1.948, and thereafter the calendar year, 1949. The payment due by Canada, based on the total budget, for the six months is $66,004, and for the calendar year from January 1, 1949, to December 31, 1949, is $130,099, making a total of $196,103. It is desired that the amount of $196,200, covered by the contribution for the remaining six months of 1948, and the contribution for the calendar year 1949, be provided in these further supplementary estimates.


John Oliver Probe: In advance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite correct; it is really payment in advance.


John Oliver Probe: What about the second item?
[Mr Gardiner ]


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might take that up later.


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask what the total funds of the organization amount to, and how many countries contribute to it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not that information here, but when we reach the main estimates of the Department of External Affairs I will make sure that information is available.


Douglas King Hazen: Do you know the officers of the organization?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not got them here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are forty-five nations in the organization. They are all assessed on the basis of the number of aeroplanes they fly and the number of route miles flown. The organization is international. The president is an American, and I think some eleven nations are represented on the board of the organization.


Douglas King Hazen: Do they issue a report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is this the item under which we should discuss civil aviation within Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. This is the international civil aviation organization which controls routes and makes the rules for international flying. I am afraid I am not too competent to answer the question, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs unfortunately cannot be here this evening. He had to leave for Washington this afternoon.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I had no idea this was coming up tonight, and if it covers Canadian civil aviation I have something to say on the matter, because now you have to be a Rhodes scholar to run your own private plane. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South knows something about what I am referring to. Is this the item under which we should discuss that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think so. I would hope my hon. friend would not feel he had to discuss it on these supplementary estimates. I will bring his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and when we reach a similar item on the main estimates that will be a good time to bring it up.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it the international civil aviation organization is one of the organizations set up under the United Nations, with headquarters in Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the cost to Canada each year is over $100,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: We have not had a statement
for some time with respect to Canadian government policy on international aviation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will remember, I think, that the first statement on this subject was made by the former Prime Minister on April 2, 1943. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce made a lengthy statement of policy on March 17, 1944, in which he set out Canada's plan for an international air transport convention, which was subsequently considered by the various nations meeting together, and some of the suggestions made by Canada were not adopted. I do not believe there has been a statement of government policy since 1944. There must have been many changes in the meantime, and I would ask the minister whether it would be possible for the house to be given at an early date a statement of the government's view at the present time in regard to international aviation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has nothing to do with that matter now, as my hon. friend knows, but I shall be glad to call it to the attention of the Minister of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: I think it very important that we should know exactly what Canada now stands for in the field of international aviation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now that we are on external affairs- I do not know whether this is quite relevant to the item- I was wondering whether there were any aeroplanes thrown in or left in the basement of the $85,000 house we bought in Cuba the other day, where we need an ambassador about as much as we need a third leg.


Mr. Cockeram:: I understood the minister to say there were 305 units?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are 305J.


Alan Cockeram: That means $8,800 per unit, or over $2,500,000, to run this organization for one year. What does it do to spend that amount of money?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I am not in a position to give very much information; it is not my department. As the committee knows, on these final supplementary estimates it is not always possible for all the ministers to be here. When the main estimates are under consideration I am sure either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Transport will be prepared to go into the matter as fully as possible, but I am afraid I am not in a position to give the information for which my hon. friend asks.


John George Diefenbaker: The cost of this organization seems to be mounting very quickly. In 1947-48 the appropriation was $25,001, and
Supply-External Affairs the expenditures were even less. The point I have in mind was just made by the hon. member for Calgary West. The traveling expenses and other expenditures in connection with our representation at some of these conferences is becoming quite an item. In 1947-48 the traveling expenses of Canadians attending international conferences amounted to $246,000 and other expenditures to almost $122,000, or a total of about $367,000. These are not expenditures incidental to membership in these organizations; they represent traveling expenses and other expenditures while at these conferences. This is another item showing that expenditures in connection with these matters are mounting at an unusually rapid rate.


Douglas King Hazen: We are asked to vote $196,000 for this organization for a period of eighteen months, after which I presume there will be a vote from year to year. These are large amounts, and it seems to me this House of Commons should have a report showing how the money is spent. We are asked to vote money but we do not know how it is spent, we do not know what officers they have, we do not know what duties they perform or anything else, and I believe we should be furnished with that information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that quite a full report was given to the external affairs committee of this house last session, and I would hope that a similar report might be given this year. In the main estimates last year there was an item for Canada's membership in this organization, which, as an hon. gentleman opposite has pointed out, is one of the organizations set up under the United Nations. This is part of our club dues, so to speak, to belong to the organization. Opinions may differ; perhaps we should get out of some of these things, but for the moment we are in them. My hon. friend is quite right; parliament should have information as to how the moneys are spent, but I am sure he will understand when I say that I do not think the final supplementaries for the year are the best occasion to go into that question. I am handicapped by the fact that, through no fault of his own, the Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot be here this evening. I have given the basis on which this vote is made up; it is 15/305.5 of the total expenses for six months of the past year and to bring it on a current basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
578.	To authorize payment from the consolidated revenue fund to Mrs. Helen Young Roy, wife of the late Honourable Philippe Roy, Canadian minister to France, of an annuity at the rate of $1,666.66, to commence on December 10, 1948, and to continue
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
during her lifetime or until her remarriage. Portion payable for the period December 10, 1948, to March 31, 1949, inclusive, $515.20.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to express my support of this item we are now considering, and I am happy to do so. I rise to say this word in order to call attention to the item, in view of the remarks I shall have to make on the next item.


Mr. Young:: I want to draw the attention of the committee to this item. Like the last speaker, I have no fault to find with it, and I am sure that if the lady mentioned here has no other source of revenue, it is little enough. I am sure also that no means test will be involved. But at this stage I should like to point out that there are a great many civil servants who do not quite fall into the glittering category which included the late gentleman in question, and who are at present receiving as little as $40 per month by way of superannuation. It might be well to draw attention to the terrific contrast provided by this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
579.	Government's contribution to the superannuation fund-further amount required, $320,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This item calls for a further contribution from the government to the superannuation fund. I could hope that this would be for the purpose of granting a cost of living bonus or other supplement to superannuated civil servants, but the Minister of Finance has given a negative reply to my appeal and that of others so often that I imagine such is not the case. The minister writes letters, not only to people down in Digby-Annapolis-Kings but also to associations of superannuated civil servants across the country, who make their appeals to him. As the minister can quite well imagine, these people have copies of his letters made and placed in the hands of those of us who are interested in their case. There is nothing humorous in these letters I refer to; rather they state the minister's reasons for not acceding to the request. In the main the minister usually compares the superannuation act of this country with the superannuation acts of various other countries, and is able to point out that in many if not all respects the act here is as good as or better than the others.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, is it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is-now. I want to support what the minister says in that connection, but it does seem to me that in the answers the minister has made to these retired civil servants he has failed to cover the point about which we are making repre-
[Mr. Abbott.J
sentations. We are concerned about the people who worked at a time when the superannuation act was not as good as it now is. They are the people who worked at a time when the wages or salaries they received-and the pension is based on their wages or salary-were hopelessly inadequate.
As I say, the minister compared our superannuation act with the basic superannuation acts of other countries. I should like him to give consideration to the fact that in the United Kingdom, in addition to the superannuation act, there is what is known as the Pensions Increase Act. That act was first passed in 1944 and it was amended in 1947. The sole purpose of the Pensions Increase Act of the United Kingdom was to provide supplementary payments to retired civil servants-note that, persons already retired- whose pensions are in the lower brackets. These people make that request of the government, and it is a request that has been made on the floor of the house from time to time. Despite the repeated negative replies, I hope the minister will even yet give consideration to the matter.
If I may shorten the discussion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to send across to the minister copies of the Pensions Increase Act, 1944, of the United Kingdom, together with the amending bill of 1947 and certain other official information. I am going to ask him to study it himself or have his departmental officials study it or refer it to the advisory committee on matters relating to the superannuation act. I hope before this session goes much further these people-not necessarily the whole gamut of retired civil servants, but certainly those in the lower brackets-might get something of what they deserve.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you; I shall be glad to look at it.


Howard Charles Green: I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will give further consideration to this question. Several times in the past he has turned down the request of the superannuated civil servants, and I have thought he did so in a very short way. In my opinion their suggestions merit the most careful consideration, for these reasons: During the years on which the superannuation is based for many of those retired civil servants, they did not receive their statutory increases. Further than that, their salaries were cut. Of course, the superannuation is now paid- I am not talking to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was just asking who cut the salaries of the civil servants.


Howard Charles Green: The superannuation is based on the salary received over a period of years.

These people are now met with a greatly increased cost of living. There is no doubt whatever that many of them, certainly those receiving small amounts, are having a very difficult time.
Another reason why Canada should do something for these people is that, apparently, the United States provided for an increase a year or two ago. As the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed out, something along the same line has been done in the United Kingdom.


John Oliver Probe: And in Saskatchewan as well.


Howard Charles Green: I think the request is very well set out in a letter written by the superannuated federal civil servants of Canada, Vancouver branch. I propose to quote two or three paragraphs from that letter. It reads as follows:
Prior to 1924 the parliament of that day found it necessary to provide assistance to those of its employees who, owing to age or infirmity, were no longer able to perform their duties. The Calder Act was passed for this purpose, under which those retired were given back all their accumulated contributions under the old retirement act, and, in addition, were paid a fairly generous pension.
Another paragraph of that letter reads as follows:
There was no general upward revision of salaries from 1924 until recent years: therefore, it is quite evident that the superannuation received by those who retired during that period are based on conditions prevailing some twenty-five years ago. This fact, we claim, nullifies to a great extent the object of superannuation, which is to provide those retired with life's simple necessities during their declining years. Instead our superannuation has been reduced by over fifty per cent.
Of course, by that statement they mean the cost of living has risen to such a height that their superannuation only purchases half the amount it could formerly.
The letter continues as follows:
We further assert that it is not logical to compare our superannuation contributions with other forms of industrial investments. Those who purchase annuities, stocks, bonds, etc., do so voluntarily, while we were compelled to subscribe to the fund as a condition of employment-
I submit that is a very important point. This is important, too:
-with the assurance that it met our financial security on retirement.
In other words, that they would receive this superannuation and that the amount of it would be sufficient to enable them to live.
The letter goes on to state:
However, the drastic increase in living costs today, through no fault of ours, very greatly reduces the benefits we would have received had conditions remained normal.
Consideration has been given to the increased cost of living for others and many people have received increased salaries. We
Supply-Finance
have done that for ourselves in this House of Commons. I cannot understand why the minister should just brush these requests aside and refuse to have an investigation made of the plight of the superannuated federal civil servants.


Donald MacInnis: Before coming to Ottawa to attend this session, along with other members of parliament from Vancouver, I was asked to attend a meeting called by superannuated civil servants. We listened to the difficulties they are experiencing because of rising living costs. It seems to me that we should at least look at this matter in a realistic and humanitarian way. The mere fact that these people are superannuated does not mean that the cost of living does not go up for them in the same way as it would if they were working.
I submit all our superannuation and other retirement allowances should be based and, indeed, must be based on some real standard of living at the time when the rates were set. If they are not so based, they do not mean anything. It is assumed that a person on superannuation, whether that superannuation is large or small, will be sufficient to provide a living, if not on the same standard as when working, at least on a standard approaching that condition. When conditions arise over which these people have no control, conditions which wipe out half of their superannuation, surely we should not insist that they have no claim for redress.
Earlier in the evening we were discussing a question that related to the growth of communism and what to do about it. I do not know of any better way to create discontent. When discontent is once created you do not know where it will lead. I do not know of any better way to create discontent than to compel people to live on an income that does not give them anything like the standard of living they once had, and that they would have now if they were employed, and that their neighbours enjoy. Indeed, there should be an investigation into all low income cases to find out what their income really is now in terms of 1945 or 1941 dollars. I would suggest to the minister that, particularly at this time when we are so much disturbed about where to dispose of our surplus food products, we should see to it that our own people here in Canada are not suffering for want of the food that we do not know what to do with. To allow the thing to continue does not make sense; indeed, it makes nonsense.


Mr. Merritt:: I should like to say a word on this item and to support what has been said by the previous speakers. Since I first received letters from superannuated civil servants I have been deeply concerned about

Supply-Finance
their situation. I have before me the minister's answer in a sessional paper of January 26, 1948, when he based his refusal to grant any increase to superannuated civil servants upon the ground that the government does not consider that it would be fair or proper to single out its former employees for special assistance. Before that he had made reference to those who had fixed incomes arising out of investments and other savings.
That argument seemed to have some principle in it, and yet I could not feel that the decision of the minister was right. There are a large number of superannuated civil servants who get a very small pension. The reason may be-it certainly is-that, under the act, by their length of service or their rate of pay before the war, they did not qualify for any more. But according to the answer to a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which is to be found on page 584 of Hansard, the actual fact is that approximately 1,400 pensioned civil servants get less than $40 a month, and approximately 2,200 widows of former civil servants get less than $40 a month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The number is 2,319.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that the number is 2,319. Of course there are many more who get amounts ranging up to $100 a month or over. I could list all the figures, but I am particularly concerned with those in that very low income group. I sought for the answer to the minister's argument in that paper of January 26. It is quite obvious that the minister will not want to set a wrong precedent in this connection, and I think that is his real fear.
I looked up the debates on the pension increase given in Great Britain in 1944, and I found there very clearly the principle that they went on in increasing the pensions for their former civil servants, on account of the increased cost of living. I want to quote to the minister what Sir John Anderson, who was then the chancellor of the exchequer, said in this connection, because it will give him a principle upon which he can find his way around the argument that he advanced a year ago in refusing the application of the superannuated civil servant.
It is quite obvious that we have financed the war to a certain extent by inflating the currency, a certain amount by borrowing and a certain amount by taxation. We all share that inflation together; but it hits very hard particularly those in the groups to which I have made reference tonight, namely, those who are getting less than $40 a month. I do not think it is at all unfair that they should be relieved of the joint burden that we all

carry in respect of inflation of the currency. I believe that is the view that was taken in Great Britain when this matter was up because Sir John Anderson said, as reported on page 1761 of volume 367 of the United Kingdom debates:
That will be essentially the approach which the government propose to make, that is, to take account, as in the legislation following the last war, of the position of the pensioner and to provide increases for the lower ranges of pensions, in order, so far as may be practicable, to mitigate really severe hardship.
That was the principle behind their increase and it is one I suggest the minister could follow without in any way setting a bad precedent or making a bad comparison with others who may also have been hit by the same problem.
I want to call to the attention of the Minister of Finance two other things that Sir John Anderson said. He said:
In the view of the government, the arguments for and against doing something were still fairly evenly and nicely balanced, but, on the whole, the government considered that there was a case for some action.
I think that is exactly the position that we are in in this House of Commons. Where the arguments are nicely and evenly balanced there might well be some action. The last thing I want to call to the minister's attention, again quoting from Sir John Anderson, is his answer to the minister's own argument in refusing the increase:
For example, the recipient of interest on government stock cannot claim an increase on similar grounds, although there may be hardship in both cases. But the government rightly take a sympathetic view of the difficulties of their own pensioned servants.
With respect to these in the very low categories of pension this government could very easily take a sympathetic view of their own pensioners without in any way disturbing the relationship of other groups in the country.


Mr. Pearkes:: Owing to the very large number of retired superannuated civil servants who live on Vancouver island, I should like to express my sincere hope that the government will be able to consider some recommendations which have been made by the previous speakers, and will try to take some action in order to relieve the difficult conditions under which I know personally many of these superannuated civil servants are now trying to exist.


Mr. Ferguson:: Private industry in this country is arranging for life insurance and old age pensions, and is setting an example to the government. Men and women who some years ago chose the civil service as their vocation certainly could not contemplate the cost of living of today. I do not suppose it would

cost the taxpayers of Canada a great deal to give common-sense consideration to this matter, comparing pensions with the present-day cost of living; and without any more ado about it and waste of the taxpayers' money in long arguments this government, in a pure, cold and businesslike manner, could grant these people the necessary increase which would provide them with a livelihood in keeping with present-day conditions. It could cut down on some other nonsensical expenditures, such as publishing a thousand volumes in French and English of a military dictionary at a cost of $25,000, and turning out at a cost of $30,000 circulars to industry advising them how to start suggestion boxes in their factories. If they will just provide the money where it is necessary no taxpayer will growl about it. They should at least be willing to keep pace with the example set by private industry.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As might be expected in a city the size of Toronto-and the same would apply to Montreal-there are many retired and pensioned civil servants. Before coming to Ottawa for this session I was approached, as were the hon. members for Vancouver South, Winnipeg North Centre, Nanaimo and Vancouver-Burrard, all of which ridings are populous. Those who approached me were retired federal civil servants. I need refer to only two or three classes, and only briefly to them, because the matter has been well covered by those who have preceded me. One of these classes is that of postal station employees and the letter carriers and a number of wives of deceased postal employees whose husbands in their lifetime paid into a pension fund and who are now receiving pensions. Some of those men were customs officials, while others were employees of the Department of Public Works.
There are large numbers of these in a city the size of Toronto. Those who paid into a superannuation fund had moneys deducted from their salaries at the values of that time. However a pension founded on the moneys received by such civil servants in their working days today does not go nearly as far as money would go at the time the deductions were made.
I am not thoroughly familiar with the pension set-up, but I have been wondering if the pensions of civil servants of former years had been increased by a cost of living bonus, as applies to civil servants who are in employment today. If that is not done I should think that the pensions received by civil servants or the widows of former civil servants should be supplemented by a cost of living bonus to bring up the value of their
Supply-Finance
pensions to what it should be, in view of the high cost of living today.
I know the minister has a problem on his hands. But the matter has been so well presented by the hon. members I mentioned a moment ago, and as it had been pointed out to myself, I felt bound to support what had been said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no doubt we will be discussing this very important question on other occasions at this session. I have only this to say. As in the constituencies of other hon. members who have spoken, there are a great many superannuated civil servants in my own riding. But there are also a great many other retired persons who are not superannuated civil servants, who have sought to provide their own superannuation, or who may be getting pensions, small or otherwise, from pension funds. I have not been able to see on what basis the government could improve the pension position of its own employees-and, mind you, a pension is a contractual obligation-and not give comparable treatment to other taxpayers; because it is the taxpayers of Canada who contribute to these superannuation payments.
That is the difficulty the government faces; that is the difficulty the Minister of Finance faces. He must, if he can, be fair to everyone in the community. I have not yet been able to see-taking my own constituency as an example-how I can improve the pension position of those who happen to be retired civil servants and, out of the public funds, not make a comparable improvement in the position of other retired persons who are not the recipients of superannuation payments but who are suffering from exactly the same hardship as a result of increased living costs. That is the problem with which we are faced.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, I think there are one or two matters which should be straightened out here. Perhaps it has been my fortune to deal with as many of these cases as any member in the committee. It is a difficult problem, and there can be no doubt that	hardship-real hardship-is
being suffered by some of these superannuated civil servants.
But I could not sit here tonight and listen to the opposition without recalling a time when I sat in another part of this chamber- a little higher up-and watched this condition being caused. If anyone here cares to analyse carefully cases where hardship is being suffered he will find that, almost without exception, it is due to the policy carried out in this country between the years 1930 and 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Supply-Finance


George James McIlraith: I would develop that a little further.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Call for Mr. Pickering.


John Ritchie MacNicol: About time there was a
change in Ottawa West.


George James McIlraith: Salaries were cut 10 per
cent; all promotions were stopped; all reclassifications were stopped. The cumulative effect of that over a period of five years is quite an item, when one is considering superannuation; because superannuation, depending upon the grouping, is based upon either the last five years of salary or the last ten years. To the ones superannuated in the thirties, it worked out that most of them came under the last five years of salary. That, plus the time factor, was the item taken into account in fixing the superannuation.
Hon. members will find, if they care to study this matter-however unpleasant it may be to them now to recognize it-that that is the cause of this condition. The condition is there. The hardship is being suffered mostly by civil servants who were superannuated before that condition was corrected, before increases in pay were given back.
Whatever the cause, I am interested to note the change in hon. members opposite, I hope that it is in fact a real change in their point of view. One cannot have witnessed it at close hand without feeling a little sensitive and somewhat strongly on the point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: By all means.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has referred to a cause; what remedy would he pres-scribe?|


George James McIlraith: I shall come to that.


Right Hon.  L. S. Si. Laurenl@Prime Minister: It was prescribed in 1935.


George James McIlraith: I shall come to that. As the hon. member for New Westminster points out, it is very necessary to keep the Liberal party in power, if civil servants are to get anything like a fair deal.


Donald MacInnis: We are trying to help you
out.


George Alexander Drew: You certainly are.


George James McIlraith: I appreciate that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are blaming the dead
hand of the past.


George James McIlraith: I have not come to my point yet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are taking a long time.


George James McIlraith: Well, I am taking sufficient time to put it clearly before the committee,

because it warrants that degree of attention and care.
I have referred to the conditions that caused this situation. I have said that hardship is being suffered. There is no doubt of that. I recognize the difficulties and no useful purpose can be served by brushing them aside. My suggestion is that we bear in mind that roughly speaking the superannuation fund is made up one-half by contributions by the employees and one-half by contributions by the dominion government. I am aware that arguments can be raised about those figures, but that seems to be the fairest figure that can be arrived at.
My suggestion is that the dominion government is perfectly justified in adding to the half that it is paying on the basis that that would be a contribution for the ex-employee. The government has taken into account the increases in the cost of living of its employees so why should it not consider the ex-employees in so far as that part of the fund which it contributes is concerned.
That is the only workable solution I have been able to develop. I think it has the virtue of meeting the difficulty that undoubtedly does exist with respect to all those others in receipt of fixed incomes. I urge that that solution be carefully examined and action taken.


John Oliver Probe: I do not want to get into an argument as to whether the Conservative government in the days of R. B. Bennett or the present Liberal administration is more to blame for the present plight of superannuated civil servants. Undoubtedly the cutting of salaries had something to do with the basis on which superannuation is calculated, but on the other hand the present administration must take the responsibility for the increase in the cost of living.
In my own province and in my own riding we have a rather glaring example of what exists. On the one hand, there are superannuated civil servants of the province of Saskatchewan who are in receipt of a cost of living bonus from the provincial government which ignores the argument of the Minister of Finance that this is a contractual obligation, and on the other hand there are superannuated civil servants of the dominion government who have not received any additional bonus or allowance to help them over this particularly expensive period in their lives.
I do not want to go over the arguments that have been advanced. I simply want to join those members of my own party and of the Progressive Conservative party who have pleaded tonight with the Minister of Finance to find seme way out of this impasse to help


[Stage Direction]
the 2,000-odd superannuated civil servants who are in the lower pension brackets.
Rodney Young: I was interested in the explanation given to the committee by the Minister of Finance. I am prepared to be corrected if my analysis of what he said is wrong, but I take it that according to the Minister of Finance the government is under the obligation of aiding and assisting all citizens of this country who are in the position of being retired.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have an old age pension law.


Rodney Young: We have an old age pension law, but I think the minister is placing that in a higher category than it deserves. I would hardly consider the pensions paid as being classified as retirement allowances. No one could retire on $30 or $40 per month these days.	.
In his explanation of his position and his difficulties the minister said that it would oe unfair to look after the former employees of the government and not at the same time look after all former employees of all private enterprises in the country. It seems to me that to carry the argument to that point is illogical and ridiculous, without using the word "ridiculous" in anything but a deferential sense toward the minister. It is his arguments that are ridiculous; he has not yet become so. I have never heard a poorer case made for a government that is dodging its responsibility.
The position is that the superannuated civil servants were not the employees of any private corporation in the country, they were our employees. Our government, our people employed them to carry out our work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why should they be in a privileged position?


Rodney Young: They are in the position that every employee of any company would be in with regard to the company that had formerly employed him. If these people had been employed by a private corporation they would be justified in going to that corporation and asking for assistance. But these people were not employed by a private corporation, they were employed by the federal government. They are asking the federal government, and I think they are justified, to take their case into consideration.
If any company having a superannuation plan were approached by its former employees with the plea that the superannuation they were receiving was not sufficient to meet the high cost of living and that therefore further assistance should be given, that company might turn around and say, "Why should we do this for you when the government does
Supply-Finance
not do anything for its superannuated civil servants?" They would have an equally just case. With that kind of argument nobody ever gets anywhere.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What about the fellow who worked for himself and not for a corporation?


Rodney Young: Under the existing system the fellow who worked for himself would have nowhere to go if he had not enough to live on and were no longer able to work. But under the system that my party envisages he would. However, we are not dealing with that at the moment, we are dealing with the situation in which the Minister of Finance finds himself. No amount of wriggling or trying to place this matter in some other category is going to deviate this committee from presenting the case of the superannuated civil servant. The Minister of Finance will have to put up a more logical argument before we will be satisfied with the justice of his position.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to say only a sentence or two and what I want to say to the minister will be in the form of a pleasant warning. I gather that the people for whom I spoke in the short speech I made in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne are covered. I refer to such persons as the mounted police.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe they have a separate pension plan.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I will say
nothing else.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is closely analogous to the military pension plan.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The governments have always said that they were simply civil servants. The Bennett government, of whom the hon. member for Ottawa West is so fond, and this government have always given the same answer. So I shall leave it for the moment and try to be here at the proper time. May I close by saying that I do not think that these retired civil servants, particularly those in the lower brackets, can be decently dealt with by just using a rule of thumb. We cannot just bracket them with all other persons who have put their savings in corporation pension schemes, saving plans and so on. I think there is a distinction between governmental employees and others. Of course, I assume it is a contractual relationship. When all these people went to work for the government they no doubt joined the scheme, and made their contributions. I have no doubt that it was not at all secret; it was a public matter and was conducted on the highest plane. It seems to me that the basis of the appeal is one of need, not of contract.

Supply-Finance
I think the government should endeavour to look at it from that point of view. It is a borderline matter, and we should adopt the same rule that is adopted in all provinces with respect to workmen's compensation, that the benefit of the doubt goes to the workman. The same rule should be applied in our thinking with respect to many of these now fairly elderly people who have been trying to get along, and particularly those who are unable to do any other work. If you could look after them it would be of some help. It should be done on the basis of their great need without too much regard to the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's, and the exact letter of the contract.


John Horne Blackmore: For a great many years now it has been the custom of the government to reward those who have grown old in the public service, and who have come to the days when their strength is not so great. There must have been a reason why the government did that. The reason must have been that the government felt that people who had served their time in the employ of the government were entitled to consideration in their declining years.
I see no reason why, in times of high prices like these, people of that sort should be called upon to sacrifice a certain amount of the security which had been guaranteed to them through the years. I think that constitutes the main reason for going out of our way far enough by a bonus or some other means, to see that such people do not have to suffer a part of the consequences of rising prices for which they had no responsibility whatsoever.
Members of the opposition have expressed themselves in favour of an additional reward for the superannuated civil servants. I think they have pretty well said all that there is to be said. I desire to associate myself with them in the remarks which they have made, the arguments which they have advanced, and the suggestions they have offered to the minister that something should be done for the superannuated civil servants.
A moment ago one of the members of the C.C.F. party said that in the plan of life which they visualize provision would be made for all such people, whether or not they had been employed by the government. May I say to the minister that in the plan which Social Crediters envisage ample provision will be made for the people who have spent their lives in making the country what it is. It is not appropriate that I should say at the present time just what those provisions will be, but I will say that the question we should keep our eyes upon in dealing with all such questions as this one of adequate

remuneration for superannuated civil servants-the important question-is how much goods can this country produce? Is Canada able to produce enough food, clothing, and shelter to supply these people with the needs of life? If so, then let us devise the financial means whereby that food, clothing, shelter, with other necessities, can be made available to these people in an amount sufficient to provide for them comfortably in their later years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a further word to impress upon the minister why it is that we are having quite so much to say about this matter tonight. I think he will agree with me that more members of the house have taken part in the discussion than has ever been the case when this item has been before the house-at least in the years that I have been here. The reason that we are pressing him so hard is that not since January, 1948, has any question on the floor of the house, or any appeal from these organizations, met with the assurance that the matter would be reconsidered.
May I remind the Minister of Finance, and the other ministers who are here tonight- and I am sure we are all glad that so many members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, have been listening to this important discussion-that the agitation to do something for these people began late in 1945 or early in 1946, when the cost of living first started to mount, and was carried on pretty strenuously and continuously through 1946 and 1947. During those years our plea to the former Minister of Finance, to the present Minister of Finance, and to the government as a whole, was to give consideration to this matter. It took a long time to get the government to agree to consider it. Finally that consideration was given, and resulted in a formal statement in January of 1948, to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard referred a few moments ago. Ever since that time, however, any question in the house, and any letter to the minister from a member of parliament or from an association, has received the reply that the matter was considered, that there was the statement of January, 1948, and nothing more could be done about it. If the minister, despite what he has said tonight, would just tell the house, and in that way tell the country, that the government will look into the matter again, I am sure that those of us who are taking part in the discussion would be prepared to drop it for tonight.
I remind the minister that on one occasion I asked him if this matter could not be referred to the advisory committee on matters relating to the superannuation act for their

advice. The minister told me that he understood that committee was considering the matter, but without reference from the government. He and his departmental officials are probably too busy to work out the details of the matter. I think it is a matter of government policy to decide to do something for these people, but surely he could ask that committee to give him the benefit of the study they have made of this matter, and any suggestion they may have as to how to handle it.
I say to him now that if he will tell us that the closed door that has faced these people, and all those interested in the matter, since January, 1948, will be replaced by a willingness to reconsider the matter, we will be satisfied at least for tonight. I was pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries talking privately to the Minister of Finance just now. The Minister of Fisheries is one who, in his constituency of Victoria, B.C., has been approached by these people, as have all other British Columbia members in the house. We know his sympathetic approach, and I quite understand that the people of Victoria felt that they had a friend at court in the person of the Minister of Fisheries. I hope he is acting in that capacity now when he is talking to the Minister of Finance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He was talking about something else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is too bad, but I have put the idea in his head, and he can talk to the Minister of Finance about this matter now. Representations have been made to the Prime Minister personally by the people of his own constituency in Quebec city. I say further that perhaps more members of the cabinet have listened tonight to more members of parliament talking on this question than has ever been the case before, and I hope that the result will be reconsideration of the whole problem.


Mr. Richard (Oiiawa East):: May I say a
few words.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Add to the roll. Everybody is for it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I want to say a few words because I think I should go on record again, as I have in the past, and ask the Minister of Finance not to close the door but to reconsider the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I have had so many representations in the past four years that I believe sincerely that something must be done. Consideration must be given to
Supply-Finance
working out some supplement for at least some of the superannuated civil servants. The government must be a model employer; and I do not think we can base any argument on the fact that industry or the life insurance companies do not do it the way we wish this to be done. I am glad the Minister of Finance is willing to reconsider the matter, and I hope that either through a committee or by some other means he will find a way to at least bring the pensions of superannuated civil servants to the level they would reach under their present classification and present salaries.


Mr. Pouliot:: Just a word to remind the minister that the same thing should apply also to railway men.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not unless the minister is prepared-


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend can go on until he makes a dozen speeches, but I can give no undertaking except to say that this problem, along with a great many others, is under constant consideration. I have been considering the whole question, along with others. I have given him a pretty clear answer tonight as to my present view on the matter: and until I can find a way by which this can be done without discrimination as against other groups in the community, I do not see how the position of the government can be changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then the item had better stand until next week.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry? Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Stand.


William Henry Golding: It is carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister spoke after you said it carried.


William Henry Golding: It is carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under protest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall I report progress?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know when royal assent is going to take place, but there are two or three items of my department we might get through, and I can leave to my colleagues the rest of the estimates when they come up next week. If the committee feels we can do it, there are only two or three items.



Supply-Finance
Demobilization and reconversion-
582.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board in respect of carrying charges and other incidental expenses incurred by the said board in respect of wheat sold for domestic requirements pursuant to order in council P.C. 3222 dated July 30, 1946, $1,218,833.10.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think some explanation should be given of this and the next item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order in council P.C. 3222 authorized the Canadian wheat board to dispose of all wheat delivered to it by producers during the pool period commencing August l, 1946. It set the price to be charged for wheat sold for domestic requirements at $1.25 per bushel for wheat of the grade No. 1 Manitoba northern, basis in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. Carrying charges and other incidental expenditures incurred by the board in respect of the operations of the board in connection with wheat sold for domestic requirements were to be reimbursed out of moneys provided by a vote from the consolidated revenue fund.
This policy was discontinued under order in council P.C. 1061 of March 21, 1947, which among other things provided that as from February 18, 1947, carrying costs incurred by the board would no longer be payable by the dominion government but would be collectible from purchasers of domestic wheat. This item is a vote to reimburse the wheat board for the costs incurred, to which I have referred, including the actual loss of interest to the wheat board as a result of financing these payments. In effect, as my hon. friend will see, it is to assure that under the policy now in force the full proceeds of the wheat will be returned to the producers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
583.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for payments in respect of flour or food containing wheat for human consumption in Canada, pursuant to order in council P.C. 3376 dated July 28, 1948, as amended, for the period ending March 31, 1949, $17,200,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Is this the total amount of subsidy paid on wheat for domestic consumption?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, this is the item to cover the cost of the subsidy on wheat for domestic consumption from about August 1 of last year, when the policy was introduced, until it was discontinued. My hon. friend is correct; that is what this $17,200,000 is for, and it includes a similar item for loss of interest to the wheat board as a result of supplying wheat at those prices for domestic consumption.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
IMr. Abbott.]
[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. Deputy Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.

Clarence Decatur Howe: the adjournment of the house.


Alphonse Fournier: The Prime Minister has given notice in the Votes and Proceedings of a motion to the effect that on Monday next notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except the introduction of bills, questions and notices of motion for the production of papers, until the further supplementary estimates are carried. Then we shall revert to the ordinary business on Mondays, which is private members' day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will we have to come at eleven o'clock in the morning?


Alphonse Fournier: Not this Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That motion just refers to Monday, does it?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and just until the supplementaries are through.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.
[The following items were passed In committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
563.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $2,500.
564.	Publicity and extension division-further amount required, $1,410.
Science service-
565.	Science service administration - further amount required, $17,000.
566.	Botany and plant pathology-further amount required, $4,000.
567.	Plant protection-further amount required, $12,500.

[Stage Direction]
production service-health of animals-
568.	Administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act-further amount required, $54,000.
569.	Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $100,000.
570.	Live stock and poultry-further amount required, $7,700.
Marketing service-
571.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $75,335.
Special-
572.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment-further amount required, $61,729.
573.	To provide for assistance to the province of Nova Scotia in the removal of aged apple trees and of least desirable varieties in Nova Scotia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $1,000,000.
574.	To provide assistance to the producers of raspberries in British Columbia, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $425,000.

[Stage Direction]
575.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission -further amount required, $14,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Canadian government's assessment for membership in the following international or commonwealth organizations-
576.	Inter-allied reparation agency, $27,500.
Supply
577.	International civil aviation organization, $196,200.
Pensions and other benefits-
578.	To authorize payment from the consolidated revenue fund to Mrs. Helen Young Roy, wife of the late Hon. Philippe Roy, Canadian minister to France, of an annuity at the rate of $1,666.66 to commence on December 10. 1948, and to continue during her lifetime or until her remarriage. Portion payable for the period December 10, 1948, to March 31, 1949, inclusive, $515.20.
[Stage Direction]
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
579.	Government's contribution to the superannuation fund-further amount required, $320,000. General-
580.	To authorize payment to Norman Bell of compensation at the rate of $18 per week in respect of injuries received while employed in the overseas office of the comptroller of the treasury, effective March 22, 1948, $962.
581.	To provide for the expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office-further amount required, $75,000.
Demobilization and reconversion-
582.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board in respect of carrying charges and other incidental expenses incurred by the said board in respect of wheat sold for domestic requirements pursuant to order in council P.C. 3222 dated July 30, 1946, $1,218,833.10.
583.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for payments in respect of flour or food containing wheat for human consumption in Canada, pursuant to order in council P.C. 3376 dated July 28, 1948, as amended, for the period ending March 31, 1949, $17,200,000
2278


[Stage Direction]
Ceremonies at St. John's, Newfoundland and Ottawa, Canada

[Stage Direction]
Broadcast from St. John's, Newfoundland:
Commentator: I am speaking to you now from Government House, in St. John's, the official residence of all governors of Newfoundland since about 1832, when responsible government was first introduced into the island. In this building all our governors and administrators of government since that time have taken their oaths of allegiance and office, and it is eminently fitting that here should be sworn in also the first Lieutenant Governor of this new province of Canada.
Present in these rooms are His Honour the Lieutenant Governor Designate, the Honourable Albert Walsh, K.C., and His Lordship the Chief Justice, the Honourable Sir Edward Emerson, who will administer the oaths. Also present are the judges of the Supreme Court; the heads of the various churches; representatives of Canada, the United States, France, Portugal; the mayor of St. John's, permanent heads of the local government; the Prime Minister Designate and his colleagues; representative citizens and their wives, and members of the local and foreign press, numbering in all about one hundred.
The ceremony today will be a brief but none the less impressive one. It will open with the singing of the Ode to Newfoundland by a choir under the direction of Mr. Robert McLeod. Following this you will hear the reading of the commission of the Lieutenant Governor. Then follows the highlight of this afternoon's ceremony, when the Chief Justice, Sir Edward Emerson, will administer the oaths of allegiance and office to the first Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Sir Albert Walsh, ICC. Following this, the Honourable Colin Gibson, a member of the Canadian government, will present to His Honour
token Canadian citizenship papers, and, in accepting on behalf of the people of Newfoundland, Sir Albert will reply. This will conclude the ceremony at St. John's. The proceedings at Ottawa will follow immediately.
Now, all is in readiness for the ceremony here at Government House.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Ode to Newfoundland.
Here followed the singing by the choir of two verses of the Ode to Newfoundland.
Reading of commission and swearing in ceremony of new Lieutenant Governor:
Sir Edward Emerson (Chief Justice of Newfoundland):: George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, King, Defender of the Faith.
To the Honourable Sir Albert Joseph Walsh, of the city of St. John's, in the province of Newfoundland, Knight Bachelor, one of our counsel learned in the law.
Greeting:
Know you that we, reposing special trust and confidence in the prudence, courage, loyalty, integrity and ability of you the said Albert Joseph Walsh, have, by and with the advice of our Privy Council for Canada, thought fit to constitute and appoint and we do hereby constitute and appoint you the said Albert Joseph Walsh to be the Lieutenant Governor in and over the province of Newfoundland, one of the provinces of Canada, during the will and pleasure of our Governor General of Canada.
And we do hereby authorize and empower and command you, the said Albert Joseph Walsh in due manner to do and execute all

things that shall belong to your said command and the trust we have reposed in you, according to the several powers, provisions and directions granted or appointed you by virtue of the act of parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, passed in the thirtieth year of Her late Majesty's reign, called and known as the British North America Act, 1867, and of all other statutes in that behalf and of this our present commission according to such instructions as are herewith given to you and hereunto annexed or which may from time to time be given to you in respect of the said province of Newfoundland under the sign manual of our Governor General of Canada or by order of our Privy Council for Canada and according to such laws as are or may be in force within the said province of Newfoundland.
And we do hereby further appoint that so soon as you shall have taken the prescribed oaths and entered upon the duties of your office, this our commission shall come into force and take effect.
In testimony whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness:
Our right trusty and well-beloved cousin, Harold Rupert Leofric George, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of Our Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Companion of Our Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the decoration of the Military Cross, Field Marshal in our army; Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada.
At our Government House, in our city of Ottawa, this first day of April, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine, and in the thirteenth year of our reign.
By command,
Secretary of State of Canada. Oaths of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland Oath of allegiance
I, Albert Joseph Walsh, do swear that I will be faithful and true and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Sixth, his heirs and successors according to law.
So help me God.
Oaths of office
You shall well and truly execute the office and trust of Lieutenant Governor of the province of Newfoundland and duly and impartially administer justice therein.
So help you God.
29087-144J
You shall well and truly execute the office and trust of keeper of the Great Seal of His Majesty's province of Newfoundland according to the best of your knowledge and ability.
So help you God.
Commeniaior: The oath has now been administered, and the Honourable Colin Gibson, a member of the government of Canada, will speak.
On presentation of token certificate of citizenship to Sir Albert Walsh, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland:


Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Your Honour, it is a great privilege for me, as a representative of the Prime Minister and the people of Canada, to be here today in St. John's to take part in this confederation ceremony.
We welcome the people of Newfoundland who today become equal partners with us in the development of the northern part of the American continent.
In recognition of your entry into our confederation I have much pleasure in presenting to you, sir, this certificate of Canadian citizenship, which has been specially prepared to mark this occasion. As you will see, it certifies that every Newfoundland British subject coming within the relevant provisions of the Canadian Citizenship Act adds to his status as a British subject that of being a Canadian citizen, and that he or she is entitled to all rights, powers and privileges, and subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born Canadian citizen is entitled or subject.
I can assure you, sir, that all the people of Canada join with me in extending to the people of Newfoundland a welcome into our Canadian family.


Sir Albert  Walsh@Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland: Hon. Mr. Gibson, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland I am happy to welcome you on the occasion of your visit to Newfoundland to take part in this ceremony as the representative of the Prime Minister and the people of Canada.
The certificate of citizenship which you have presented to the people of Newfoundland, through me, shows that all of us now have a new status, that of Canadian citizens, which entitles us to rank equally with all other Canadian citizens throughout all Canada. This new citizenship is in addition to the status which we have enjoyed in common, the status of British subjects. I am glad to accept this certificate, and can assure you that the people of Newfoundland who

will enjoy the privileges of this new citizenship will faithfully discharge their duties as citizens.
I am sure that all the people of Newfoundland wish me to express through you to the people of Canada our appreciation of the welcome which you have extended on their behalf on this historic occasion, and to extend best wishes to a people with whom we have for many years been so closely associated.
Commentator: The ceremony of the swearing in of the first Lieutenant Governor of the province of Newfoundland and the presentation of token Canadian citizenship papers to His Honour is now concluded.
This is CBN, St. John's, Newfoundland, transferring you to parliament hill in Ottawa.
Broadcast from, Ottawa:
(Carillon)
Commentator: Those are the bells of the carillon in the peace tower of the houses of parliament here on parliament hill in Ottawa. Bobert Donnell, Canada's official carilloneur, is playing a Newfoundland folk song called "Squid Jiggin' Ground".
I am standing near a platform which has been erected on the steps of the peace tower. Our purpose, of course, is to continue the broadcast of the ceremony which will unite Newfoundland, the last and oldest of the British North American colonies, with Canada, thereby making it Canada's tenth province.
His Excellency the Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Governor General of Canada, and the official party, are expected in a few minutes, and will take their places on the platform.
Among the officials will be the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent, and Mr. F. Gordon Bradley, of Newfoundland, who we understand has been sworn in as a minister of the crown during the past half hour. No doubt further mention will be made of this appointment by the Prime Minister.
The Governor General and the official party are arriving at the platform.
(Royal Salute; six bars National Anthem)
The composite guard of honour, composed of members of the army and air force, has just accorded His Excellency the Governor General a royal salute.
Photographers from the different newspapers and magazines are now taking pictures of the members of the platform party. Among the distinguished people on the platform, on the Governor General's right is the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent; the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, and the Right Honourable Sir Lyman Poore Duff.
It is a beautiful day for an outdoor ceremony. The wind is cool and the sun is shining brightly. Hundreds of citizens of Ottawa and the surrounding district are taking advantage of the seasonal temperatures and have turned out to witness this historymaking event. Civil servants have been allowed to take their lunch hour a little earlier today in order to be present, and parliament hill is crowded with people.
Just behind the composite guard of honour is the band of the Governor General's Foot Guards, which you will hear later on during the ceremony.
The Prime Minister is preparing to make his address of welcome to the people of Newfoundland.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to direct my first words today to the people of the new Canadian province of Newfoundland. I know I am speaking for the people of the other nine provinces when I say that we welcome you warmly as fellow Canadians.
In greeting you as fellow citizens we do not feel that you in Newfoundland have ever been strangers. In peace we have been happy to live and work beside you. In two wars we have been glad you were in our company and we in yours. We have the same traditions and the same way of life. We are both proud of our association in the British commonwealth of nations. We have shared, and continue to share, a common loyalty to His Majesty the King.
At this time, when we are taking a major step in the life of Newfoundland and of all Canada, the people of the nine older provinces and those of Newfoundland are equally aware that one circumstance that has contributed to union is our common loyalty to His Majesty the King. That common loyalty will continue to be one of the most important forces in the life of our united nation. With those thoughts in mind, I asked His Excellency the Governor General to convey a message this morning-the first full day of the new union- to His Majesty King George VI. The message reads as follows:
On the occasion of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation as a province of Canada I send to Your Majesty, on behalf of the government and people of Canada, the expression of our devoted loyaltv. together with our sincere good wishes to you and to Her Majesty the Queen. The people of Canada, those of Newfoundland and those of the other provinces of Canada, now one nation under the crown, are happy to learn of Your Majesty's improvement in health, and join in wishing you a speedy recovery.
The union we celebrate today was not concluded without the most careful consideration by representatives of both Canada and Newfoundland.

In 1947, when the delegation from your national convention came to Ottawa to see if a satisfactory basis could be found for the political union, we were pleased. We had no hesitation in making it clear that we would welcome union. But we recognized that the decision was one for you to make yourselves. We were happy when you, the people of Newfoundland, decided by a free vote that you favoured union. And we are happy today to have the union completed.
In welcoming you as partners in the Canadian nation, we of the rest of Canada feel that you are joining a good country, a country of which you will come to be as proud as we are. Canada is a country with a distinctive character and distinctive qualities. Our nation in its origin was a union of two great races that have joined their talents without merging their identities. The union includes peoples of many other national origins. Our country covers a vast area between two oceans, with great differences of soil and climate and industry. But from end to end of Canada there is an ever-deepening sense of community of interest and of purpose. We have a common pride in being Canadians. We are proud of Canada's past and of the record of our men and women in peace and in war. We are confident of our country's future. We feel that our nation can hold its head high among the nations of the world.
With the pleasure we have in welcoming you of Newfoundland as Canadians there is mingled a feeling that you could have joined no better nation. The formal union is completed today. But the real union-the union of hearts and minds-took place in the recent terrible war in which Canadians and Newfoundlanders were so closely joined.
It is not only in war that we have come to know and appreciate the qualities of the people of Newfoundland. During the centuries since the original settlement of Newfoundland the people of your island have met the forces of nature, on sea and on land. In adversity and in prosperity they have developed qualities of heart and spirit for which they are renowned.
Some of those qualities are referred to by your native son E. J. Pratt, who has written: This is their culture, this-their master passion Of giving shelter and of sharing bread,
Of answering rocket signals in the fashion Of losing life to save it. In the spread Of time-the Gilbert-Grenfell-Bartlett span-
The headlines cannot dim their daily story,
Nor calls like London! Gander! Teheran!
Outplay the drama of the sled and dory.
The fact that Newfoundland has become a province of Canada will not cause you to lose your identity, of which you are all so justly proud.
A Canadian province is not a mere administrative unit of the central government. Each of our provinces has its own distinctive political existence and political traditions. Within its field of jurisdiction the provincial legislature is as sovereign as the parliament of Canada is within its field. The provincial legislature has jurisdiction over education; property and civil rights; charitable, local and municipal institutions. To the province also falls the primary responsibility for public health and social welfare.
In entrusting such jurisdiction to the province, the Fathers, in their wisdom, left to the province the primary responsibility for the protection of the family, the school, the church, the very foundations of our society.
Our constitution thus assures to each province the preservation of its ancient traditions, its own culture and all those distinctive characteristics which add variety and colour to our national life.
Newfoundland today enters confederation as a full and equal partner with the older provinces. It is my hope and belief that in the future the advantages of the union will be increasingly recognized by the great majority of the people of Newfoundland and of all Canada.
We are completing our union at a troubled time for all people who believe in freedom and democracy and who hope for peace. The free and peace-loving countries of the north Atlantic community are at the present moment taking steps, within the charter of the United Nations, to band themselves together for greater security against any would-be aggressor.
Newfoundland is in the very centre of the north Atlantic community. Canada as a whole occupies a large part of the north Atlantic area. The nations of that whole area will be more secure in the new north Atlantic association. In the same way, Canada and Newfoundland will have greater security in being bound together in federal union. From today all Canadians, old and new, will work as one to preserve peace and to win security. And in a world where free people can work in security and peace, the opportunities for the enlarged Canada, with its ten provinces, are immense.
Among our people there are some who still do not have that standard of living we think all Canadians should have. There are some who still do not enjoy an adequate degree of social security. We shall not cease to work for a larger measure of prosperity and security for all our people in all parts of Canada.
But while there is yet room for improvement, there is no country in the world where that improvement is more possible, or, indeed, more certain. The wealth of Canada is the

wealth of half a continent. The talents and the energies of our people are those of free men who work together for the benefit of all. Our wealth, our talents, our energy, and our co-operation constitute the promise of our country.
The people of Newfoundland, who have today become citizens of Canada, will share with the people of the rest of Canada in the work and in the wealth of our nation. Together we shall strive, under God's guidance and with confidence in our future, to build a greater and a better land.
In conclusion I welcome as a colleague in the government of Canada the Honourable Gordon Bradley, of Newfoundland, who this morning was sworn to the privy council and becomes Secretary of State of Canada.
(Translation):
I should like to give to the Newfoundlanders of yesterday, who are Canadians today, the assurance that, in addressing to them these words of welcome in English, I do so quite as much in the name of their new compatriots whose mother tongue is French, as in the name of those whose language is English.
They belong now to a nation whose two principal races have both retained their attachment to the traditions, to the culture, and to the language of their ancestors. That is the best guarantee to our new fellow citizens that their entry into this union will not cause them to lose their own ancestral patrimony, but that, on the contrary, it will make its contribution with ours to the common good of all Canadian citizens.
(Text):
Mr. Bradley will now address his fellow Canadians in all the ten provinces.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: This is a day which will live long in North American history. It is a day of fulfilment-fulfilment of a vision of great men who planned the nation of Canada more than eighty years ago; and as we stand here on this day of destiny our thoughts fly back through the years to those far-seeing men of the past-Macdonald, Brown, and Cartier in Canada, and Carter and Shea in Newfoundland-whose vision was broader and deeper than their times, and whose conception of a united British North America has just become a reality. In fancy we can see them now, bending over this scene in silent and profound approval.
That they were right is not now open to question. The history of the Canada they began in 1867 leaves no room for doubt upon that point, and the logic of these eighty years indicates that a still greater and better Canada for us all lies in the future.
For me this day transforms a dream of long ago into an accomplished fact. For many years I have felt that our similar independence was unsound; that the close proximity of my native island to the mainland constituted a clear call for union with Canada; that the allegiance to one crown, which we have always shared with Canada, beckoned us westward; that the identity of our principles and traditions pointed in the same direction.
All these considerations led irrevocably to but one conclusion-that Macdonald, Brown and Cartier, and Carter and Shea, were right; and I am happy that this day has come in my time.
I suppose that this union will make hardly any appreciable impression upon the lives of the citizens of Canada of yesterday, but to the people of the new province the changes will be deep and abiding.
In some matters they will lose that exclusiveness of control of their own destinies which they have heretofore enjoyed, and in return they acquire a share in the councils of a great nation-the new Canada -of which they have become a part; they must accustom themselves to a new system of government-the federal system-which links them with all Canadians and yet assures them of a continuance of that identity of which they have always been so proud. They will experience new channelings of trade, new standards of social legislation, new methods of taxation, and a new measure of responsibility as citizens of the New Canada.
Confederation in the days of Macdonald was perhaps comparatively simple, but in the complexities and uncertainties of our modern world it is inevitable that in the process of adjustment to their changed status there will be stresses and strains. We shall have to meet these problems as they arise within the next few months, and perhaps the next few years; and yet out of the experience of the past we may confidently expect that they will not prove as difficult in the future.
Indeed, that process of adjustment has already begun, and we Newfoundland Canadians have been deeply impressed by the speedy recognition of our problems by those whom I may term the older Canadians, and their sincere desire to co-operate with us in effecting the transition as smoothly and with as little dislocation as possible.
Thus we begin life as one people in an atmosphere of unity. We are all Canadians now. Now, as never before, can it be said of this land that her bounds extend from sea to sea. From the eastern shores of the new province of Newfoundland to the coast of British Columbia let us go forward together with faith in the principles and tra-

ditions which we hold in common. Thus shall we grow in strength and prosperity. Thus will the prophetic vision of that great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he said that the twentieth century belonged to Canada, be acknowledged by the whole world.
Inscribing the Arms of Newfoundland on the Peace Tower:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The dominating feature of the capital of Canada is the tower before which we now are standing. It has become known, through visit or photograph or painting, to almost every Canadian. To Canadians it is a symbol of our confederation, and of its spirit and character.
The tower arose out of the ashes of the old parliament building which was destroyed by fire in 1916. When it was built it was dedicated to peace, and on the arch of its base were inscribed the coats of arms of the nine provinces of Canada. The architects and stonecutters charged with the work, however, carved ten shields instead of nine. One was left blank for the day, which the fathers of confederation had foreseen, when Newfoundland would join Canada. That day has come.
It is most gratifying to me as Prime Minister of Canada to cut the first line on the shield that will bear the arms of the ancient colony of Newfoundland, now the tenth province of Canada.
I do so, for my own part and on behalf of my predecessor, Mr. Mackenzie King, who as Prime Minister had a large and decisive part in bringing about the union.
I feel confident that the inscription in hard and enduring stone will not be more lasting than the union of which it is the symbol.
(These remarks repeated by Mr. St. Laurent in French.)
Address of His Excellency the Governor General
It is my privilege today in speaking to the people of Newfoundland, and to those who are now their fellow citizens in the rest of Canada, to convey a message from His Majesty the King. The message is as follows:
Please convey to the government and people of Canada on behalf of the Queen and myself our appreciation of the message of loyalty and good wishes which you sent me. On this historic occasion I am glad to send my good wishes to the people of the greater Canada-to those of the old provinces and to those of the new province of Newfoundland -who will now go forward together to the high destiny that awaits them. Today marks the fulfilment of the union into one great nation of all peoples of the British commonwealth in the northern part of North America. May the union that is now complete continue, under God's guidance, to grow in strength, prosperity, happiness, and may it bring new benefits to its people from sea to sea.
As representative of His Majesty, and as Governor General of Canada, it is a special pleasure for me to be able to convey that message on so historic an occasion.
The ceremony we have witnessed, the beginning of the carving of the arms of Newfoundland on the tenth shield in the arch of the peace tower, is a perfect symbol of the event we celebrate today. When union of the British colonies in North America was discussed at Quebec in 1864, Newfoundland was represented. At that time it was expected that Newfoundland would form a part of the proposed union. When the confederation that is now Canada was established, and Newfoundland was not included, the union was felt to be incomplete. It has remained incomplete until today.
When the arch in the peace tower was constructed, the sense of proportion of the architect confirmed the judgment of the fathers who had planned confederation. With only nine shields, no balance could be achieved that would satisfy the requirements of beauty and symmetry. And so the arch, like the union, was unfinished until the people of Newfoundland decided to join in the union which their representatives originally helped to plan. The people of Newfoundland have now so decided. The arch and the union will now be complete.
While I have not yet had occasion to visit Newfoundland, the qualities of its people are by no means unknown to me. The reputation established by the Royal Newfoundland regiment in the war of 1914-18 will always be a source of pride to the island whose sons that regiment made famous. In the last war I had under my own command in Italy the 166th (Newfoundland) Field regiment, Royal Artillery, which carried on so well the reputation established by the sons of Newfoundland in the first world war. It was, perhaps, an augury of the union being completed today that the 166th regiment was in support of the first Canadian division at Ortona in Italy.
As Governor General of Canada it is a pleasure for me to be able to welcome the people of Newfoundland into the country in which it is my privilege to represent His Majesty the King. I trust it will soon be my pleasure to visit the people of the new province in their own island and to greet again some of the gallant men who served under my command in Italy. To them, and to all the people of Newfoundland, I send today a word of greeting and of welcome as citizens of Canada.
God Save the King Ode to Newfoundland O Canada Royal Salute

Commentator: The Governor General and the official party are now preparing to leave the platform which has been erected on the steps of the peace tower here at the houses of parliament on parliament hill in Ottawa. The Governor General and the Prime Minister have left the platform, and Mr. King is speaking with the new Secretary of State, the Honourable Mr. Bradley.
That concludes the official ceremony from parliament hill in Ottawa, linking Newfoundland with Canada as its tenth province.
Before returning you to our studios and our regular broadcasting schedule, we shall hear from Robert Donnell, Canada's official carilloneur, who will play "This Canada of Ours", his own composition, specially written for the citizenship ceremonies held in January of 1947.
(Carillon)
The composite guard of honour, made up of members of the army and air force, commanded by Major A. E. Wood, is now preparing to leave. Incidentally this is also a great day for the air force, since today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Doubtless there are many Newfoundland boys in the guard of honour.
Photographers are now taking pictures of the shield which was inscribed by the Prime Minister. During the ceremony the Prime Minister carved the first stone from the shield which will bear the coat of arms of the province of Newfoundland, one of the first to appear in the new world. The present coat of arms of Canada dates only from November, 1921, although an earlier Dominion of Canada coat of arms came into use following a royal warrant dated May 26, 1868, which coat of arms was composed merely of the four original provinces' coats of arms assigned at the time and by the same warrant.

Monday, April 4, 1943