1949-11-25

Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) I wish to table correspondence between the minister and the premier of Saskatchewan and the premier of Quebec on the matter of rent control.
I understand that a desire was expressed in the house that this correspondence be printed as an appendix to Hansard. If it is the wish of the house, I would so request.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to have this correspondence printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence, see appendix, pages 2278-81.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Odette Therese Gabard Coupal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Ella Maxine Shover Logan.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to assist the production of coal in the Atlantic maritime provinces by making loans to producers of coal, and to provide therein for the conditions of such loans and the terms of repayment thereof; to provide further that the aggregate principal amount of loans made to coal producers shall not exceed ten million dollars and that the aggregate principal amount of loans made to any one coal producer shall not exceed seven and one-half million dollars.
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.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that section nine of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, shall continue in force for such period or periods as the governor in council may from time to time fix by proclamation, but shall expire upon the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament.
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.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minisier of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that section nine of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-third day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and shall continue in force for such period or periods as the governor in council may from time to time fix by proclamation, but shall expire upon the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament.
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]
Right Hon L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:
That on Saturday, the 26th November, 1949, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m., and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays; and also, that on and after Wednesday, the 30th November, 1949, and every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the present session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few words to this motion, which has given me considerable thought since I first saw it yesterday in Votes and Proceedings. I am well aware there are certain rules in the House of Commons. Although I am far from being an expert on the rules, I distinctly remember two of them. One is that one may not impute motives, and the other has to do with unparliamentary language. Therefore I find myself this morning under a most strict limitation in what I am about to say.
' No rule, of course, can stop any hon. member from thinking. People are not put in jail or otherwise punished for that, yet, in the Dominion of Canada. In thinking about this matter, it occurred to me there might be a coloured gentleman in the winter kindling, if he did not occupy the whole woodpile. Considering the strain under which I am working, that is the most I am permitted to say at this time if I do not wish to commit a breach of the first rule which I mentioned.
As to the second rule, my position is even worse. I will admit my thinking was clothed in language which was extremely unparliamentary. So unparliamentary was it, sir, that I found that with almost every second breath I was calling myself to order. I did not get the obedience that you always get when you use that word. So bad did things become, Mr. Speaker, that I had to use another of your prerogatives: I had to name myself. I know when a person is named in the House of Commons it must be a matter of some shame to him. Then I felt that the house had probably acted in the matter, and upon the appropriate motion I am going to assume that I have been expelled from this house for one day certain, which is tomorrow, the 26th of November.
My shame hanging so heavily upon me, I felt I must get away from Ottawa. I did not think I could take the stares which I would get from hon. members. After all, I like my friends to speak to me, and I thought perhaps I would lose even that favourable consideration. Therefore I have decided to shake the dust-or snow-of Ottawa from my feet and go to the city of Toronto. There I am sure I will meet many of my constituents. I am also quite sure they will forgive me. They might even go further than forgiving me. They might even join me in that well-known cry, "Come on, Stampeders!"


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, what I am going to say will be far less effective than what the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has just said in his humorous manner. While I think most of us recognize the desire of the government

and of hon. members generally to facilitate the business of the house, I think the resolution now before us asks too much of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: To sit day after day from eleven in the morning until eleven at night is a strain on all members. We not only have to attend the sittings of the house and meetings of committees; there is also a certain amount of correspondence to be dealt with, and preparation to be made for the business of the house. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is asking too much of the house. Personally I believe-and I know my colleagues agree with this-that in order to facilitate the business of the house some Saturday sittings are unavoidable and warranted at this time. New business is still being placed on the order paper. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he meet the private members of the house part way, and at least have no Saturday night sittings. Members of the house want to get home to their families for the week end. I do not criticize members of the house who will not remain here, but if we sit on Saturdays it means that, with few exceptions, the only members of the house who will attend will be those who come from the far east and the far west. That has been the experience, and it is frequently so even on Fridays. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he modify the motion now before the house and avoid Saturday night sittings.
There is one other point I want to make. If the Prime Minister does not meet the wishes of some members of the house for whom I am speaking, at least- this could be done. The motion reads, as on previous occasions of the kind, that the order of business and procedure on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays, which means that the hour from eight to nine is reserved for private bills. I do not believe that should be done. I say that, not because I am opposed to any of the private bills-although I am-but because I think if we are asked to sit on Saturday nights we should not make way for private bills when we are really sitting -to deal with the public business. I ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of a number of members of the house, not only those of my own party, to modify the proposal and not insist on Saturday night sittings.


Mr. Cruicltshank:: I should like to say a word. I shall confine my remarks about this resolution to the hour between eight and nine tonight. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, they will be to the point.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I trust hon. members will not feel there is any desire to

have divergent views on this subject between the government and private members. This motion is in the form in which it is usually proposed when it is hoped that parliament is nearing the end of the session. There is no desire on the part of the government to impose its will upon the membership of the house. A large number of members spend the week end in Ottawa. I know that they, like many other members of the house, are anxious to have due consideration given to all the business that has to be completed, but they hope that it may be dealt with in a proper manner without the session extending too far into the month of December.
If it is agreeable to the house to allow the motion to pass, and it seems to be the feeling of a majority of the members that without sitting on Saturday evening the business of the house can be expeditiously dealt with,
I am sure the Minister of Public Works will be glad to move at six o'clock tomorrow night that the house then adjourn and resume at eleven o'clock on Monday morning.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am glad you are going to the game.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: On November 23 I asked a question about reports that an agreement on merchant shipping was being negotiated in Ottawa between the United Kingdom and Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said he would look into the matter and make a reply later. Can the Minister of Transport make a statement today in this connection?
On November 21 I asked a question about the wreck of the steamship Chelohsin which took place on the shores of Stanley park in Vancouver. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would look into that matter also, to ascertain whether or not there would be an investigation.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: With reference to the last question, as to the wreck of the S.S. Chelohsin, I have not yet received a report from the registrar of shipping at Vancouver, but I have ordered a preliminary investigation, as is usual in these cases. I shall be glad to advise my hon. friend of the result of that investigation when it is forthcoming.
Inquiries of the Ministry Dealing with the other question, I should like to say that conversations have taken place between Sir Gilmour Jenkins, permanent secretary of the British Ministry of Transport, and Mr. Clyne, chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, in regard to lack of cargoes available to Canadian flag shipping. The difficulty which Canadian flag vessels have always faced is that they are unable to accept cargoes where the freight is payable in sterling because Canadians must have dollars to pay expenses. Canadians are debarred for all practical purposes from the carriage of ECA cargoes because by act of congress 50 per cent of such cargoes must be carried in U.S. bottoms and the remainder are carried by ships of the recipient nations, of which Canada is not one.
Outside of ECA cargoes, dollar freights are becoming more and more scarce. The problem is not a new one, but has been accentuated by the fall in the freight market consequent upon devaluation. Last year an arrangement was made between the British Ministry of Transport and the Canadian maritime commission whereby the United Kingdom agreed to provide what were in effect dollar freights to Canadian flag vessels, whose owners were members of conference lines, upon the basis of division of cargoes on a conference basis.
In addition the United Kingdom agreed to provide convertible sterling for 45,000 tons per month for tramp tonnage. The conversations between British and Canadian shipping experts have not been concluded, but the object of such conversations is to reach an agreed basis of participation of Canadian-owned tonnage in sterling freight cargoes in face of present day conditions.



SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether * it is still the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session concerning shipping and shipbuilding?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I do not know to whom I should direct this question. On November 3 the minister said that as soon as the order in council in connection with the submission to
2216	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the supreme court of the question of the constitutionality of the continuance of rent control was approved, it would be tabled in parliament. It was approved on November 16. Can the Prime Minister or the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance say whether it will be tabled?
With the permission of the Prime Minister, I should like to say that I understand the matter is to be submitted to a judge of the supreme court on December 1, to secure the instructions of the court as to the course to be followed. I have seen the order in council, P.C. 5840, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister would consider setting aside an hour between now and December 1 for the members of the house to discuss this question. It is not my desire to infringe on the rules of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to be helpful. There are only two more days during which we can make suggestions as to some of the terms of the submission, a reading of which seems to indicate to me that they are somewhat hypothetical and not fortified with factual circumstances establishing the continued existence of the emergency. I am making this suggestion in a spirit of helpfulness, because after the order in council has been submitted to the supreme court it will be too late to change it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I can give the hon. member the assurance that a copy of the order in council will be tabled. I shall get in touch with the Minister of Finance to ascertain whether, under the rules of the house, some opportunity for discussing the matter before December 1 can be given.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I have now had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of looking at press reports to which the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) referred in asking his question yesterday. On the basis of this question and a further question asked by the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the issue seems to be this: Why, since the chairman of the national film board is a member of the government, was the brief presented by the board not a statement of government policy?


My answer is this: A brief was prepared and submitted to the members of the board. No adverse criticisms were registered by the board, three members of which are from outside the government service, and it was my understanding that the board concurred in the brief. As chairman of the board I explained that I did not agree with everything in the brief, and that, as a member of the government, I could not, therefore, commit the government to anything it contained. I added that, as the brief was intended for presentation to a royal commission which was expected to make an independent finding, I felt that the commission was entitled to hear views from all quarters. I said that I would not object to the brief being presented to the Massey commission, provided that it was clearly indicated to the commission that it did not represent government policy. I am informed by the chairman of the Massey commission that this view was made clear by the commissioner of the film board when the brief was presented.
In taking that attitude, I felt I was taking a liberal view while reserving the right of the government to formulate its own policies in the light of whatever recommendations might be made by the Massey commission.


Mr. Fraser:: I should like to ask the minister whether, when he says he is taking a "liberal" view, that is literally a government view? Were the comments of the minister at the board meeting, and the granting of permission to send this brief to the commission, an attempt to find out what the people thought of the idea?



SURPLUS OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS OVER DOMESTIC REQUIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: In
view of the contradictory statements of the Minister of Agriculture, as reported in the press, is there or is there not a surplus of some food products in Canada today? In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce answer the question?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend means by the word "surplus". Does he mean an unsold surplus or a surplus in excess of domestic requirements?


John Alpheus Charlton: Just what the word "surplus" ordinarily means.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a surplus over domestic requirements in wheat, oats, barley and several other products. It is large or small depending on the product.


Major James William Coldwell: What about eggs, cheese and butter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The stock of butter in storage is about normal, and is sufficient to carry us through the winter. The surplus of cheese is small. Our difficulty in connection with cheese is that we have been selling cheese without ageing, and there is a small quantity in stock today that is ageing. Eggs are under contract for the remainder of this year, as is bacon.



QUESTION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR WESTERN MEMBERS AT END OF SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the Minister of Transport say whether or not a decision has been arrived at about transportation for the western members if they remain until the end of the session?


Lionel Chevrier: Both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway officials have been approached, and have signified their intention of assisting the members of the House of Commons from all parts of Canada. When the house rises, additional equipment will be made available to meet the convenience of the members so that they may reach their homes in time for the holiday.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: I returned to my office this morning, and I understand that yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) raised the question of unemployment in the Vancouver area. It is true that since last summer some communications from labour and veterans organizations have been received in connection with the development of an unemployment situation in that area. I have directed my officers in the area to keep close watch on the situation, and to consult with interested organizations.
Recently I was in Vancouver, and while the situation does not appear to be as buoyant as it was a year ago, it can be said there is a high level of employment in that area. There are exceptional cases, but at the 45781-142
Combines Investigation Act moment the seasonal drop in employment has been taken care of by the agency which was created for the purpose, the unemployment insurance office. As my hon. friend knows- but I think it is well to repeat it-British Columbia, and particularly the Vancouver -Victoria area, is flooded by people moving from eastern Canada. Since 1941 the population of British Columbia has increased 36 per cent, and the total employment in British Columbia has increased 16 per cent since 1946, which is the highest figure for any province in the dominion.
The member for Vancouver East can rest assured that all the governments concerned with the question he raised will watch the situation closely.


Mr. Maclnnis:: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether the government has a shelf of public works that could be started quickly if the minister finds the situation deteriorating?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is a shelf of public works which the provinces, municipalities and federal government have right across the dominion.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Attorney general of Canada may institute and conduct prosecutions.
John George Diefenbaker: Under this section there are a number of questions that I should like to ask the minister. I shall refer to the particular portions of section 10 of the present act that are applicable. It says that it shall be the duty of the commission to receive and register, and, subject to the provisions of this act, to deal with applications for investigations of alleged combines; to bring to the attention of the minister every such application; to compile information and make studies concerning the existence in Canada of monopolies; to supply any person on request with information as to this act, and generally do such things as are necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the act.
In 1946, with a view to strengthening this act, section 10A was passed, which provides that the commissioner may receive complaints respecting practices alleged to be offences under this act, and may communicate the complaint and such evidence, if any, in
support thereof to the attorney general of the

Combines Investigation Act province within which the offence is alleged to have been committed, or to the Attorney General of Canada. As was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition, the bill before the committee adds little or nothing to the enforcement of the act. The minister candidly admitted that that was so.
The questions I wish to ask concern enforcement under section 10; for if parliament passes these amendments it needs to be assured, in view of recent experience, that they will be properly and unerringly followed so that we shall not find ourselves in the position of slightly altering the words of a statute and still making the question of enforcement dependent upon the whim, desire or orders of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I should like to know how many investigations have been conducted by the commissioner since October, 1935, under the provisions of section 10. I should like to ascertain what has been done, if anything, to prosecute under the report made in 1945 by the commissioner in connection with the matter of international cartels. A report was brought before parliament and published in the regular way, but, so far as I know, no prosecution has ever been undertaken. Why? The minister contends that the publication of a report by the combines commissioner constitutes a challenge to prosecution.
My next question is: What industries have been investigated since 1946 by the commissioner under the powers contained in this section? Are there at present reports in course of preparation by the commissioner touching certain industries that have been investigated? According to the Financial Post, this week's issue, two or three industries have been investigated, and the reports are now in process of completion. In any of these industries were any promises made by the wartime prices and trade board or by any member of the government that their assistance in production during the days of war would be regarded as insulating them from legal jeopardy?
In regard to these prospective reports I ask the minister these questions: Will they be submitted to the cabinet before they are published? Have any portions of them already been submitted to the cabinet, and if so, under what authority? For there is no provision in the statute for submission to anyone by the commissioner under this section. I should like the minister to advise the committee whether these reports will be expurgated in any way by the cabinet or by any member of the cabinet. I might add that in 1948 the then minister of justice indicated that there was no authority in the minister or anyone else to alter the reports made under section 10.

My next question is: In how many cases since 1946, when this act was amended, have reports been forwarded by the commissioner or the Attorney General of Canada to the attorneys general of any of the provinces, and to what provinces?. Have any of the provinces failed to prosecute on any report indicating a combine in any of the provinces?


Mr. Garson:: I think it would be better to say "have any of the provinces not prosecuted."


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is right. Have any of the attorneys general not done so?
Then there is another matter. Provision for the report to be made by the commissioner under the provisions of section 10 is provided for under section 27, subsection 5. I read it once more merely for the purpose of founding the question:
Any report of the commissioner or of a special commissioner, other than an interim report . . . shall within fifteen days after its receipt by the minister be made public, unless the commissioner states in writing to the minister that he believes the public interest would be better served by withholding publication . . .
Having regard to all the storm and turmoil of recent days, and the difficulties in which the Minister of Justice finds himself by reason of the interference of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, it might be wondered why the minister did not take up with the commissioner the question of giving a certificate in writing to the minister that in the public interest this report should not be published. It would have been so easy, if the public interest demanded it, for the commissioner, when he delivered that report, to have done so, and the argument would have been over. There is no use in trying to amend a section unless the section as it now stands is being enforced. The minister admits that the amendment will not add to the powers with respect to prosecution.
I have listened with interest to the explanation of the minister about the McGregor report, and have endeavoured to follow him as carefully as I could, having regard to its length. During the period from January until October 22 was not a suggestion made to the commissioner at some time that instead of an addendum he could give a certificate that it was not in the public interest to publish the report? Was such a representation made to the commissioner? If so, when was the first occasion on which this was done? Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce present on any of the occasions when Mr. McGregor was present?

These are questions that have not been cleared up as yet. They are material in ascertaining whether or not section 10 as amended will in fact be carried into effect.
I await the minister's answer to these questions before proceeding.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I have not counted them wrongly, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has asked me some thirteen questions. I do not know that anything turns on them. [DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is not an ordinary witness. He is a good lawyer, and he will have no difficulty in following them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if the number I have given checks with my hon. friend's number?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not have the questions written down. But "thirteen" is a fairly lucky number.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought perhaps that was deliberate.


John George Diefenbaker: It is significant.


Mr. Knowles:: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister of Justice could come down this way a little bit. I do not like asking him to talk louder; he has had to talk a good deal within the last few weeks. If he would just move down-no, not alongside the Minister of Trade and Commerce; that would be bad-but down near the centre of the chamber.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is usurping the prerogative of running the house. Suppose he leave it to the government. My hon. friend forgets that the government was elected to conduct the public business, not the small group of which he is a member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will deal with that matter later. I am just making a request on behalf of the members of the house. As a matter of fact I make it in order to save the Minister of Justice from having to shout so that we can hear him.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister had better stay where he is.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will try to shout. When my voice gets tired, I shall let my hon. friends know.
As to some of these questions, Mr. Chairman, I would have trouble if I attempted to answer them from memory. For example, one is: How many investigations have there been since October, 1935? I shall be glad to get that information for my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: And table it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I certainly would not attempt to give it from memory, because I might forget one or two.
Combines Investigation Act


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The second question has to do with international cartels. I would have preferred that my hon. friend write his questions, because upon the language in which they are framed may depend his being satisfied with the answers he gets later, and the answers being responsive to the terms of his questions. I shall be glad to get the information for him. I think he will agree, though, that it has no immediate bearing upon this present section. If he will be content that we examine the Hansard report of this sitting and then bring down a return in reply to the questions he has put on the record, I shall be glad to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: And incorporate the
information in Hansard?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And incorporate it in Hansard. yes.
My hon. friend asks: What industries have been investigated since 1946? I think that would go in the same return.
The next question was:	Are there any
reports in preparation touching industries that have been investigated? At a previous stage of the discussion of this bill I had occasion to say I had been instructed by the commissioner that we did not give out information as to investigations and reports in progress. Personally I would have no disposition whatever to claim that privilege, and I think that I can, within the propriety which the commissioner enjoins upon me, answer my hon. friend's question by referring him to the evidence of the commissioner himself before the prices committee, where he was called upon by the vote of the committee to disclose the reports which he had in preparation at that time. I think my hon. friend will find the report referred to there.


John George Diefenbaker: We have the Financial Post this week publishing the record of the various industries that have been investigated, and saying that the reports will be available on December 31.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately,
I am not responsible for the reportorial or editorial policy-


John George Diefenbaker: It is not editorial.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -of any paper.


John George Diefenbaker: It is Mr. Wilson's statement.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I know that Mr. Wilson is a competent journalist, but if he writes a speculative article naming certain dates I am sure we would not consider we were in any way bound by it. I am quite pre-

Combines Investigation Act pared to confer with the commissioner and get the reports. I have them in my mind at the moment, but in relation to the very point that my hon. friend was criticizing me for yesterday, namely, not observing secrecy with regard to my department, I would prefer-


John George Diefenbaker: No; at no time did I mention the need of secrecy in regard to his department. What I said was that the minister had lifted the veil on what took place in the cabinet, and indicated that there was lack of solidarity.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The same thing applies to these proceedings in the department. If my hon. friend stops to reflect upon the matter for a moment he will realize that in the course of the administration of the combines investigation commission various complaints are received from time to time and are investigated by the commissioner. In the course of that investigation, unless he finds that there are reasons for making a more thorough inquiry leading to a report, he closes that file and respects the confidences which his preliminary investigations have disclosed.
The percentage of cases which result in full formal investigation and report is less than ten per cent of the total investigated. The commissioner tells me-and I have always found him reliable on these matters-that in the interests of and in fairness to those under investigation, and proper administration of the act, it is not desirable to refer to cases under investigation until they reach the stage of a report, unless of course the fact of investigation is disclosed by the industry itself or by court proceedings. But I am telling my hon. friend, so far as the investigations to which he presumably refers are concerned, that I understand the commissioner, in his evidence before the prices committee of the last parliament, was called upon by a vote of the committee to make these disclosures, and he did make them. I have no doubt that that, and the annual report of the commissioner, are the sources of the information which Mr. Wilson has used in his article in the newspaper. In any event I shall be glad to confer with the commissioner-


John George Diefenbaker: Only the reports that are in preparation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: I want only the number of investigations; I do not want the identity.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member wants the number of investigations?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; but I want the names of the reports now in preparation because they are revealed outside of parliament.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. They were revealed first of all in parliament in the prices committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Just the investigations.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; there were references to reports. I think my hon. friend will find that that is so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just have one word to help the minister? In his letter of resignation -and it is now public property-Mr. McGregor told the minister that there were two reports in draft form that he hoped to complete before his resignation became effective.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right; but I may tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there are two in draft form, but there are other investigations that might fall within the question asked by my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking for draft reports.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the hon. member asking only for draft reports?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. What are they, and when will they be published?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be very glad to give him that. As this discussion develops hon. members will see the importance of my having Hansard to answer these questions, because often the questions change as we go along.
The next question of which I have a note is: "Was any permission given by any member of the government-" That is as far as I took it down. What was the rest of the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I can clear that up. I shall read the excerpt from the Financial Post and then ask the question. I quote:
Ottawa.-A report by combines commissioner McGregor on the flat-glass industry in Canada is one of two which he hopes to complete before his resignation becomes effective December 31.
It also mentions an investigation into the rubber industry which was held in 1948 and 1949. These are the two reports. The question I asked was whether or not in either of these industries-I have named them now, because they are revealed in the Financial Post-any arrangements were made or promises given by the wartime prices and trade board.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Chairman, if there were, certainly I would not know about it, because I was not in the government at the time that is mentioned in that report. The

report of the inquiry has not yet been received. It is not in draft form. I do not want to seem to be difficult in these things, but there is no use in any person trying to testify as to facts that he does not know. He cannot possibly be truthful about it.
There is an implication in this question which I think is unfair to the government, namely, that the ministers have been giving exemptions from the law. I have been trying my very best, apparently with great infirmity of language, to make my point clear-that so far as the flour report is concerned-that is the one we are discussing-it was not a matter of anybody giving any exemption or privilege to an industry or to the companies in that industry. As it would be in all instances, it was the case of an industry under the wartime prices and trade board carrying out regulations passed under the War Measures Act, orders made in proper form, calling upon the industry to do certain things which, were they done in time of peace by voluntary agreement, would perhaps constitute an offence under the Combines Investigation Act. By the express terms of the wartime prices and trade board regulations, orders of the board prevailed, in the event of conflict, over any other statute, including the Combines Investigation Act.
The immunity that my hon. friends speaks of is not an immunity which arises out of the promise of any minister or official; it is an immunity which arises out of the terms of the wartime prices and trade board regulations, passed pursuant to a statute enacted by this parliament. That is the law, whether it is stated to be so or not by any minister or by any official.


Major James William Coldwell: To which regulation is the minister referring?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is a multitude of
regulations applying to a large number of industries. As I said the other day, at the peak there were eighty odd administrators administering different types of industries throughout the country on behalf of the wartime prices and trade board. In the course of their duties they were directing these industries, under a system of wartime controls, to do certain things. The point is that if any of these things which an industry is thus directed to do happens to be such as might be a contravention of the Combines Investigation Act if done by voluntary agreement, there is not and cannot be any liability under the Combines Investigation Act.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the kind of document we want to see produced here; that is what we have been looking for.
Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should be glad to produce the orders in council referred to in Mr. Gordon's last memorandum.


Major James William Coldwell: They refer only to the flour industry, but now the minister says there may be regulations affecting other industries.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wants all the regulations applicable to these various industries, I imagine there would be quite a number.


Major James William Coldwell: Just the ones bearing on this particular point. I think it is something that must be cleared up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I see my hon. friend's point. I would refer him again-I have done this once or twice before-to the legal opinion by Mr. Anger that I placed on Hansard. I think he will see there-and this is the point I am trying to make now in affirmative language-the considered opinion of the legal adviser.


Major James William Coldwell: I have read it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that he has no knowledge of any representations made to these other industries in respect of which reports are now in the course of preparation by Mr. McGregor?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: There can be no argument if he has no knowledge, and he is candid in saying so. My next question is this:	Will
those reports, when produced, be again submitted to the cabinet instead of being published with a view to finding out whether any representations were made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the question is an unfair one.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just a minute, please; let me attempt to answer it. My hon. friend asks if these reports will be submitted to cabinet instead of being published.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, within the fifteen days.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My answer to that is unequivocal; they will be published within the fifteen days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all you need to know.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now-


John George Diefenbaker: That is not all that we need to know.
2222	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They will be published within the fifteen days, and that is the point we are talking about.


John George Diefenbaker: You have-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all the act calls for.


John George Diefenbaker: You have no power of examination.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to whether these reports will be submitted to cabinet, certainly they will be submitted to cabinet. The responsibility of the commissioner is to prepare a report with his judgment untrammelled by influence of any kind on the part of the government. When he delivers his report to the government, he is in a sense, to use a legal term, functus officio. He has done his job of report preparing, and his report is delivered as an entity. It should be a complete entity when it comes to the cabinet. The cabinet then has to decide what is to be done with the report-whether patent action will be taken, whether prosecutions will be launched, and so forth, from that point on.


John George Diefenbaker: But the cabinet cannot decide whether or not the report will be published.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; my hon. friend is quite correct in that. I ask my hon. friend if my answer is not responsive to the question he has asked. Does it cover it satisfactorily?


John George Diefenbaker: It covers it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend's impression of what is satisfactory from his point of view may be different from mine.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not equivocating. Before the minister goes on I should like to say one thing. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement that I want to answer at this stage, arising out of an answer given.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has asked me eleven fairly complicated questions, one after the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirteen.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Thirteen; I beg your pardon.
I am carrying these in my mind and attempting to answer them, and he wants to stop me in the middle of the proceedings to settle some issue that he has with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is hardly fair to me. He asked if any portions of these reports -I understand he means the reports in preparation-have been submitted to the cabinet, and my answer is, absolutely not.


Mr. Stick:: Do you have to answer that question?
IMr. Diefenbaker.]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They would be submitted through me. If we had wished to adopt an obstructive attitude all through these proceedings we could have claimed privilege with regard to many matters which were divulged without any question. We could have claimed privilege with regard to Mr. McGregor's letter of resignation. At every stage of these proceedings, however painful it may have been to us, we have made disclosures and taken hon. members into our confidence. We have produced all the facts that we now have. I think that answers question No. 7.
Reports are never submitted to cabinet when they are in course of preparation. No matter what difference of opinion Mr. McGregor may have with the government, he has been a most diligent and honourable servant. He is called upon by the statute to prepare the report on his own initiative, and that is what he has done. It is true that in the course of doing so he kept his minister informed. In connection with the flour report he says that he had the authority of the minister of justice of that time, but he told me that that authority was only oral, not written. It did not need to be given at all. In connection with these reports there is no reference to or consultation with the government by the commissioner as to the text. The whole idea is that he shall be completely independent in the preparing of a report.
I think that answers the next question: Will it be expurgated? Certainly not; nor has the flour report been expurgated in any respect at the instance of any member of the cabinet. Any changes that were made in the flour report, either before or after it was delivered to me, were made on the initiative of Mr. McGregor and nobody else.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister suggested an addendum.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have said that, and I repeat that I did not ask him, directly or indirectly, to change it in any way at all. My hon. friend refers to my having suggested that there be an addendum to the report. My statement was that I was hopeful there might be an addendum. I described in detail how Mr. Taylor, whose name I mentioned, undertook, as a friend and colleague of long standing, to ask Mr. McGregor if he would make an addendum. After considering the matter for about three days, if I remember rightly, Mr. McGregor said that he could not see his way clear to doing that. I want to emphasize again that I never suggested to Mr. Taylor that he do that. I have from beginning to end in that respect at least followed the course of complete propriety.
The next question was: In how many cases since 1946 have reports been forwarded by

the commissioner to attorneys general of the provinces? I think I had better bring down a return on that.
The next question is: Have any of the attorneys general not prosecuted? I shall also bring down a return on that.
The next question is: Why did the minister not ask the commissioner for an extension of the period of time for publication?


John George Diefenbaker: Not an extension-no.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For an order of extension. Because, Mr. Chairman, as I have just finished telling hon. members, I have asked Mr. McGregor and told Mr. McGregor nothing in connection with the report that would in any way interfere with his judgment. Under the circumstances, which I have already outlined to hon. members, of the introduction by him of very substantial changes in the report, if he wanted to ask that publication be held up for that purpose, that was one thing; but under these circumstances, dealing with a civil servant whose peculiar responsibility it was to exercise an independent judgment, asking by a minister is one thing and telling is another, and the line between the two may be pretty vague. The only way not to transgress that line is not to get on either side of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not suggest you should have done that either, but the section provides for it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I know. That is my answer.
The next question asked why, instead of an addendum, there was not a certificate. There is also a barb in that question. There is an implication in it that I asked for an addendum, and I never asked for one.


John George Diefenbaker: Just suggested one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not suggest one, no. What I said was that I was hopeful that one would be available, because I knew of this difference between these high-ranking public servants. I knew there was sincere regret on both sides that they were not able to agree. I will confess this much, that it seemed to me a most reasonable request for one of them to make to the other, that there be an addendum which would at least make clear what the views of these other two men were, so that the whole thing would be one completed document. I repeat, with all the emphasis I can command, that I was not responsible even for suggesting that that be done. It was done entirely on Mr. Taylor's own initiative.
The next question is: Was Mr. Howe present when Mr. McGregor was present on
Combines Investigation Act any occasion? I think there was one occasion-perhaps my right hon. friend can confirm or correct this; we have had no chance to consult on it

on which the Minister of Trade and Commerce was present when we discussed the question of the position of an industry under the wartime prices and trade board.


John George Diefenbaker: When would that be?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I could not tell my hon. friend.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why should you tell him?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But I can find out for him quite easily, because Mr. McGregor has a record of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member entitled to know the details of any discussion between ministers? I think my colleague is being far too indulgent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I may be. That is quite true, but I think in a case of this kind it is much better to be indulgent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some of us want to go home before Christmas.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When the propriety of the government's actions is involved, I think the better course to follow is to take the members of the house into one's confidence and give these facts, unless there is some good reason for withholding them, as there is, for example, in the case of a legal opinion upon which a prosecution is to be based. That is an entirely different matter.
I think those are the thirteen questions. If possible I will bring down answers to the others tomorrow in the form of a return.


Alphonse Fournier: We want to get the
bill through today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre will consent to acceptance of a return on these other matters without holding up the bill. I do not think he means that for a minute.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask the minister how many copies of the report were printed and published, and what steps are taken to distribute those copies? Is the usual number being printed in connection with this report, and are they being distributed in the usual way?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot answer offhand as to the number of hundreds of copies. It is not very relevant anyhow, because we run off enough to supply all possible needs, and usually have quite a healthy surplus left over. They are issued to the daily and weekly press, and usually then to a selected mailing list. In the

Combines Investigation Act present case everything connected with it, press releases and so on, has been put before the house and issued to the press so that there would be complete publicity with regard to it. So far copies have not been sent out to the mailing list, for the reason that the government was not endorsing the report, and on that account was not sending it out in that way. We have plenty of copies, and Mr. McGregor has instructions that it be available to any person who wants a copy.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister not think that is inadvisable? Does it not lend colour to the idea that the government does not want the report to get into the hands of the usual mailing list? If I may say so, I think the government is not acting in its own best interests in doing this kind of thing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can tell my hon. friend that part of the mailing list consists of trade consuls and representatives all over the world where our export flour has to go, and we thought on balance it was just as well not to advertise a report in respect of which the government was in strong disagreement. We thought upon balance it was better not to do it.


Major James William Coldwell: But what about the
domestic mailing list?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as distribution is concerned, it is available to any person who wants to get it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are one or two things I should like to say. They relate to the section before us, namely, the giving of additional power to the attorney general, who is the same person as the Minister of Justice. They relate also to the whole question that the committee has been dealing with this morning. It seems to me the additional power-strength, if you will-that the Minister of Justice needs is the strength to stand his ground even when the Minister of Trade and Commerce holds a gun at his head.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not a fair thing to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let Hansard show the character of these people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants to interrupt, I will answer him to his satisfaction before we are through. I confess, despite the fact that I was characterized in the press yesterday as one of the severest critics of the Minister of Justice on this matter, that I have sat here honestly trying to see what the minister has had in mind in declaring time and time

again his honest feeling that he had acted honourably in the whole matter. I have known the minister for a long while, and I feel when he makes such a statement there must be something to it. I find it difficult, because there was the plain fact that the law had been broken, but in thinking over-


Mr. Ferrie:: It was just stretched, that is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member can get into this if he wishes. On thinking over what the minister has said, and in reading carefully his two and a half hour speech the other day, I feel that the only point at which he came even close to what I would regard as a plausible defence was when he said that after he came back from Winnipeg last January and found the race already half run before he was out of the dressing room-in other words that the law already had been broken-he felt that he was in a jam. So what did he do? He says he consulted the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, no.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry, but I shall have to raise a point of order. I thought it was understood yesterday a little before one o'clock that we would deal with the clause under discussion. This morning I have been reading the first section of this amending bill, which states:
The Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under this act, or under section 498 or section 498A of the Criminal Code, and for such purposes he may exercise all the powers and functions conferred by the Criminal Code on the attorney general of a province.
If my understanding is correct, all we are asking the house to agree to is that the Attorney General of Canada be given the same powers as the attorneys general of the provinces to prosecute in these cases. That is the section which was called yesterday, and the section which was called this morning. I did not want to interrupt this discussion of the flour report, but it is so foreign to this amendment that I do not see how hon. members who themselves blame the Minister of Justice and the government for not following the law can repeatedly refuse to conform to standing order 58, which provides that in committee of the whole discussion must be relevant to the item or section under discussion, and nothing else.
We have had a week of discussion on this. The Minister of Justice, whom I sincerely admire, has been frank with the house in a difficult situation and has done his best to explain his position. We cannot continue with that discussion indefinitely if we are ever to decide whether the Attorney General of Canada is to have the same powers with

respect to prosecution as the attorneys general of the provinces. If hon. members do not want the Attorney General of Canada to have power to prosecute, we remain in the present position, under which the attorney general of a province may or may not prosecute. In case a provincial attorney general should not wish to prosecute, we thought the Attorney General of Canada should have that power. Is there anything wrong with this amendment? Is that the principle we have been discussing for an hour and a half this morning? I do not believe it is. So, Mr. Chairman, I would insist that those of us who blame others for not observing the law should at least follow our own rules.


The Chairman:: As I ruled yesterday, this bill does not amend the act in the matter of the publication of reports; this section amends the act in regard to prosecutions, and that is all we are dealing with at the moment. There is no amendment before the committee in connection with publication. Therefore, following the ruling I gave yesterday, I ask hon. members to observe standing order 58, which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
It seems to me that sufficient latitude has been allowed, and that from now on this standing order should be strictly observed. I ask hon. members to confine themselves to the first section of the bill, which refers to prosecutions by the Attorney General of Canada, and nothing more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would remind the Minister of Public Works that on November 22, when some questions were being asked about this same point, he is reported at page 2059 of Hansard as having said:


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that when
the first section of a bill is called there is usually a general discussion, and I do not see any reason why on this bill we should depart from that principle.


Alphonse Fournier: Don't you think we have had that general discussion on the first section? We have been on it for three days.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I think the reference is to a general discussion of the sections of the bill, not to everything contained in the act which is being amended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Until I rose this morning I had not had a chance to speak on the first section in this so-called general discussion, at the committee stage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: That is why we have had the general discussion.
Combines Investigation Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely if the general discussion is open to some hon. members, it is open to all, including the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I would certainly tell you something if I had you in the right place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that on this whole matter of the powers given to the attorney general, and in the light of the indulgence, if you will, that has been shown by the Minister of Justice in discussing this matter, I should be permitted to substantiate the statement I made a moment ago, that the difficulty in this whole matter is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce held a gun at the head of the Minister of Justice.


Alphonse Fournier: I am going to object to this trend being continued. I did say in the house the other day, in reply to the hon. member for Lethbridge, that when the first section of a bill is called there is usually a general discussion, though at that time I was speaking to another bill. However, I do not believe it is a general discussion on this bill that the hon. member wants. Look at the three amendments it contains; you will see that hon. members have not been discussing them at all. They have been discussing the flour report ever since the bill was introduced, in spite of the fact that there had been a previous discussion at the time the report was tabled. That discussion is being continued. Everybody knows what is on your mind; the public and press all know what it is. We have explained our position, but hon. members think they are going to get some political advantage out of continuing this discussion for three weeks.
I do not think that is the right way to discuss a bill. The government has brought down a specific bill, and from now on we are going to insist that the rules of this house be observed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I fully agree that the rules of this house should be observed.


Alphonse Fournier: Now, don't start reading the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also insist that it be recognized, as Beauchesne says in citation 1- and surely it must be important if it is No. 1- that the main purpose of the rules of the house is to protect the rights of the minority against a tyrannical majority. I have not turned up that citation, but I know the spirit of it very well.


Alphonse Fournier: I would ask that the word "tyrannical" be expunged from the-records of the house. It is not parliamentary.
2226	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Combines Investigation Act


Joseph-Alfred Dion: There is no tyranny at all.
I have great respect for Beauchesne, but I also respect the standing orders; and standing order 58 clearly provides that speeches in committee of the whole shall be strictly relevant to the section or item under discussion. That is the rule I have to apply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was challenged in regard to a statement I . made a moment ago with reference to tyranny. This is citation 1:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority . . ."
I submit that when other hon. members have been permitted to take part in this general discussion, and when the Minister of Justice has shown his willingness to reply, for the government leaders now to stand up and say I must not be permitted to take part in the same general discussion, when I am talking about the kind of power that should be given the Minister of Justice to enable him to stand his ground, is using the rules in a completely wrong way.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I must repeat that we have no objection to discussion of any length on a bill. We have brought in this legislation; we think it is good, and we are ready to defend every section of it. But having gone into committee and having had such general discussion as usually takes places, without objection, we think the time has come when, even though we are in the majority, we must insist on the rules being obeyed. At almost every sitting we are reproached for being in the majority. Perhaps that is not entirely our fault; the people had something to say about it. In any event, the minority cannot continue a discussion which is out of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree.


Alphonse Fournier: -just for some political gain. We are going to insist that from now on the standing orders be observed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Public
Works had better watch out; there may be another point of order here. I agree that the minority must obey the rules just as well as the majority, but the majority cannot impute motives in what we are trying to do; that is against the rules. Our whole aim is to see to it that the laws of the land are obeyed, and I submit-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Including the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, and including section 27(5) of the Combines Investigation Act.


Alphonse Fournier: You see, Mr. Chairman, even on a point of order-
[Mr. Fournier (Hull) .1


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the Minister of Justice was told to withhold the report, he did so.


Alphonse Fournier: -they cannot get away from the political angle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Political angle, my eye! The plain fact of the matter is that the Minister of Justice told this house that when he consulted the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right hon. gentleman told him that if the minister published that report, he would issue a contradictory statement at the same time.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I have given my ruling, and I ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the section under discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well; there will be another opportunity.


Mr. Higgins:: I believe I am in order if I ask a question. I dispute the necessity for the amendment at all, in view of the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Vancouver East, as it appears on page 69 of Hansard for September 20. The question asked by the hon. member was:
I should like to ask whether the Department of Justice has taken any action against the companies mentioned in the reports of the investigations under the Combines Investigation Act into the optical and bread business.
At that time the minister replied:
The answer is that in both of these instances the preparation of the case and the handling of it are in the hands of counsel who I understand are making as swift progress as they can.
Is there any difference in this case? Are the counsel in those particular cases still proceeding without the necessity of having the act amended, or what is the position?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend could not have been following the course of the debate or he would not ask that question. It has been explained several times that when the Attorney General of Canada goes into a province to lay an information under the Combines Investigation Act-in that case the province of Alberta-he does so with the consent of the attorney general of the province and through his courtesy, and all the proceedings are taken in the name of the provincial attorney general. This leaves the whole matter in this position: if at any time it should be considered desirable to prosecute in any province, the attorney general of that province not only could decide not to prosecute, but could withhold his consent, and then the Attorney General of Canada could not prosecute.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Are these other prosecutions continuing now?

Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You mean the bread prosecutions?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The practice in these matters is to take the report and the many volumes of transcript of evidence upon which the report is based and send them to counsel, and at the same time apply to the attorney general of the province for permission to prosecute. Then counsel goes through that mass of material-my hon. friend, being a lawyer, will realize what that involves-in order to form an opinion, first of all. As a rule that is a written opinion he gives us as to whether it would be worth while to prosecute at all. After he has given that opinion he proceeds to prepare his case, and when he thinks he has his case properly prepared, which requires weeks, he lays his information and proceeds. That is what is going forward in connection with the bakeries report.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has any information been laid yet?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It had not when I last made inquiries.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It was in the hands of counsel on September 15?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: And no opinion has been given yet?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, we have an opinion. That was one of those opinions the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was asking us to produce and table, which for obvious reasons we did not wish to do. Counsel has given an opinion, and among other things we are anxious to get this bill through before we lay an information.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1946, when the last amendments were before the house, the then minister of justice was kind enough to accept an amendment that I moved which did away with the necessity of either the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of a province laying an information, and restored the right to the individual. I am afraid this amendment will have the effect of nullifying the amendment of 1946, in that it will permit only the Attorney General of Canada, or the attorney general of the province in which the offence is allegedly committed, to take proceedings. Therefore I move this amendment:
Provided, however, that this shall not in any way be deemed to limit the right of any private individual to institute proceedings under this or any other act relating to combinations in restraint of trade.
Unless this is inserted I am afraid the amendment contained in section 1 will have the effect of denying the individual the right to take proceedings.
While I am on my feet I want to say something else. I am not one of those who have an eggshell susceptibility to statements made in the house, but I resent a statement made a short time ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think his statements were uncalled for and unjustified. Because we are contending that the cabinet, above everything else, maintain the law, the Minister of Trade and Commerce used these words: "Let Hansard show the character of these people." I resent that, Mr. Chairman-a member rises and contends that no government is above the law, that the principle of Louis XIV-"I am above the law"-is dangerous, and-


Alphonse Fournier: I rise to a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am on a question of privilege.


Alphonse Fournier: My point of order is the general rule that remarks should be confined to the section under discussion, according to standing order 58.


John George Diefenbaker: I am directing my remarks to a statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Alphonse Fournier: I insist that my hon. friend cannot go beyond the section under discussion merely in order to express some personal sentiment.


John George Diefenbaker: I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is wrong for any member of this house, much less the minister, who has shown an egocentric contempt of parliament, to suggest that the character of hon. members is in question because they insist that the ministry is not above the law.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment that is before the committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the mover of the amendment if he could indicate the section of the act to which it purports to refer?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I listened to my hon. friend's remarks as to what the stage of the law is now. While I may have misunderstood him,
I certainly would disagree with him if I understood him correctly, because he was referring to an amendment that was made in 1946.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.

Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have here the Combines Investigation Act. It is an office consolidation, chapter 26, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by-and then there are three statutes, one being chapter 44 of the statutes of 1946. I turn to section 31, subsection 2, of that office consolidation. It reads as follows:
The Minister of Justice may instruct counsel to attend on behalf of the minister at all proceedings consequent on any information being laid for an offence under this act.
It provides only for the instruction of counsel. In the amendment now before the committee, we are providing, in substitution for subsection 2, section 1, which reads as follows:
1. Subsection two of section thirty-one of the Combines Investigation Act, chapter twenty-six of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as enacted by section ten of chapter forty-four of the statutes of 1946, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (2) The Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under this act, or under section four hundred and ninety-eight or section four hundred and ninety-eight A of the Criminal Code, and for such purposes he may exercise all the powers and functions conferred by the Criminal Code on the attorney general of a province.
There is not a syllable in our amendment which in any way transgresses the rights of private people to do anything under the sun that my hon. friend is talking about. It seems to me that his amendment is irrelevant, and that the point which he has made is not valid.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I changed my point of view after listening to my hon. friend. I was under the impression that the amendment introduced by the minister would in fact have the result of nullifying the amendments that were accepted by the present Prime Minister, as minister of justice, on July 3, 1946. What I am trying to do is to make the act workable. I am inclined to agree that the Minister of Justice has made out a case, and I certainly do not want on the statute book amendments that are ineffective. With the leave of my seconder, I withdraw my amendment, because my hon. friend's argument is convincing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Lake Centre asks leave of the committee to withdraw his amendment. Is leave granted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) withdrawn.


Mr. Argue:: As I understood the minister's reply to the hon. member for St. John's East, the preparation of the case for prosecution if that is the right terminology-of the bread baking industry is still going on. Will the

minister tell me how he can undertake the prosecution of the bread combine when that industry during the war must also have been under the control of the wartime prices and trade board? Furthermore, as I read the reports in that instance in relation to the bread combine, the last offence, if there was one, took place more than two years ago, on September 15, 1947. Does the minister really believe that he could get a conviction at this time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend's first question was about the bread baking industry. I want to be sure I get it completely. What was his first question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Was the bread industry under the wartime prices and trade board throughout the wartime period, and therefore could not be prosecuted for anything that it did during that period, the same as the flour milling industry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The test is not whether an industry is merely under the wartime prices and trade board regulations. The test is whether the regulations which are applicable to the industry call upon it to do things which might otherwise be offences under the Combines Investigation Act. The difference between the two cases, as I am advised by members of the wartime prices and trade board-and I consulted Mr. Gordon in this connection-is that in the case of the flour report there was that type of order- that is, the subsidy and profit-control arrangement; whereas in the case of the bread report, there was not. The prosecutions therefore can, we think, be successfully taken. We are so advised by Alberta counsel whom we consulted in the case of the bread report. In the case of the flour report, however, apart altogether from the propriety of prosecuting people for doing the things that you direct them to do under one government department, there is grave question whether it would be possible to make out a case at law.
In this connection I think I should point out something that has a good deal to do with the motives which have been imputed to the government, because we have been accused of being too charitable towards certain interests. I would point out to the hon. member for Assiniboia that several of these bakery companies whom we shall be prosecuting are partly or wholly owned by milling companies or are subsidiaries of milling companies.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the bakery cases, therefore, we shall in some respects be prosecuting the same people that we refrained from prosecuting in the flour case. The difference between the two cases is that in the flour

case the industry was doing what the wartime prices and trade board told it to do when it is alleged that it was guilty of an offence under the Combines Investigation Act.
The second point that my hon. friend referred to has been submitted to counsel in Alberta, and he assures us that it is proper to proceed. We are taking his advice, and we are proceeding.


Hazen Robert Argue: But it is more than two years since the last offence, is it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the house when I answered that question the other day; it was raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The case referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre was one in which the court decided that on the evidence there was such a continuity of offence that it was not necessary for them to decide whether or not the two-year limitation applied.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I have one observation to make on the reply given by the minister, and that is that the time is getting close to the end of the two-year period.


John George Diefenbaker: It is long past.


William Joseph Browne: As I read the report of the bread baking industry, the last offence occurred in January or in February of 1948. I should like to have an assurance-the minister was going to make it, but he did not complete his answer-that they are going to prosecute.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The best assurance I can give is this:	If hon. members will just get busy
and put this bill through, we will prosecute right away.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Corporations to be tried without a jury.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is a most important section.


Mr. Whiteside:: Here we go again-a
lawyer's battle.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a lawyer's battle. The jury system has been the protector of the rights of the people all through the years. The greatest speeches that have ever been delivered on our heritage of freedom have been delivered on the maintenance of the jury system.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not on behalf of corporations
under the Combines Investigation Act.
Combines Investigation Act


John George Diefenbaker: That is scarcely worthy
of the minister. Great corporations and individuals are entitled to the same rights under law.


Alphonse Fournier: Corporations cannot go to jail.


John George Diefenbaker: No, they cannot go to jail, but that does not enter into the question whether or not they should be entitled to a jury. As a matter of fact if I were counsel for the defence in a combines case I should be very much inclined to hope that it was not before a jury. That has been the experience. I am going to quote a few references in a moment, because if you follow the combines cases you will find that counsel for the accused usually try to get away from a jury. One of the outstanding instances-and I do not want to refer to the case unless somebody insists-occurred in 1932. In 1932 one of the greatest combines cases ever fought in this country was tried. There were eighteen counsel for the defence, and about twenty more sitting behind them who could not practice before the bar in Canada. If there was one thing more than another that they wanted, it was to have a trial without a jury.
Some will say to me, as the minister did the other day in his general summary, that the proceedings in these cases take quite a while. If the combine has been detrimental to the public interest, the possibility of the case taking a few more days is scarcely an answer to the question whether or not juries should be done away with in combines cases.
A former attorney general of the United States, now a member of the supreme court of that country, tried on more than one occasion while he was attorney general to depart, ff it was possible to do so, from the constitutional provisions of the United States and to provide for trial before a judge without a jury. In the two minutes at my disposal before one o'clock I cannot quote him, but I shall do so after we resume.
In 1946 Mr. Ilsley said that the greatest deterrent was publicity. He advocated publication of the report, and said that the people as a whole know whether or not their rights are being interfered with. The attitude towards combines changes with the years. It becomes a matter of judicial interpretation. What was an offence thirty years ago may not, in the opinion of a judge, be an offence today. But a jury has that abiding sense of what public opinion is. I feel that taking away the jury in the trials of combines, and the like, is in fact removing one of the greatest and most positive sanctions in the preservation of law.
I cannot conceive that the excuse that it takes a little longer, that it is difficult for

Combines Investigation Act juries to understand-this was implied in words of the Minister of Justice-the complexity of some documents, is a good one for the departure from the jury system which I believe is peculiarly fitted to meet the demands of public opinion. Two years ago Mr. Ilsley said that this was the reason for publicity. He said: Give the people the story as to what the commissioner has found. Let them know. Let public opinion be aroused. Let it be created. Let the people realize what is taking place. I was one who took the stand, and was criticized for having done so, that we should not publish the report before the trial because it would interfere with the fairness of the trial. That was brushed aside. The point he made was this: public opinion must be created. Only by public opinion can laws such as the combines laws be maintained.
A judge, with all his learning, still does not have the infallibility that is created by public opinion. Twelve men on a jury trying a matter such as this know what fairness is and what exploitation is, as no judge, removed as he must be by his position from public opinion, can ever know. It is not just a question of law. The judge will instruct the jury on the law. If ever you want to see to it that the law is maintained and that public opinion enters into the maintenance of law, it is in the law of combines.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: May I ask a question? Suppose the verdict of the jury is not in accordance with the law; what will happen?


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly where the appeal court comes in.


Alphonse Fournier: In
the appeal court you take the case out of the hands of the jury and put it back in the hands of the judge.


John George Diefenbaker: You take it to the appeal court on the law. If the law is such that there was no case to go to the jury, the judge would have withdrawn it or directed a verdict of not guilty. But in the elaboration of the facts and the conclusion based on the facts, public opinion must manifest itself before it is tried by jury.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I had just about finished my remarks on this section. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont had asked me what the situation would be if the facts under law constituted no offence.

In that event the judge would direct the jury to bring in a directed verdict of not guilty, because the facts did not constitute an offence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The same as in the dental case.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Sarto Fournier: That is not really the answer the hon. member gave. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. member told me that there would be an appeal.


John George Diefenbaker: I said, in the event of a mistake having been made.


Sarto Fournier: The judge is not the master of the verdict; it is the jury.


John George Diefenbaker: In the event that a
mistake in law was made by the judge, then there could be an appeal. During the noon hour I looked up a famous direction that was given by Lord Bacon to a barrister whom he was inaugurating as a judge. He said:
That you be a light to jurors to open their eyes and not a guide to lead them by their noses.
That saying of nearly four hundred years ago is a good summary of the functions of a judge and jury.


Angus MacInnis: Which part does my hon. friend play when he is addressing a jury?


John George Diefenbaker: Not having occupied the position of judge and having little hope of ever being in that position, I find the question too hypothetical to answer. I had mentioned before lunch that the jury is indeed the conscience of the people in their attitude toward and interpretation in the light of the law of social problems. I mentioned what Mr. Ilsley had said in 1948 and I should like to quote that because it summarizes his view as to the need of publicity in connection with a report under section 27 (5). As reported on page 4919 of Hansard of June 8, 1948, Mr. Ilsley said:
I submit that it is necessary that there be publicity. At least, it is my contention or submission that there should be publicity. This offence is not at all like an offence that speaks for itself. It is all a mystery. The public has no way of knowing whether there is any combine or not. It is not like theft, bank robbery or any of those other overt or open acts where it is clear that there has been an offence. Here there is just a dark surmise and that is all. If the public is to know anything at all about this, it must be explained to them by the report of somebody who has made an investigation. If you have no provision that that report is to be made public,-
I accentuate these words:
-there is no possibility of an opportunity for public opinion to operate on governments, attorneys general or ministers of justice. There is no pos-

sibility of that; and you have to make a strong assumption that public officials will be fully alive to their responsibilities.
But after all, there is not much difference between the publication of a report by the commissioner and a preliminary inquiry into a criminal action. The commissioner has no judicial power; that is, he cannot himself determine the guilt of the accused. All he can do is express an opinion. The question is how far he should go in expressing an opinion, and whether he should not confine himself fairly well to facts.
I shall now summarize my submission in connection with this section. As I understand the Minister of Justice, one reason he advanced for not having juries in combine cases against companies is the complexity of the evidence, consisting as it must in considerable part of voluminous documents, memoranda and the like. Second, it would require a great deal of time for counsel who would have to read the documents. The minister cited the dental case as an example. He said there were 1,800 documents put in and that it took a long time to read them, and the whole case took some three weeks at the outside.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And the crown lost the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but the jury never got a chance, because no facts were placed before them upon which they could convict. I submit that expediency or shortening the period of trial should not weigh in the scales against having a jury.
Another argument was that corporations and not natural persons would be affected. A corporation is a natural person. When corporations are charged with conspiracy under British law or with an offence corresponding with that in section 498 of the Criminal Code, they have an inherent right to trial by jury. In the United States combines must be tried by jury because of the particular provisions of their constitution.
My first point is that no justification or excuse has been shown to abolish the time-honoured body whose responsibility is to determine the evidence. Throughout the years juries have upheld progress. The jury constitutes the public conscience. The jurors represent the community sense of justice. History and experience show that they have by their verdicts protected the individual against unjust and unfair laws. In other words, they have been the upholders of the collective conscience of the community.
Where is there a better type of case for a jury to try than a combines case? The attitude of the law changes over the years. The public conscience changes, and it has changed in regard to combines. There are two different views on the subject. There is the United States view that bigness of itself is an offence.
Combines Investigation Act The American attitude is that the size of a business determines in large degree whether or not it is a combine detrimental to the public. The British concept is that bigness of itself is insufficient to found a conviction, and that the detrimental effect on the community must be taken into consideration and proven.
The experience of the effects of big business has shown that a major reason why we have so high a standard of living is the mass production which has resulted from combinations in business that have been not detrimental to the public but actually beneficial to progress. The British concept is that there is detriment in agreements designed to destroy competition, and having destroyed competition they are detrimental to the public interest, in particular to the producer or the consumer. A reading of the authorities in the United States reveals a long record of trust-busting. Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, there has been a changing attitude apparent in the United States Supreme Court decisions. That trend has finally arrived at a point where, under the recent anti-trust acts, a large corporation is, by reason of size, presumed to be dangerous to the public interest.
In Canada, following as we do the British attitude and concept, the whole basis of prosecution is dependent on proof by the prose-tion that what has been done will detrimentally affect the public interest, or is likely to do so. I believe that twelve good men and true, representing as they necessarily must different views, occupations, backgrounds and traditions, when operating in unison on a jury, will represent the public attitude more correctly in regard to alleged detrimental acts charged against a defendant than a judge without a jury. In making that statement no criticism is intended of any judge, or of the judiciary generally. In his position a judge is detached and above the influence of public opinion in the judgments that he renders. Holding that high and exalted position, he must necessarily be. The twelve jurymen are men of the world and men of the community. They know the public interest. I believe this question should be seriously considered before doing away with trial by jury in combines cases in so far as corporations are concerned. In my opinion, doing away with a jury is removing the effective deterrent of public opinion, upon the enforcement of which this legislation is dependent.


Mr. Carroll:: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what judges will try these cases as a result of the amendment? Will they be tried by judges of the district courts in the
2232	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act eastern and western provinces, and in the province of Quebec by judges who deal with speedy trials?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I apprehend that trials of these offences will continue to be held only before a superior court judge on indictment and trials of corporations, following the passage of this section.


William F. Carroll: I am not objecting to the amendment as such, but I think the time has arrived in Canada when the Department of Justice and the departments of the attorneys general of the various provinces should move with extreme caution in doing away with the time-honoured system of jury trials. I did not have the privilege of hearing the opening remarks of the Minister of Justice on this section, but in the various provinces there is a system under our civil procedure whereby a judge can, on application, withdraw a case from a jury before trial. It is done because of the facts of the case. If they deal with questions of technique, questions of science, questions of immense calculations of figures, and so on, then if the judge is satisfied to that effect he can withdraw such a case from a jury and try it himself. In many cases the judge will then send for an assessor, or some official of that kind, to assess and calculate, where it is a matter of figures, so that the judge may come to a better conclusion upon such questions.
I have not much doubt that companies acting in restraint of trade would rather not have juries because usually juries are looked upon as being against big interests. On behalf of juries I want to say that I defended criminals in my own province and in one of the western provinces. I prosecuted for the attorney general's department for a good many years, and I was a member of the judiciary where I tried many criminal and civil cases. Only in one instance did it come to my attention that a jury did not arrive at a result which I considered satisfactory in the interests of justice and of everyone concerned. It was the first criminal case I ever defended in the province of Nova Scotia. The man was acquitted and he should have been convicted. He was acquitted, not because of any great intellectual address I made to the jury, or because of any great maxims of law that I presented to the judge and jury. After the trial the foreman told me the reason was that I was a newcomer in the community and not a bad sort of fellow and he said the jury thought they would give us a chance. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that is any reason for taking away from juries the right to try criminal offences.
I am not objecting to the adoption of this amendment. All I am suggesting is that the


justice department and the various provincial departments go very slow in doing away with the time-honoured right of citizens of this country, whether they be individuals or combinations of citizens in the form of companies, of being tried by a jury on any criminal charge. I am not sure whether or not it is in the Criminal Code, but in the province of Nova Scotia we have a provision under which the attorney general may request the judge in a particular case to send that case back to the district court for trial. Or perhaps it is the other way around and the attorney general has the right to intervene in order to prevent a person from going to trial before the district court.
At the moment we are dealing with a corporate entity, not an individual. I should think this is the sort of legislation that would be asked for by the big corporations, because generally speaking juries have the reputation of being against corporations. As far as my own province is concerned, I think the people there know pretty well where I stand in regard to combines in restraint of trade and particularly cartels. I am not speaking to this amendment because I think it will be unfair to any particular company that may be charged; but it seems to me that if a company is charged with a crime that flows from the ten commandments of God or from the natural law, it would have an absolute right to the privilege enjoyed by any individual in this country, of having the matter disposed of by a jury. They should not try to get away from that position; they should not ask for any special legislation. I am not suggesting that this amendment has resulted from anything said by any company or corporation in this country that may have been or in future may be charged under this section of the act. I would rather suspect that this has been suggested by the gentleman wh< has been prosecuting these cases, who has been finding it difficult to get juries to give judgments against those accused.
I should rather think that a corporation or combination of corporations charged under this act would have the right to go to a district court judge and elect speedy trial. If that is the case I do not see why it is necessary to bring in this amendment. I am not so sure on that point; it may be that only persons who are held in jail have that privilege, but I do know that in some cases, at least, companies charged with offences, though not under this legislation, have exercised that option and gone before a judge.
The Minister of Justice has given as the reason for this amendment the fact that in

these prosecutions so many intricate matters have to be dealt with that it is better to proceed without a jury. Even so, I believe the department should give consideration to permitting the judge presiding over a trial of this kind the privilege of exercising the prerogative which judges now possess in civil cases, that of taking the case away from the jury and trying it themselves if that course seems indicated. I have no doubt in the world that the present judges throughout this country-I am not referring to those who have been on the bench in the past-would exercise the very greatest care and caution to see that justice was done in these matters.
I had intended to say a word on the next amendment, but perhaps I had better wait until it is called.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, it is a bold thing for one who is not a lawyer to step into a debate that has been carried on by lawyers. As I have confessed to this house in times past, I am only a kind of reformed lawyer, but I should like to say just a word on this because I would hope that even at this late stage it might be possible to persuade the minister to have regard to what has been said by the last two speakers. It may be that juries sometimes make mistakes, but after all the electorate sometimes makes mistakes, too; and even those who feel that the electorate made a mistake do not suggest that the law should be changed to deprive it of its functions.
Speaking seriously, however, it seems to me important not only that the decision in any prosecution should be right, but that the public should accept it as right. In my opinion, there is unfortunately more danger of the public misunderstanding and not accepting a verdict when it is given by only one man who, as has been said already, may appear to the public to be somewhat remote from them, than if the decision were given by a jury. But the real reason I rose was not to express my own view but to present a bit of evidence from a man with vast experience with juries, and this is the last thing I want to say. I remember years ago reading a statement of the late Lord Birkenhead, who you will remember was first of all a great lawyer and finally lord chancellor. As I recall it he said that after trying hundreds of jury cases he thought the juries had been right in every case but three, and that in two of those three cases where he originally thought they had been wrong, subsequent knowledge and subsequent reflection had made him believe them to be right.
That is the view of a man who I suppose would have as much right to express an
Combines Investigation Act opinion on juries as any man in our generation. That is extraordinary praise, it seems to me, for this institution which you might say has become part of the pattern of our life. As the last speaker said, it seems to me a pity if, without the greatest and most profound consideration and even hesitation, this amendment should take away this time-honoured and effective institution.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps the remarks that have been made require a short reply. I am in the rather paradoxical position of agreeing with all the reasons that the preceding speakers have advanced but differing completely from the conclusions they have reached. The reason I differ, I think, is that as I understood their remarks they mainly had to do with the ordinary run of jury cases in which the liberty of the subject is involved. In this case, so far as the withdrawal of the right to trial by jury is concerned, I believe every member of the house is agreed that there would be an overwhelming disposition to maintain trial by jury, which has been granted to people of British descent by Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689. That is not what we are really concerned with, however, in the Combines Investigation Act. The trying of a corporation by jury is not a time-honoured process by any means; it is a development that has taken place within the last one hundred years.
It requires but a slight amount of common sense to realize that a corporation cannot be tried by a jury of its peers. You cannot impanel a jury of twelve corporations to try a corporation. The real necessity for trying cases under the Combines Investigation Act by a judge alone, arises out of the consideration that was mentioned by the member for Inverness-Richmond when he said there is power now, in cases involving specialized knowledge, to withdraw the case from the jury and turn it over to an assessor or some officer of the crown.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that not only in civil cases?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, but the principle is the same. In any case, this is a statutory crime with which we are dealing, really a sort of economic offence.
The real point in connection with these charges under the Combines Investigation Act is that there may be a dozen companies indicted, and the charges may cover a multitude of facts extending over a long period of years. In studying the evidence that is presented, corporate interrelationships of an intricate nature are usually involved, with exhibits running into the hundreds. Then the length of time which a

Combines Investigation Act trial takes is considerable. In the Imperial Tobacco case in Alberta the trial lasted for 56 days. When you impanel a jury of busy people, and in my experience jurymen are always busy and are reluctant to be impanelled at all, and then ask them to absent themselves from business for 11 or 12 weeks in order to try the case, you can realize what a burden it imposes on the jury, and that you are not likely to maximize the disposition of the jury to dispense justice by insisting that the jury stay together for that length of time. It is due to these considerations that, not the large corporation, not the boards of trade, as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond said, but those who are charged with the administration of this act have asked that the option which is now enjoyed by corporations of being tried with or without a jury be withdrawn.
As I did on a former occasion, I desire to emphasize that there is not the slightest suggestion that that option should be withdrawn from any individual accused.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


John George Diefenbaker: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 3 carry?


Mr. Drew:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the title carry?


Major James William Coldwell: Before the title carries, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there are two or three respects in which this act is still very weak, and I should like to call the attention of the house to a few particulars in which we think the act needs strengthening. In order to place my views before the house I shall move an amendment, which I believe it is competent to do before the title carries. In order that I may place the amendment before the Chair, I shall read it and then comment upon it. Of necessity, it is rather long but that cannot be avoided.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That the bill be amended by adding thereto a new section 4, as follows:
4. The said act is further amended by adding the following section immediately after section 31 thereof:
31 A. (1) Whenever, from or as a result of an investigation under the provisions of this act, or from or as a result of a judgment of the supreme court or exchequer court of Canada or of any superior court, or circuit, district or county court in Canada, it appears to the satisfaction of the governor in council that a combine exists, the governor in council may issue and cause to be served on any person, an order requiring him to cease or desist from such acts or practices actually

proved against him and which in whole or in part constitute the operations of a combine or the processes of the formation of such, and to cease and desist as well from any other act or practice in pursuance of the operations of such combine or the formation thereof, to the extent to which the governor in council shall deem it reasonable or necessary to prohibit.
(2) Any person whom the governor in council shall have so ordered to cease or desist from any act or practice in pursuance of the operations of a combine or the formation thereof, and who thereafter shall omit or refuse to desist from such act or practice, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars and costs for each day after the expiration of ten days or such further extension of time as in the opinion of the governor in council may be reasonable or necessary, from the date of the service upon such person of the order, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; and any director or officer of a company or corporation who shall assent to or acquiesce in such omission or refusal by his company or corporation shall be guilty of such offence personally, and cumulatively with his company or corporation and with his co-directors or associate officers.
While it has been placed in legal form, which I am advised is the proper form in which the amendment should be placed, it has a very simple meaning. It means that the governor in council may call upon any corporation or any individual against whom proof exists that they have formed a combination to restrict competition, or to obtain a common price level, or have done other acts which bring them within the scope of the Combines Investigation Act, to cease or desist even before the case goes before the law courts. I understand that such a provision was in the original act, and it is necessary that the government should have this power today. I believe it is in the public interest that an amendment of this sort should be placed in the act. I believe I am within my rights in moving such an amendment now.
Although couched in legal phraseology, and in rather more lengthy terms than I like placing before the house, the meaning of the amendment is quite clear. It is that the governor general shall have the power under this act to call upon corporations, individuals or groups who may be involved in a pricefixing or other combination, to cease and desist from acting as a combination, the one with the other.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is a proper amendment to move at this time. The act is under our consideration, and apparently we are all in favour of reinforcing it in every particular in which it can be strengthened. Under the rules of this house and the citations in our books of rules and order, I think it is quite in order to move this amendment at this time; and I therefore move it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman,-


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I would point out that section 3 has not yet been passed.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: No. The debate was on section
2	in regard to juries. There has been no discussion on section 3 and it has not been passed.


An hon. Member:: It was carried.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It was called and carried.


George Alexander Drew: By mistake, Mr. Chairman, you may have called section 3, following the debate on section 2; but if so, section 2 was not carried.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


George Alexander Drew: Whether hon. members like the length of the debate or not, let us at any rate keep the debate in some sort of order. The debate was clearly upon section 2 in regard to the abolition of the right to jury trial. That was the discussion right up to the point that the motion was put. If section
3	was called, then it was an error. But there has been no discussion on section 3 at all, and it is an exceedingly important section.


Alphonse Fournier: I was following the procedure most attentively, Mr. Chairman, and after section 2 carried I heard the chairman call section 3. Nobody stood up. Section 3 carried. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman called the title and said: Shall the title carry? At that moment the leader of the C.C.F. stood up and said: Before the title carries, I should like to move an amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Alphonse Fournier: I think I am stating the facts as they are.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: One is rather reluctant, Mr. Chairman, to embark upon a discussion of a motion of this sort which apparently has had a great deal of thought upon the part of the hon. gentleman who moved it, especially without any advance notice of its contents and without any opportunity of preparing to meet it. But I would suggest, from the casual reading of this amendment that I have had the opportunity to do, that it is inadvisable for us to pass it. What is more, I am seriously of the opinion that it is ultra vires of this parliament to pass. The cease and desist order which my hon. friend has in mind is, as I understand it, a prominent feature of the United States method of dealing with combines and monopolies. But the method which is used in that country is conceived
Combines Investigation Act on quite a different basis from the basis of our act. Apart altogether from any question as to whether it is within the power of this parliament to enact-and speaking offhand as I must-it would seem to me that our act would have to be examined in an over-all way in order to accommodate the act as a whole for the insertion into it of this remedy; because a remedy such as this that is granted by any statute does not stand out naked and stark by itself; it is usually associated with a number of other sections which give it support and meaning. On that ground, I think it would be highly inadvisable for this committee to pass this present amendment, on grounds of substance.
But apart from that, when my hon. friend says that this was in the original act, I am wondering if he has not in mind the Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and that this section he is here advocating was a section of that Board of Commerce Act, which, it is true, was enacted as a supplement to our Combines Investigation Act; but it was a supplement with a most unhappy history. The Board of Commerce Act, having been passed by this parliament, was taken to the privy council and was there declared ultra vires. One must bear in mind the fact that our own Combines Investigation Act, upon being taken to the privy council, was debated at great length by competent lawyers; one of them told me that so far as he could judge two of the five judges of the privy council who heard the case seemed in favour of one side, and two seemed in favour of another, while the fifth did not commit himself at all. After a long period of reservation of judgment, the judgment came down upholding the validity of the Combines Investigation Act.
If we were to introduce into this bill any provision such as the one my hon. friend has moved and which is, at the very least, much similar to that of the Board of Commerce Act, I apprehend that it would not only be ultra vires of this parliament to deal with the section that my hon. friend has moved, but that if we were to attach it to the Combines Investigation Act, we would run grave danger of having the whole Combines Investigation Act declared ultra vires. For these reasons I think the committee should not entertain the motion.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this to the minister. I believe this is an exceedingly important provision and that, if it were used, it would have a salutary effect on the matter of combines and understandings of that description. I should like to see something of this sort written into the act. I am aware of what the minister has just said. My thought was this. In connection with this

Combines Investigation Act particular type of legislation, it may be quite within the powers of this parliament to adopt such a provision in our act but it might have to be decided further in the courts.
It is useless to press the motion when the minister takes the attitude that he has just taken. It has been intimated that perhaps this act will be given some further consideration in the not far distant future. What I suggest to the minister is that I would be glad to withdraw the amendment if I had his assurance that in any future consideration of the Combines Investigation Act something of this sort might be considered. Under these circumstances I would refrain from pressing the amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my hon. friend that assurance, because if we have a re-examination of the act we shall be disposed to consider not only this suggestion but any other good suggestions that come from any place.


Major James William Coldwell: Then have I permission of the committee to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question arising out of the last answer he gave?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I read from "Buchanan's Bulletin", edited by Mr. J. F. Flaherty. It deals generally with the situation and says that next year the government intends to introduce further amendments to curb the commissioner's powers to initiate inquiries and to do away with publication of findings of the commissioner which condemn accused firms before they have been tried in open court with opportunity to rebut, and to provide for the official approval of certain price agreements between competing businesses which do not appear to operate against public interest. In the course of his long explanation the minister said that there were some ten drafts of suggested amendments that had come before him since January last when he became minister. I ask the minister whether or not this report is correct. Two financial papers have suggested that it is the intention to make these changes next session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I rather resent being placed under the necessity of contradicting every unauthorized report that some reporter or journalist sees fit to put in public print. But in order to allay any doubt upon the matter I do not think I can do anything better than repeat what I said at another stage

of this bill, namely, that the present amendments before the house constitute the government's policy and its whole policy with regard to the amendments.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Joseph Browne: I feel I have as much right as any hon. member to address the committee.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


William Joseph Browne: I am not
going to be shouted down by anybody.


Sarto Fournier: We
cheer you.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Justice has just said that this bill represents the policy of the government. That is the first statement of government policy that we have had in this discussion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite wrong. If he does not want to attend the committee or listen to the debates, and if he has any doubt about it, he can go back and read Hansard and find out.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister must be thinking of someone else, because I have spent more time in this chamber than most hon. members, particularly those on his own side of the house.


An hon. Member:: Reading a newspaper.


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, on the title of the bill I do not think we should take a roll call of the attendance in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I feel that as a member representing Newfoundland I have as much right-


Alphonse Fournier: On
division.


William Joseph Browne: -to speak here as any other hon. member. The minister of Public Works was cited today. He cited the citation himself and he went back on his own interpretation of the orders of this house.


Alphonse Fournier: I rise on a point of privilege.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, -


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Joseph Browne: I will not sit down for you.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself had the amicable debate. I did not withdraw anything that I had said on a former occasion. I repeated it, and agreed that a general debate is in order on the first section; but I would not agree to a general debate on the title. We have spent a long time carrying the different sections of the bill. Every operative section of the bill has been carried, and we are now on the title. I do not think we should renew the general debate on the title.


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise to a point of order?. We are not on the title. We are between the last clause and the title.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: According to the rules of the house, before the title is called or dealt with I have the right to move an amendment. I moved an amendment. I also have the right to ask the committee, in view of what the minister said, for leave to withdraw the amendment. I have not yet heard that I have leave to withdraw the amendment. I should like to get that settled because I want to move another amendment before the title is carried.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I intervene? I distinctly understood the chairman to say: "Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?" I understood some hon. members to say: "Agreed".


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Then the chairman went further and said: "Shall the title carry?" At this point the hon.'member for St. John's West rose and the discussion we are now having took place on the title.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It seems to me that it is my duty now to rule whether or not the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works is a correct one. I do not think the discussion entered upon by the hon. member for St. John's West can be allowed on the title.	.


William Joseph Browne: May I say a word on that?


Major James William Coldwell: May I pursue the point of order for the moment? I certainly did not hear the chairman ask the committee whether the amendment I moved might be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not hear the word "agreed". When a question is put to the committee it should be put in a tone of voice that we can hear, and the ruling of
Combines Investigation Act the Chair should be so made that we can hear it; because, as I say, I was waiting to move another short amendment. I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is agreed that my amendment is withdrawn.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I remind the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, it sometimes happens that hon. members do not hear exactly what goes on. A while ago, while the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was perfectly clear on procedure, the leader of the opposition thought that we were still on clause 2; whereas it had been carried. It just so happens that this time it is the leader of the C.C.F. party who thinks that we are still between the last clause and the title. In this instance the committee must take the word of the chairman. Other hon. members around me heard, as I did, the chairman who preceded me in the chair say this:	"Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?" I heard some hon. members say, "Agreed", and then the chairman said: "Shall the title carry?" It was at that moment that the hon. member for St. John's West rose and that is where we are now.


William Joseph Browne: May I rise
again, since, having been interrupted, I have not said all that I intended to say. I should like to compliment the Minister of Justice upon his patience up to this point, but he seemed to lose it a moment ago when I rose to speak.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Joseph Browne: That seemed to be the case when I made the observation that it was the first time I had heard mention of government policy in regard to this matter. It was certainly the first time I heard him use the expression.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: How many chairmen have we?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think some latitude has been allowed to other hon. members and I understand that the hon. member for St. John's West will be brief.


William Joseph Browne: I was going to ask the minister whether he was aware that Mr. McGregor had said that this act should grant power to a court to grant an injunction. That would be in line with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I do not remember where I read that, but I think it was in the proceedings of the House of Commons committee on prices.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation Act
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall I report the bill?
Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I listened intently to what was happening in the chamber because I had another short amendment that I intended to move. If the acoustics of this chamber are such that the chairman was able to hear a few hon. members say "Agreed" when I could not hear it, then I do not think an hon. member should be prevented from exercising his rights. If that is so, it is a most unfortunate thing. It will simply mean that I shall have to move my amendment on the third reading which will mean prolonging the debate. It would have saved a good deal of time if the question could have been decided now. I repeat that I listened intently and was ready to stand at the proper moment, and I certainly did not hear anything. I certainly do not think we should give third reading today to this bill.


Alphonse Fournier: I readily understand the situation in which the hon. gentleman finds himself. Apparently he had an amendment which had been prepared in advance and which he intended to move after his first amendment. I believe the committee would give unanimous consent to allowing him to move that amendment.
The Depuiy Chairman: Has the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the unanimous consent of the committee to move an amendment at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief because I realize we have had an extended debate on this bill and I wish to thank the house for its courtesy. I should like to move:
That the bill be amended by adding thereto a new section 4, as follows:
"4. Subsection one of section two of the said act is amended by inserting after the word 'commodity' in line two thereof, the words 'or to any service,' and by adding at the end of paragraph (c) thereof the words 'a common or fixed charge for a service or'."
I think there is a weakness in this act because there are certain services of which we have knowledge which cannot be dealt with at the present time. For example, I have seen a radio broadcasting price list covering certain services to be rendered by private stations from one end of this country to the other and quoting exactly the same prices for exactly the same services. I have photographic copies of such lists which contain instructions that the prices listed are to be charged for certain services. If the radio committee had met at this session I intended to bring copies of the price lists issued by the

Canadian Association of Broadcasters to the attention of that committee. These are comprehensive lists of charges which the members of the association must observe. That is a combination in restraint of competition in connection with radio broadcasting fees, yet nothing can be done about it under this act.
I should like to give just one more example. The hon. member for Kamloops has raised the question of crime comics. I do not know whether a news vendor's activities would be considered as a service, but I have been reliably informed that these news vendors enter into agreements with agencies to accept an assortment of publications, such assortment containing such things as crime comics. The other day I spoke to a news vendor who is opposed to crime comics and asked her why she had them on her shelves. She told me that she could not help it because she had to take the assortment. Whether that can be regarded as a service or a commodity I am not sure and I do not propose to enter into a legal argument with the Minister of Justice or anybody else regarding that point.
There are other activities which fall into the category of services that are not covered by this act, but I do not intend to deal with them at the moment. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister now by moving this amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the present amendment is as objectionable as the first one moved by my ho a. friend, but I think that is the only praise with which I can faintly damn it. The amendments introduced this year come from a combines investigation commissioner of many years' standing. If there had been any problem of the nature visualized by my hon. friend in his present amendment I think it is more than likely it would have been covered by the amendments suggested by the commissioner.
The difficulty with regard to crime comics I do not think can be solved by calling these books a service, any more than you could call flour a service. Whatever may be the fault in relation to crime comics, I do not think it will be cured by my hon. friend's amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: I gave that merely as an illustration.	.
Mri Garson: The combines investigation commissioner looked into that aspect of crime comics to which my hon. friend has referred. The information we have received is that the newsstand proprietors are protesting a great deal too much. If they really made up their minds not to take these selections, they would not have to, but in

many cases they are happy to take them because the most objectionable ones move the fastest.
One of the difficulties that would be encountered in accepting this amendment is that it would increase greatly the work of the combines investigation branch by saddling it with minor matters. That branch has not too large a staff because in addition to the budgetary aspect there is the fact that it is rather difficult to get properly trained personnel and such a staff might be spending its time better on more serious matters. One thing occurs to me at the moment.
If my hon. friend's amendment should pass, I wonder where the barbers' union would stand if they reached an agreement to increase the price of a shave or a haircut? That would be an agreement to fix prices. The amendment would also include professional services of doctors and lawyers; and, as I understand, every professional body has its tariff. Is that a combine in restraint of trade? Is that what my hon. friend is aiming at? Taking all these grounds on which I base my plea for the rejection of the hon. member's amendment, there is no higher ground than this, that I do not think we should accept it with the reasons he has given in support of it at this time. As in the case of his other amendment, we shall be very glad to consider it on any occasion when we are looking at the act.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to say a word about the amendment in line with what the Minister of Justice has just said. I was out of the house and just came in in time to hear the amendment moved. I should like to ask whether or not the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has considered the whole question of unions under his amendment. I may be wrong-and the minister can correct me if I am-but, as I remember, unions at one time were regarded as conspiracies the same as any other meeting of minds of business people in an arrangement to do certain things. My memory is that unions were specifically exempted from the provisions of section 498 of the Criminal Code. I wonder if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has thought of that, because I am quite sure none of us would want to have this amendment apply to unions so that they might be found guilty of an offence.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the Combines Investigation Act itself excludes unions.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Under section 498 of the Criminal Code they were excluded before the Combines Investigation Act was ever passed. I am not raising this point critically.
Combines Investigation Act


Major James William Coldwell: I did consider it, and I came to the conclusion they were relieved of any responsibility under the legislation now on the statute books. What I am getting at, of course, is certain forms of services. For example, radio broadcasting is a service which is nation-wide and is big business. It is that kind of thing I want to try to get at.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I sympathize with my hon. friend's view, but a provision of this sort is not like a rifle that aims at the specific thing my hon. friend has in mind. It is more like a shotgun discharge, and my hon. friend may hit many people he did not intend to hit because it is of general application. Although he may aim it at the radio broadcasting people, to whom he has referred, when it is applied generally it may affect many people he least of all wants to affect adversely.


Major James William Coldwell: The Combines Investigation Act may do that now in any event in other fields. There are a large number of business organizations that one might accuse of being combinations, but the combines investigation commissioner and perhaps the minister himself do not consider there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation or the bringing of charges. I think the same kind of liberal -if I may use that word-interpretation would apply, but with a small "1" of course.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I really think you should look into that. I am inclined to believe you are wrong. Exemption for unions was provided under section 498 of the Criminal Code, and I do not think there is anything in the Combines Investigation Act.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, section 4.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report the bill?


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to say a word. We have had a great debate. There has been a good deal said and a lot thought. There has been plenty of listening, but if ever a man has proved himself to be a true son of the west, it is the Minister of Justice, we pay our tribute to his honesty.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Garson moves, seconded by Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West), that the said bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: Just a moment. It was not explained that the bill was going to be read a third time today.

Temiscouata Railway


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes. I told the house exactly that last night. I said:
Tomorrow at eleven o'clock we will continue the discussion of Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act. We hope to conclude that in the early hours, and then take up the following bills...


George Alexander Drew: That did not mean we were going on with third reading.


Alphonse Fournier: That would be the first stage today. We had first reading on one day, and second reading on another day. We have had many days in committee. This will be the only reading of this bill we have had today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Garson moves that the said bill be now passed and that the title be as on the order paper. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



TEMISCOUATA RAILWAY


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 145, respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not speaking on the bill?


Lionel Chevrier: I feel at this stage I should not be expected to make another general statement. When we were dealing with the resolution I outlined the position of the Temiscouata railway. I shall have some information to impart to the house when we go into committee of the whole, and I was hoping that we could do that as quickly as possible.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding the bill was under discussion, it was understood that after second reading the bill would be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I gave that undertaking. When we go into committee of the whole I propose to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that would do away with the necessity for a lengthy discussion at this stage. I hope the minister will arrange to have some official of the Temiscouata Railway Company called before the standing committee, and also some officer or officers of the Canadian National Railways. In his

statement on the resolution stage the minister intimated that Canadian National Railways would be making quite substantial capital expenditures. I think it would be beneficial to have officials of that company called before the standing committee.
I also suggest that the position of the Canadian National Railways in connection with this railway should be made clear and kept clear. It is perfectly obvious that they are being placed in an unfair position. The minister explained that Canadian National Railways had been requested to take over the Temiscouata railway and had declined to do so, but eventually had been instructed by the government to take over that line. As I said a moment ago, it is obvious that they are going to have to make substantial capital expenditures, and that there will be a large increase in the wage bill. I think the minister gave the increase in wages as $140,000, which would amount to an increase of 54 per cent over the wages being paid at the present time. By that increase alone any small profit made by the company would be completely wiped out, and as a matter of fact in 1948 there was a small deficit.
So it is perfectly clear that this railway is going to be a losing proposition for the Canadian National. There may be justification for having the line taken over, but it could only be on the basis of a public service to the people of the district. If that service is to be rendered by the Canadian National that company should not be expected to show any profit as a result of the transaction. During the previous discussion we suggested to the minister that it might be possible to keep the accounts of railways such as this, which the Canadian National is forced to take over, separate from other accounts. I would hope that some such method could be adopted, because obviously it is unfair to expect the Canadian National Railways to show that they are carrying on a businesslike operation when they are forced to take over a railway which is losing money, as the Temiscouata railway is bound to do.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the remarks just made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I admit that this railway is outside British Columbia, but it serves a great purpose and is a national asset. My hon. friend has enough experience and is enough of a businessman to realize that a railway which has survived for sixty years deserves special consideration. It helps the people of my county, and everyone is asking that this action be taken. The company has made great sacrifices to maintain the service for the benefit of the people, but since the

mares were subscribed but not paid for in the first instance the company has run into debt because of the interest that had to be paid on loans. But it has done splendidly, and I must congratulate the management and personnel of the company who have done very well.
The other day the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) said he was in favour of the proposal. He has a great advantage over the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, because he is familiar with the situation. Here we have on the one hand an hon. member who lives just across the river and who knows the railway line as well as he knows his own desk in this house, while on the other hand we have an hon. gentleman who lives thousands of miles away, who has never seen the railway or the country. He takes his magnifying glass and finds some objection to the purchase of that line. Where is Canadian unity in that? When did my hon. friend hear me speak against any proposed expenditures in the province of British Columbia? I have never complained about the millions of dollars that have been spent in his province. I considered British Columbia part of Canada, and that we should be prepared to help it.
Here we have a public service being given the electors of Temiscouata and Madawaska counties, and the hon. gentleman pulls out his magnifying glass and his telescope and says, "Well, we must be very careful about it; it may interfere with the Canadian National Railways." It will interfere very much with the people of Temiscouata and Madawaska if the Canadian National is interfered with in its intention to take over the railway.
That is that. I regret what my hon. friend has said.


Howard Charles Green: I am not opposing the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then my hon. friend should let it pass now.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) seems unaware of the fact that the minister has said he will move to have this bill referred to committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to make a great point of this, but I know the whole problem, and I do not boast in making that statement. I have heard about it for a long time; and if my hon. friend would do Temiscouata county the honour of visiting it-


Howard Charles Green: Could I have a ride on the
railway?


Jean-François Pouliot: -he would very much regret having delayed the adoption of this legislation.


Howard Charles Green: I took five minutes.
-.5781-143
Temiscouata Railway


Jean-François Pouliot: The time seemed so long to me. I can tell my hon. friend I am sorry he was not at Riviere du Loup on Sunday, May 22 last.


Howard Charles Green: Was there an election meeting then?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it was not an election meeting; it was a tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The crowd gathered in front of the church; the Prime Minister was there, and he made a very fine speech.


Howard Charles Green: Now I know it was an election meeting.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it was a family gathering. The Prime Minister was applauded, and was about to conclude; then I took the liberty of saying, "Well, sir, what about the Temiscouata railway?"


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then this was all cooked up ahead of time?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall repeat the words of the Prime Minister, because I wish to thank him personally; the other day, when he was not in the house, I conveyed my thanks through Hansard. I report the incident faithfully. When I asked what about the railway he replied, "Oh, yes". Then he mentioned my name and mentioned that I was like St. Thomas, that 1 could not believe without seeing, but that my constituents could be sure of him and could believe without seeing, which is much better. There were loud cheers and the the people were very happy, because he announced that the government would do precisely what is being done now.
If it were not a matter of public interest I would not insist upon it. I know the hardships and difficulties that have been experienced by the management in attempting to run the railway. These difficulties were caused by the lack of money to put the railroad in good condition so that it could become prosperous. One cannot judge the importance of the railway by the amount of last year's revenue. Some important improvements are necessary, and I am sure the Canadian National will make a good job of running the Temiscouata railway. Probably before the end of the year it will again be a paying proposition. In the meantime, it will serve the interests of the Canadian National as well as the population of the counties of Madawaska and Temiscouata.
There is another essential consideration, anu that is that the Temiscouata railway is the most easterly link between the transcontinental line and the Intercolonial railway, both operated by the Canadian National. It will help the transcontinental section as well

Temiscouata Railway
as the Intercolonial to have the Temiscouata serving as the hyphen between them. I am sorry that I have not a large map of the counties of Madawaska and Temiscouata to hang under the clock to show the line to the members of the house. Although this railway line is not located in the province of British Columbia, I expect I can rely on the support of my hon. friend from that province. Immediately following this, there is a bill for a railway in British Columbia, and in order to avoid obstruction I suggest that we pair them.
The government is doing quite well for British Columbia, as it is for Temiscouata. I again convey my thanks to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the officials of the Canadian National Railways. I wish to express my gratitude to the management of the Temiscouata railway and to Mr. Charles Stewart, the father of Bill Stewart of the Canadian Press, a man who has done so much for the railway. I wish to extend my thanks also to Mr. Tom Walsh, Mr. L. N. Ouellet and many others who have sacrificed so much in accepting a rate of pay which was about one-half the regular rate for railway employees who belong to the unions.
It is important also to remember that the Canadian National Railways' management has studied the case. Mr. Fairweather is familiar with it, and the officials have recommended the purchase of the Temiscouata railway by the Canadian National. This would have been accomplished during the days of Sir Henry Thornton if the Temiscouata had not been under the control of the Quebec Central Railway, which was owned by the C. P. R. at that time. The Temiscouata railway was never owned by the C. P. R., but at one time the directors of the Temiscouata were gentlemen who were also directors of the Quebec Central, a subsidiary of the C. P. R. This was the only reason for not amalgamating the Temiscouata railway with the Canadian National at the time the Gaspe railway and other railways in the province of Quebec were taken over, and that was about twenty years ago.
There were many difficulties in the way of improving the service. When Mr. Michaud was the member for Madawaska he knew the situation well, and these directors were replaced by men who lived at Edmundston and Riviere du Loup and who represent the bondholders living in London. These bonds are being purchased by the Canadian National. I would remind my colleagues of one other thing, and that is that the Canadian National Railways will receive value for every dollar spent in purchasing the Temiscouata railway. The equipment taken over is as follows: Five

locomotives to handle freight and two locomotives for passenger service; ten coaches; eighty freight cars; eleven miscellaneous units. In 1946 the railway handled 6,814 carloads of freight and 5,551 carloads of lumber or its by-products. In normal years upwards of 50,000 passengers were carried on the railway.
I repeat that it is far from being a losing proposition. If we look into the future we can see that it is bright because the necessary repairs and improvements will be made. They will not be so costly, after all. The member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said one thing of which I took note, and that is that it is a public service to the people of the district. That is right. It is precisely for that reason that the Canadian National Railways have been so happy to agree to the suggestion made by the residents of the district, that the Temiscouata railway should be turned over to the Canadian National. The people of the district are grateful to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the government; they will be grateful to all hon. gentlemen who will support the measure and see that it is no longer delayed in passing all its stages.
(Translation):


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to commend the government's decision to provide for the purchase of the Temiscouata Railway, which runs through my constituency. Mr. Speaker, I also feel it a duty at this time to congratulate the government for taking over, under C.N.R. control, this railway line which serves a large number of people from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston.
Mr. Speaker, I must also congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for his efforts in convincing the government of the importance of bringing the Temiscouata Railway under the control of the Canadian National Railways. (Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must warn the members that if the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: When this bill was last before the house, I undertook to give the house some information and I think perhaps it might be well to give it before the bill is referred to the committee. I was asked by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) what rolling stock was being taken over. Here is the list. There are 7 locomotives, 5 freight and 2 passenger; 2 motor unit passenger coaches; 4 first-class coaches; 1 combination coach; 2 motor car trailers; 3 baggage, express and postal cars; 33 box cars; 26 flat cars, and 27 other cars in

freight service, making a total of 105, plus 18 work equipment units, which is a grand total of 123.
Then I think the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) wanted to know what amount of money the Canadian National Railways would expend. I am informed that they have in mind an immediate program of rehabilitating the railway which will have to be undertaken at an estimated cost of $1,144,000. This expenditure would be spread over a period of three years.
As I stated earlier, it is my intention to move that the bill be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I think there could be made available on behalf of the Canadian National Railways two of its officers who are quite familiar with the affairs of the Temiscouata railway; I refer to Mr. Fairweather and Mr. Rosevear. As to the general manager of the Temiscouata railway, I understand he has been seriously ill. I will see what can be done to have him called as a witness. If the house will agree, I should like to move that the bill be now referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


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


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 146, to authorize the granting of a subsidy to the government of the province of British Columbia in aid of the construction of an extension to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no further statement to make. In the resolution stage, I imparted to the house all the information which was available to me. The bill is a simple one. There is a precedent, not recent but many years ago, and in granting a subsidy to the P.G.E. the bill takes the form of other acts by which subsidies have been granted.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister have this bill referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not think this bill should go to the committee. It is a simple bill. From the reception that it had in the house when it came up during discussion of the resolution, I thought that would not be necessary. I am, however, in the hands of the house. In view 45781-1431
Pacific Great Eastern Railway of the form which it takes-it has only one or two short clauses-I would think that it would be possible now, if there is no debate while the Speaker is in the chair, for us to go into committee and to dispose of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Although this bill is not for the province of Quebec, I support it wholeheartedly.


Angus MacInnis: I did
not intend to speak on the second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker, because I said a few words when it was in the resolution stage. But I notice that one of the Vancouver papers, in reporting the debate in the house, stated that this subsidy was favoured by all the members from British Columbia with the exception of myself. I want to point out that that is not correct. I did not oppose this subsidy at all. Indeed, I pointed out that the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from Quesnel to Prince George, the section that this subsidy is to help in building, was approved by all political parties in British Columbia.
I did, however, draw attention to the implications of federal government support. I am convinced that at some time or another we shall have to do with this railway what has been done with the railway in Temiscouata; although I do object to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) putting the province of British Columbia on the same basis as Temiscouata. It is like putting the province of Quebec on the same basis as Sardis or some other little place in British Columbia. Since the matter was debated here last, however, I obtained from the office of the finance minister of British Columbia some information on the financial condition of the Pacific Great Eastern. A great deal of money has been put into it since 1916 when it was started. Its obligations accruing from loans for building and accrued interest since that time amount to over $115 million. Despite the increased revenue that may accrue to the road because of the extension, I am inclined to believe that deficits will continue to increase. As a matter of fact, I saw a communication in one of the British Columbia papers the other day that supported that view. I merely want to put myself on record here as not being opposed to this subsidy. I do not believe I did anything more than the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) did when he spoke on the measure and pointed out the same implications.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: may, I should like to ask one question before the motion is carried. Unfortunately, for reasons over which I have no control, I was: prevented from hearing the discussion on the

Pacific Great Eastern Railway resolution stage of this bill. Who is responsible for this? Is the province of British Columbia responsible for the construction of the road? When this subsidy has been given, is that the extent of the responsibility of the federal government?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member has no objection to our getting into committee, perhaps I could answer questions then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, nd the house went into committee thereon, -dr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Lionel Chevrier: May I answer the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood? The answer is that the government of the province of British Columbia will construct the extension from Quesnel to Prince George. There is no commitment beyond the subsidy for that extension, which is of eighty-two and seven-tenths miles.


Howard Charles Green: Some two weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun, under date of November 12, there appeared a dispatch to the effect that the P.G.E. would join a new C.N.R. rail hub in North Vancouver, and that there would be a big ocean terminal constructed in North Vancouver. The article begins in this way:
Construction of a half-mile block of deep-sea piers in North Vancouver as part of a large-scale Canadian National Railways terminal development is under discussion in Ottawa. Plans would also involve extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway by the federal government to North Vancouver from Squamish via the Capilano canyon.
Can the minister tell the committee whether any such discussions are taking place, or whether it is the intention of the government either to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to North Vancouver or to assist in such extension?


James Sinclair: Before the minister answers the question I should like to make a comment or two. This, to my mind, is a most extraordinary story by the Vancouver Sun. Some two weeks before that story was published we had a debate in the house, and the able correspondent of the Vancouver Sun accurately reported the debate. Then a week later Hansard found its way to the office of the Vancouver Sun. Their front page story mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was built entirely on the actual Hansard. They quoted the story from Hansard but they completely changed three important words in my speech. I said, "I intend to advocate this course of the Canadian National Railways taking over first of all the Vancouver Harbour Railway and second taking over the Pacific Great Eastern." Despite the
IMr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
fact that whoever wrote the second story in the Vancouver Sun was obviously taking it direct from Hansard they changed my words, "I am advocating" into three words, "We are planning"; in other words giving the implication that the government was actually planning this course. I think the hon. member will agree the story was founded almost entirely on the observations I made. I was not in a position whatsoever to commit the government to any such action. But I will repeat now that it is the hope of the people along the Pacific Great Eastern in my riding from Squamish to Prince George that eventually this railway will be part of the Canadian National system. It is our hope in North Vancouver-and I am glad to have the support of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra-that	eventually the Canadian
National Railways will take over the Vancouver Harbour Railway and so give the Canadian National Railways local trackage on the north shore of Vancouver harbour.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to enter into a discussion on this, but I think I should answer my hon. friend and say that there is no commitment on behalf of the government, in any discussions in this respect, that are not contained in the bill. The discussions and the commitments were for a subsidy of $15,000 per mile.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any discussion concerning subsidy for the extension of the line north to Prince George?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I told my hon. friend when he asked that question earlier that there was not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 12, respecting the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this bill was recommended by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Perhaps I should have indicated to the house that this bill was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. After careful study by the members of the committee it was recommended to the house without amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Appointment of President and General Manager and Vice-President.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister in a position to say who will be the president of this crown company?


Lionel Chevrier: Not at this stage. The bill has some distance to go yet before it passes the two houses and until it has received royal assent I am not in a position to say. In fact, I have not given a great deal of thought to it, but I know there are two or three excellent men in the telecommunications field whom we have in mind for that position.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected that the new corporation will be functioning?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed April 1.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Powers.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the
minister indicate to us the extent of the equipment of communications that will be in the hands of the new corporation?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I did not hear the last part of the question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the
minister indicate in most general terms just what in the way of equipment the corporation will have when it has taken over the property of the companies mentioned in clause 8?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I gave that on the resolution, and it was given in detail in the committee. I have it here. It is quite a lengthy list.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If it has
been given that is satisfactory.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I wonder if we could revert to clause 7. It was carried so quickly that I did not have time to ask my question.
What is the meaning of that particular reference to Newfoundland?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman mentioned section 7. I do not see any reference to Newfoundland in that section.
Overseas Telecommunication Act


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am sorry; it is section 6, subparagraph (b). Telecommunication between Newfoundland and other parts of Canada is mentioned. What is the meaning of that?


Lionel Chevrier: It is in order to take over the telecommunication service between Newfoundland and Canada. Those that exist between Newfoundland and the United Kingdom are not covered in this bill; but there are telecommunications which operate between Newfoundland and Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not quite clear on this. Does the minister mean that there are other private companies?


Lionel Chevrier: This information was given by officers of the department in the committee. Perhaps I can repeat it for my hon. friend. When the bill was drafted Newfoundland was not a province. Now it is a province. But the bill has not been amended, because the equipment used for the western end of this circuit, that is from Newfoundland to Canada, is integrated with that used in the external radio communication circuits at Drummondville and Yamaska, covered by the bill.


Gordon Francis Higgins: My recollection is that the last time I asked the question when the bill was introduced the minister told me at that time he was merely taking over the assets of the company. I believe the Marconi Company operate a service apart from the actual building and selling of radio sets. Is it intended that those other activities are to be taken over?


Lionel Chevrier: The only facilities being taken over are those that I mentioned specifically during the discussion on the resolution. In so far as other services are concerned, a firm decision has not been made and this will be left to the directors of the new corporation.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You are not planning to take over the Marconi Company entirely?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not say we are not; I am saying that the decision has not been made.


Mr. Pearkes:: I understand that you are not taking over the cable itself. The transpacific cable comes into Bamfield on the west coast of Vancouver island, and then there is another stretch of cable from the east coast of Vancouver island to the mainland of British Columbia. Whose responsibility would that be?


Lionel Chevrier: We are taking over all the external telecommunications facilities except the cable heads that are within our country.

Overseas Telecommunication Act Anything beyond that, any cable extending from the west coast to Australia, Australasia or elsewhere, would not be touched by this bill. The responsibility for that would remain as it now is, under the United Kingdom government, post office division.


George Randolph Pearkes: What about the stretch
between Vancouver island and the mainland of British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: That will remain with the United Kingdom government.


Howard Charles Green: That is wholly within the province of British Columbia but it would remain the property of Cable and Wireless Limited?


Lionel Chevrier: We are not taking over any cables. As my hon. friend says, it would remain the property of the United Kingdom government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister think it is necessary to restrict this corporation which will be of a considerable size as provided by paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 8, which reads:
(c) acquire any real or personal property, the cost of acquisition of which exceeds the sum of fifty thousand dollars-
I am not questioning that, it is the following provision that I question:
-or in any manner dispose of any such property having an original or hook value exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars.
It seems to me that that is a narrowing down of the responsibilities of the officials of this corporation in a way that will prove to be a nuisance both to them and to the government.


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Finance checked the bill carefully and felt that those limitations should be placed upon the powers of the directors. We raised no objection.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you not
think the Department of Finance is keeping too tight a rein over you?


Lionel Chevrier: Sometimes perhaps we think they do; certainly when it comes to expenditures of money they exercise control.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is not an expenditure.


Lionel Chevrier: In this case we raised no objection.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When Cable and Wireless Limited is taken over will its schedule of rates be in competition with those of the other cable companies that are operating?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not say that the new corporation will be bringing in a set of rates different from those that exist at the moment. It is not the intention to upset the present

position in so far as employees or conditions of employment are concerned, except to make them better if possible.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I was thinking of the cable companies presently in operation, such as the Commercial Cable Company.


Lionel Chevrier: This bill has no provision for rates. The directors are bound by the agreement made with the United Kingdom. The telecommunications board will have jurisdiction over rates.


Howard Charles Green: Will Canada's representative on the telecommunications board be an officer of the crown corporation?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be better to have an officer of the corporation represent us on the board?


Lionel Chevrier: The board meets in London, England, and we have over there, in the person of Mr. Tudhope, an officer who is familiar with telecommunication matters. He has represented the government on a number of occasions and he now represents Canada on the board. We feel that we should not change that situation.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that cables taken in at offices of the Canadian National Railways cannot be sent over these commonwealth wires. Can the minister explain to the committee just why that situation exists? I understand it is to continue for ten or fifteen years.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not think it will continue that long. Canadian National Railways have an agreement with Western Union. I am informed that previously Canadian National Railways gave a pick-up service to Marconi, but there was in their agreement with Western Union a clause which prohibited them from renewing that arrangement. The Canadian National Telegraphs now are pickup agents for Western Union while Canadian Pacific are pick-up agents for Canadian Marconi Company Limited. The agreement between Canadian National Telegraphs and Western Union is for some years.


Howard Charles Green: How many?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not that information available at the moment and I am informed that we cannot get it.


Howard Charles Green: I understand it is to run to some time in the 1960's.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot say. It may be that Canadian National Railways can revise their agreement, but I am not in position to say. The point is that they are now agents for Western Union.


Howard Charles Green: Will that not mean that approximately one-half of the cable business from Canada will go via Western Union rather than via this commonwealth organization?


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose it would depend upon where the messages are filed. If anyone goes into a telegraph office and stipulates that the message is to go Marconi, that ends it; but if he makes no stipulation, it will go in accordance with the amount of traffic that the overseas telecommunications has. This is a rather technical matter and I am told that it would be difficult to give an accurate answer because you would really have to look at the picture for at least a month or perhaps more.


Gordon Francis Higgins: During the sealing season in Newfoundland communications are carried on through Marconi and I was anxious to know whether this bill would interfere with those.


Lionel Chevrier: This has nothing to do with ship-to-shore communications.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Power to acquire property of Canadian Marconi Company and Cable and Wireless Limited.
Mr. McLure:: The other day in the standing committee I asked a question about section 10 with reference to the Marconi company. The Marconi company will still be a company even after this corporation takes over a certain amount of their property. They are only taking over a certain part of the property, and the Marconi company are not going out of business? They will still exist?


Lionel Chevrier: They are going out of business in so far as telecommunications are concerned, but they are not going out of business in so far as their broadcasting stations are concerned or the manufacture of radios.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Duty to deliver up property.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the need to provide for a criminal offence under subsection 2 of section 11? Is there some precedent for that? It seems to me to be an extraordinary action to suddenly introduce a criminal offence into what is an ordinary business transaction.


Lionel Chevrier: The only answer I can give my hon. friend is that I am informed there are cases where, after expropriation proceedings have been taken, people have refused to give up property-
Overseas Telecommunication Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are there
not other means?


Lionel Chevrier: -although it is clear that by negotiation or by judgment of a court the amount of compensation will be fixed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
familiar with the procedure, but surely there are other means of getting rid of a person, especially with the sanctions there would be under this bill. I must say I dislike it very much unless there is a good reason for it. Let me read the section, and I should like members of the house to listen to this. It deals with a person who, properly enough no doubt, is condemned to hand over his property. The section reads:
11(1) Where any property is taken or acquired under section 10, the person from whom the property is taken or acquired and every person in whose possession or custody or under whose control the property may be shall deliver up the property in accordance with the terms of the notice.
That is all right. Subsection 2 reads:
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both fine and imprisonment.
Unless there are precedents of which I am ignorant, I submit that is a most extraordinary procedure. It seems to me to be most high-handed. I would hope very much that it would not be left in the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot add anything to the reason I gave a moment ago. I am now further informed that this clause has been put in by the Department of Justice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not sure that satisfies me. I should like to know if there is any precedent. I think we should be entitled to know before we create a criminal offence. I can quite imagine somebody finding he had committed a criminal offence without the slightest intention of doing so. It is not possible for me to believe there are not other perfectly effective means under our civil law. I do not know either the terms or the technique, but surely our civil law is not so ineffective that a person cannot be put off property which he has lost the right to hold. Surely the criminal law do-s not have to step into a situation of this kind.


Angus MacInnis: From some little experience I have had with expropriation proceedings I think that is a fairly general clause. It sounds rather harsh, but I believe that is the general clause in expropriation proceedings.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, section 11 must be read with section 10. Section 10 gives the corporation power to acquire property from two companies, Canadian Marconi

Overseas Telecommunication Act Company and Cable and Wireless Limited. I may be wrong, but I do not think there is any power taken under section 10 to acquire property from any corporation or person other than the two corporations named therein.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: That being the case, I do not see why section 11 is necessary at all, because if you read it you will see it reads this way:
Where any property is taken or acquired1 under section 10-
That means from one or other of the two companies named in section 10.
-the person from whom the property is taken or acquired-
Again that could only be either of those two corporations.
-and every person in whose possession or custody or under whose control the property may be shall deliver up the property in accordance with the terms of the notice.
If the property belongs to one or other of these corporations then it can be taken over from them, and there is no need to have any provision for fining a person. I suggest the whole of section 11 is unnecessary. Certainly it is not required to deal with either Canadian Marconi Company or Cable and Wireless Limited, and they are the only two owners whose properties are to be expropriated.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think that is the very reason why the section is put in there. If either of these corporations refuses to deliver up the assets against which expropriation proceedings have been filed, then there should be some clause in the act penalizing them for not so doing. I think there is more reason to have it in the act under section 10 than there would be under section 13.


Howard Charles Green: Why should not section 11 be worded to apply to these two corporations? They are the only ones from whom you are expropriating. Certainly there is no point in putting in a provision to send a corporation to jail for three months. Subsection 2 of section 11 has been drawn for some other purpose. It must be a general provision which applies in other cases, but it certainly does not apply in this case where you are dealing only with the property of two corporations.


Lionel Chevrier: I think it is clear from section 11 that it applies to section 10, and could not apply to anything else. In so far as imprisonment is concerned, I have no feeling about that, but I think the fine should remain. I would rather see the clause remain as it is, but if it is going to assist the committee I have no objection to removing the provision for imprisonment.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to give power to lay a charge against some individual who has no connection with either of these companies?


Lionel Chevrier: Not under this section. I would think this section relates only to section 10, and therefore only to the officers, servants and employees of either of these two companies.


Howard Charles Green: Then it is perfectly clear that the provision for imprisonment should be deleted. If you leave in the provision for imprisonment, the next thing that will happen will be that some individual will be summoned to court and faced with the possibility of going to jail. If that is not the intention, the provision for imprisonment should be deleted.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection. While we are going on with the other sections, perhaps I can draft an appropriate amendment.
Section stands.
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Loans to corporations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a question on section 15. Is there any relation to section 14? Section 14 reads:
14(1) At the request of the corporation and with the approval of the governor in council, the Minister of Finance may, from time to time, pay to the corporation out of the unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund amounts not exceeding in the aggregate four and one-half million dollars.
I should like to know whether there is any relation between that total and section 15, subsection 1. I take it section 15 is different because it merely concerns lending moneys. Is there any limitation on that?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a difference between the two. Section 14 provides for sufficient money to take over the external telecommunication assets of both companies, together with the items I have already mentioned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I see my
question is really answered by subsection 2 of section 15.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Corporation may pay certain taxes.
Howard Charles Green: This provision gives the corporation the power to pay municipal taxes. I wonder how it fits in with the policy announced the other day by the Minister of Finance. Under his plan there is a very

limited amount payable, and there will only be about one hundred municipalities which will get any benefit at all. I hope that plan will not be the one followed by this corporation. As I read the section in the bill, the corporation is given power to pay the ordinary municipal taxes, and I hope that is the intention. I ask the minister to clear up that point.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as I know that is the intention. I am sorry I have not got the statement of the Minister of Finance. It was quite a lengthy statement, in which the minister dealt with crown corporations, dividing them in two groups. First were those that were in active business, such as the Canadian National Railways and I think he mentioned the national harbours board. Then he mentioned those partly doing active business and partly rendering social service, like the C.B.C.; and he made a distinction between the two. As far as I know this is going to be an active corporation, and without having the speech of the Minister of Finance before me to see what it covers, I should think the corporation would pay full taxes.


Howard Charles Green: This corporation will be carrying on a business of its own. It is in fact a business concern.


Lionel Chevrier: I would think so.


Howard Charles Green: This provision in section 20 appears for the first time in any legislation concerning crown corporations, and I do hope the practice followed will be that set out in the section rather than that contained in any general plan announced by the Minister of Finance, because otherwise this section would be of very little value.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not agree with my hon. frend, because the plan announced by the Minister of Finance does not derogate from what is set out in section 20. If my hon. friend refers to the over-all plan, it does; but in the course of his statement the minister dealt with crown corporations, and speaking now from memory I think my hon. friend will find that he dealt with this situation, so I do not think there will be any discrepancy.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the case it is quite satisfactory. If the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation is to pay full municipal taxes, of course there can be no objection; and I hope that is the intention.


Lionel Chevrier: That certainly is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 21 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Overseas Telecommunication Act
On section 11-Duty to deliver up property.
Lionel Chevrier: If I may revert to this section,
I would ask my colleague the Minister of Public Works to move an amendment to subsection 2, by deleting all the words after the word "dollars" in line 42 of the section, to the end of the subclause.


Alphonse Fournier: I so move.


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

Mr. J. T. Richard (Oitawa East):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the next business of the house I would direct your attention to the fact that the page boys have been working from ten o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night this week, and that tomorrow again they will start work at ten o'clock. I understand that we could manage very well with a skeleton staff this evening, and I think it would be the wish of the house that the chief page be allowed to select those who must remain in order that the business of the house may be carried on, and permit the younger ones to go home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 174, to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not going to explain this bill?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is a very simple bill. It proposes merely to extend the benefits of the Pension Fund Societies Act to the employees of companies subsidiary to existing or perhaps future companies created by act of parliament, whether by special act or under the Companies Act.
This act has been on the statute books of Canada for some sixty years, and presently appears in the Revised Statutes of 1927 as chapter 155. The act provides that two or more of the senior employees of a Canadian corporation may form themselves into a pension fund society by the methods therein set

Pension Fund Societies Act forth, and the object of such a society is to create and administer a fund for the purpose of providing pensions for employees of the corporation who have become disabled through disability or age, and after their death to provide annuities for their widows and infant children and certain other relatives. The present act applies, but of course can only cover employees of the corporation itself. With the trend in modern business and the expansion of the ramifications of many of our corporations, in many cases covering a number of subsidiaries the control of the voting stock of which is held by what we might term the parent company, unfortunately under the existing law the employees of the subsidiary company cannot claim any benefits under the society that has been created by the parent company.
In order to enjoy the privileges which they may have under this Pension Fund Societies Act, it is necessary to pass an amendment to the act to bring them within the society that is already in existence under the authority of the parent company. I have in mind one company which has about six subsidiaries and, I understand, is desirous of taking advantage of this act for the benefit of its employees. If that company has to proceed under the existing law, it must create seven societies with seven boards of directors; seven annual meetings; seven sets of books and seven overhead expense accounts. The object of this section is merely to bring the employees of these subsidiaries within the provisions of the act for the purpose of giving them the benefits of the one society.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have not had an opportunity of reading this as carefully as I would have liked in conjunction with the original act. I noticed that the minister said this would apply to companies incorporated under a special act or under the Canadian Companies Act. Under the original act, which is chapter 155 of the Revised Statutes of 1927, perhaps I have not read it carefully enough, but I failed to find those words which the minister used. In other words, I do not find anything to indicate that they are the companies that are covered. Will the minister just direct me to that, because I think it is important to know it.
The second point upon which I wish to touch is that the addition to section 17 of chapter 155 which is provided for in the bill before us introduces certain rights and privileges to officers of the corporations affected. Again it may be that I have not read this chapter 155 carefully enough, but I do not find in it any similar provision in favour of the original beneficiaries under the

act. In other words, the members of the parent company should have those privileges set out here for the officers of the subsidiaries-that is correct?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I want to be clear upon is this. Is there a similar provision in chapter 155 for those in the parent company, or are we introducing here a change in chapter 155 and merely making it apply to the subsidiaries? I confess to the minister that I have not read this act contained in chapter 155 as carefully as I should like, but I think the point should be answered.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have not the act at hand, but my understanding is that the parent company will set up a pension fund society for that corporation. There are some twelve or thirteen of them in existence now. Then, in cases where that company or corporation has subsidiary companies, the employees of the subsidiary will have exactly the same rights in the existing pension fund society as those employed directly by the parent company.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is
exactly what I thought it meant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Subsidiary corporations.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Now that I am in order, may I repeat the question, or rather ask the minister to take it as repeated?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Exactly what was your
question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister made a statement in general terms of exactly what I thought was the tenor of the bill, but in reading chapter 155 of the Revised Statutes of 1927 I do not find that is the tenor of it. Unless the minister can answer that definitely and not merely in general terms, then I suggest the section stand until both he and I have an opportunity of looking at it because, at the moment, I am not able to spell out exactly what the minister has said is the tenor of the bill.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have not the act at hand, and I am quite agreeable to allowing it to stand.
Progress reported.

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



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
409. Patent division, $488,805.
Howard Charles Green: When the house adjourned, I believe the minister was about to answer a question or two that had been asked about this item.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The backlog is 24,532.


Howard Charles Green: How does that compare with last year?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is down about 13 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-
412. Contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, international copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works, $4,000.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This vote is for the payment of Canada's share of the expenses of the international office for the protection of industrial property, international copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works. The amount payable by Canada in class 2 is determined by article 23 of the convention.


Howard Charles Green: Is that under the control of the United Nations or is it a separate international organization?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is under the Berne convention.


Howard Charles Green: It has nothing to do with the United Nations?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
897. To provide for expenses in connection with the bibliographic centre (national library), $18,950.
Mr. Knight:: I should like to ask for some detail as to the expenditure of this money. Perhaps the minister would comment on the progress of the plan for a national library, and what the situation is at this time.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I think the objectives of this vote are fairly well set out by a statement the Prime Minister made in the house in reply to a question on Monday, November 14, and which, as reported at page 1711 of Hansard, is as follows:
The royal commission on national development of the arts, letters and sciences has been asked to consider the "ultimate character and extent" of the national library, and no large-scale developments will take place until the report of the commission has been received. Meanwhile, however, much useful preliminary work can be done. The national library advisory committee, which the government appointed about a year ago, met in March last, and recommended that a bibliographic centre be established without delay. An appropriation of $18,950, included in the supplementary estimates submitted recently to the house, will enable a start to be made
45781-144J
Supply-Secretary of State upon the organization of this centre within the next few months. The civil service commission will soon invite applications for the first four positions on the staff of the centre, and work on a national union catalogue should start immediately after the new year. To begin with, this catalogue will list the contents of the thirty-five or more libraries in Ottawa belonging to the various branches of the federal government. Later the contents of special collections elsewhere, such as the famous Canadians collections in the Toronto public library and the Gagnon collection in the Bibliotheque Municipale in Montreal, will be included. The intention is that ultimately the union catalogue should list the contents of every important library in Canada.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Would I be right in supposing that this $18,000 would be additional salaries for those four people who are to proceed to do the preliminary work? Is that what I gather from that statement?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It provides for the purchase of indexes, bibliographies and printed catalogues of other libraries, including the library of congress and the British museum, and also for the purchase of catalogue cards, portable microfilm camera copying unit and reader, and other stationery and office equipment. It also provides travelling expenses for members of the national library advisory committee and for members of the staff.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to make a statement to the government through the Secretary of State. I think that we are deficient in the matter of education in this country as compared with a great many other countries. When we talk about inequality of opportunity in the matter of education, I think we should talk about inequality in regard to the position of reading matter in the various provinces throughout Canada. If one looks at the statistics, one will find that the libraries in some provinces are stocked very differently, in proportion to population, than they are in others. I am only speaking from memory but in the province of Ontario, for instance, I think there is one book in the public library for each person of the population. That is not at all true in some of the other provinces.
I would suggest that when we are thinking about a national library and national culture some federal aid in the way of libraries would be about as good a thing as this government could do. By that I mean grants to libraries in some of what are called "have-not" provinces, so that the reading opportunities of people, and particularly young people in those provinces, could be equated more nearly to those provinces which can afford a greater supply of books. The building up of large libraries is important, but so is the proper selection, co-operation and expert help which will be available to those outlying libraries from a national institution such as a national library which we envisage here at Ottawa. While I admit

Supply-Secretary of State that a research library in the capital of this country is a tremendously important thing, I am not prepared to grant that it is the most important work that a national library can do. I think the most important work a national library can do is to aid and to help libraries in those outlying parts so that the great bulk of our population, which after all is not settled in Ottawa, may have the use of these facilities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives-
319. General administration and technical services, $176,393.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a question or two. How long does it take for a manuscript given to the archives to become public? There are letters from Sir John A. Macdonald. I presume they have been delivered to Ottawa. I wonder whether the correspondence of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been catalogued. I wonder whether there have been some gifts of correspondence from some other Canadian statesmen. I wonder whether a time is set for the public to read and to study all the correspondence that is given to the archives. If the minister is not in a position to answer now I shall be thankful to him to tell me when he has the information. Those letters are Canadian history. I wonder whether they will interest future generations as much as they interest those of us who have heard about these people. There are very few historians who will go back many years to read correspondence of the statesmen of the past. When we know that, I presume it is more interesting to make a study.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: In answer to my hon. friend I may say that most of this correspondence, particularly that of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, is available; but it must be borne in mind that the archivist is in the position of a trustee. I understand the practice is that the documents, particularly those of a personal character, are regarded as not being properly available for a period of some half a century.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know, sir, whether the correspondence of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been catalogued and if the catalogue is completed. Then I should like to know how much it has cost. My third question is, how many people have been working to catalogue the correspondence of Mr. Mackenzie King, and what will be the cost of it? I should like to compare the cost of the cataloguing of the correspondence of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of Sir John A. Macdonald with that of Mr. Mackenzie King.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am afraid it would be impossible to give the hon. member the information which he asks. No catalogue exists of the correspondence of either Sir Wilfrid or Sir John. It has all been arranged in order, and any one of these documents is available to anyone who wishes to see it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I read in the press that the correspondence of Mr. King was being catalogued, and that the new archivist was brought from British Columbia precisely for that purpose. I should like to know how much it has cost and whether the work has been done in the last two or three years. I should like to know how much the country has paid for the cataloguing of Mr. King's correspondence, which no one of us will be able to read, since we shall all be dead by the time it is available.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The work is going on in connection with Mr. King's correspondence. It is not yet completed. I do not think it would be possible for me just now to give any idea of the cost.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the minister I want to have it. An archivist has been brought from British Columbia for that purpose. He was chosen mainly by the late prime minister for that purpose. I want to know it, and I want to know how many people are working on that correspondence, and how much they are paid. If some people are working on it I want to know it, and I have a right to know the whole thing.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We shall try to get the information for the hon. gentleman; but I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that he is not quite correct that the archivist was brought here for that purpose.


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: Not correct at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I was not quite correct-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. May-bank for the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company.
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate because prior to coming to this house my work had been principally with labour and industry and I hoped that my major address this session would be concerning such matters. However on Tuesday evening the hon. member for Vancouver East said certain things which I felt reflected, not oniy on the integrity of the British Columbia members but on our desire to serve our province and serve it well.
I am sure the people of my riding have considerable interest in this pipe line matter and they would be happy to see a pipe line built through the Crowsnest pass. I am sure even the coal miners who are producing a competitive fuel, but who are so notoriously progressive in their thinking, would be happy to have such a convenient fuel as gas available for their furnaces and kitchens. I know the people farther west in my riding at Kimberley, Cranbrook and the other smaller towns would be happy to have such a convenient fuel at their disposal.
Previous to rising to speak tonight I undertook considerable research in order to determine if what I considered were the facts were true. I feel that what I am going to say will be as close to the facts as anything I have heard in this chamber during this debate.
On Monday, March 21, 1949, the Pipe Lines Act was given first reading in this house and it subsequently was passed. The purpose of that legislation was to provide for the control of international and interprovincial trade through pipe lines. In order to set up a company under that act it is necessary that a bill pass this house. In other words, the company must be chartered.
Before being permitted to do business the company must prove, first, that they have a definite supply of gas or oil available; that they have obtained the consent of the government of Alberta or any other province to take such gas or oil out of the province; that they have obtained a permit from the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with the gas or oil which they wish to take out of Canada; that they are properly financed for such an undertaking; and that they have available markets.
In March of the same year a bill was before this house to incorporate the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. I have gone through that bill thoroughly and nowhere can I find that a route has been designated. That bill resembles almost word for word the bill now before the house to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company. I repeat that in neither of those bills is a route definitely
Alberta Natural Gas Company designated. Therefore I think it could be safely said that Westcoast Transmission Company Limited could build a pipe line through any territory and in any direction it might choose, provided it obtained the permission of the board of transport commissioners.
As I said, I have conducted some research. In the files of the transport board I found an application which had been made to the board by the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited on May 11, 1949, a copy of which I have on my desk. That application was to transport gas from Edmonton in the province of Alberta to a point in the vicinity of Kings-gate in the province of British Columbia, with a branch line from a point in the vicinity of Kingsgate to cover Trail in British Columbia. I know Kingsgate quite well. It is a beautiful little town which is a port of entry to the United States, but I am sure the population is not large enough to warrant its being a terminal of a gas pipe line.
I know they have not pressed their application for permission to build this pipe line, but I am sure their inactivity in that regard is not merely coincidental with the arguments that are being presented at the present time by those who oppose this bill. The only objection I have heard to the passage of the bill before us is that this company will export gas to the United States if they obtain permission from the transport board. As I have said, the two bills are as much alike as two peas. I could go farther than that and say that they are as much alike as two divorce bills such as those that pass this house so rapidly, although we have had difficulty with them on occasion. But there is one outstanding difference. The bill to incorporate the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited has passed the house whereas the bill to incorporate Alberta Natural Gas Company has not. Now if we have no faith in the board of transport commissioners, our natural heritage is already lost, and to pass another bill to charter another company could have little effect in this regard.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is the hon. member aware that the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited to which he refers made application to the transport board in September to build a pipe line following an entirely northern route through Canada?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think that question will be answered by the remainder of my remarks. This present bill may be some indication that the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited cannot meet the requirements I have enumerated earlier. If that is so they would be precluded from obtaining a licence to transmit gas.

Alberta Natural Gas Company
It is significant that the Westcoast Transmission Company, which obtained its charter in March of this year, has yet to receive a permit. They requested that their original application for a permit to construct a pipe line through central British Columbia be withdrawn. Some members put forward the view that a line should be built through the province of British Columbia. It is a point of view with which I certainly wholeheartedly agree. They argued that we should supply Canadian industries first. They should not be so naive. It may be that it cannot be agreed by the companies and the board that such a line is practical, possibly in view of the fact that their markets must be in British Columbia and also in the northwest portion of the United States. If they should find it is impractical to transport gas by one particular route, then an alternative certainly would be necessary. If it were made absolutely statutory that a pipe line to supply such markets must be built in any one particular direction, then if it could not be built at competitive prices there would be no pipe line at all. I say that as long as we are sure the needs of Canada will be served first, regardless of the route, then there must be some alternative.
There is an age-old argument that the railways were built to develop the country regardless of cost. I do not feel that holds true in this case. We must remember that prior to the railways being built there was no other method of transportation unless we consider the covered wagon and the oxcart. I am quite sure hon. members will agree such transportation offered no competition whatsoever to the railways. It must be remembered there is a competitive field in British Columbia and the Pacific northwest. For example, there is the question of coal. I think if I were going to raise an objection to this or any other pipe line bill it would be on the basis that possibly it might deprive some of my constituents of a job, but I am sure they are sufficiently progressive that they would not ask me to take such a stand. We have coal, wood, sawdust, tremendous hydroelectric power, and in the foreseeable future atomic power. If a pipe line cannot be built at a cost sufficiently low to compete with such fuels, then a pipe line will not be built at all.
I was not a member of the house when a charter was granted to the Westcoast Transmission Company, but I understand the bill passed with little opposition. Therefore I had assumed that any other such bills would pass with little opposition, and that even a second or third charter could be granted. It is my considered opinion that anyone opposing the measure at this time is committing an offence against our system either wittingly

or unwittingly, and is helping to set up a Canadian monopoly in the pipe line business. We have been asked why we are silent on this matter. I think there was considerable reason to be silent. I felt any comments on this measure were absolutely unnecessary. As I said earlier, however, there were accusations in the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). In that speech he said, at page 2101 of Hansard:
Somebody is going to have to be paid for the money spent in presenting the petition to parliament. Somebody will have to be paid for the cost of all the lobbying that has been done around here during the past several weeks. I should like to know who is paying for those things and how they are going to recoup themselves if they do not ultimately build a pipe line.
I suppose that would be their business anyway.
That is something the sponsors of these bills should tell us. That is something the British Columbia members who have so little regard for the welfare of British Columbia that they vote for these bills should tell us. They should make it quite clear to the house just whom they are supporting in this matter, British Columbia or some pipe line promoters.
I consider that a fairly serious charge, and I wish those who hear me now to consider seriously what I am going to say. I think, in the light of all the related facts,
I may ask with equal justification whether those British Columbia members who are opposing the granting of these charters are doing so for the welfare of British Columbia; or are they supporting some British Columbia pipe line promoters? One hon. member from the Liberal benches rose to point out he was wholeheartedly in agreement with the opposition on this question. I am very happy there are not more Liberals taking that position because I would say that it is an obviously biased and reactionary position, and if there were more I would be extremely apprehensive of the future of the Liberal party.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of filibustering this bill. I have some pretty strong opinions on the matter now before the house. I want to assure the house, and particularly the member who has just taken his seat, that I have no personal interest whatsoever in the bill, but I am concerned about the principles that these bills are establishing. These pipe lines will not in any way affect the part of the country I represent, but we have seen the development of the resources of that part of the country manipulated over the years in exactly the same way that these bills attempt to manipulate the resources of Alberta.
The hon. member who has just xaken his seat is new here. I guess he is completely

honest in what he has said, but I can assure him he has a lot to learn about finagling on the part of high finance.


Mr, Fraser:: And the government.


An hon. Member:: He is honest but he is green.


Clarence Gillis: If I could make myself believe the statement he has just made was correct I would be quite willing to sit down. The act to which he has referred that was passed in April merely gave the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada the right to issue licences to companies such as those mentioned in these bills. If those who desire to establish pipe lines could now go to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and have the provisions of this bill implemented by the board, then these measures would not be before the house.
The hon. member also said that the five bills which came in the back door from the Senate at the last session of parliament passed the house with little opposition. There was not much chance to offer any opposition.


Mr. Robinson:: You voted for them.


Clarence Gillis: No, I did not. You will find that on April 29, 1949, I am recorded in Hansard as having made some fairly strong statements against them. They came in the back door on April 28 and this house prorogued on April 30. There was little discussion on them in the house. At that time we moved an amendment against them. They were sent to a standing committee, were considered there overnight, and were passed by the house the next morning. My opposition to them at that time was based on the fact that there were members of parliament then in the house who would not be members any longer after a day or two, and had no right to bind the people of Canada or the House of Commons to this type of legislation. Many of them would not be coming back; yet we were saddling the present House of Commons with legislation which I figured, on more mature judgment and with more time at our disposal in which to analyse the manoeuvring behind those bills, would not have passed. They received very little discussion or consideration, but were opposed by this group as strongly as we could oppose them in the time at our disposal; and we moved amendments to them.
The bill now before the house is exactly the same as the one we discussed Tuesday evening, and exactly the same as the four we discussed in April, 1949. I want to stress the point as far as this bill is concerned, and the other four I mentioned, that they are merely stock promotion bills. There is no capital behind them. My hon. friend said
Alberta Natural Gas Company that in effect, while opposing bills of this type, we were building up a monopoly in Canada, but in my opinion the reverse is true. It seems to me that the company incorporated under Bill No. 238, the only one with capital behind it, will finish up with the one pipe line in this country. We are asked to pass these other bills incorporating companies with no capital behind them, and giving them the right to go out and sell shares. The people who have the $4,500,000 with which to gamble, the people who were incorporated under Bill No. 238, will buy the stock of these companies and in the final analysis all the stock will be owned, controlled or held by one company. That is what we want to avoid.
I think the history of this country should show us very clearly that the time has come when governments, both provincial and federal, should have some regard to our natural resources. It is all right to talk about free enterprise and smaller organizations operating under charter, but when you are juggling with the natural resources belonging to the people they have a right to expect their elected representatives to see that those resources are protected and developed in their interests, with some control by the legislative bodies of the country to see that they are used as they should be.
As an example I should like to refer briefly to the coal mines of Nova Scotia. When the leases were first given out-in that case there were leases rather than bills -there were half a dozen or a dozen operating coal companies in the maritime provinces. There was competition. They sent out sales agents; they sold coke; operations were carried on as we are led to believe would be the case in connection with the oil resources of Alberta if these bills should pass. But after a few years one major company, Dominion Coal, began to buy the stock of the smaller companies. When they had a sufficient amount of stock the smaller shareholders were squeezed out. They lost their investment, and the industry wound up with one over-all operating corporation. This type of legislation is exactly the same in principle, except that here we are doing it on a national scale.
As far as I am concerned, if I could imagine for a moment that there would be six or seven operating companies with pipe lines in Canada I should say that would be a good development, that would be decentralized control of that resource. But I cannot see it operating in that way. I am as sure as I am that I am standing here that before many years go by there will be one pipe line in this country, owned and controlled by

Alberta Natural Gas Company Standard Oil of the United States through Imperial Oil, its Canadian subsidiary. By these bills we are simply legalizing the right of these stock promoters to go out and sell stock, because there is no capital behind them, no money involved at all. The oil companies are the people who have the money. They will buy this stock; there will be one operating pipe line in the country, and that is about all you will ever get out of this sort of development.
My purpose in rising at this time, Mr. Speaker, was to move an amendment. I stress, as we always have stressed in this house, the desirability of public ownership or some public control when this type of legislation is proposed. That is based on long experience with this kind of legislation, knowing the damage it can do and the difficulty of getting rid of it once it is established. When I move my amendment hon. members may vote for it or not, as they like; but if this development goes ahead in spite of the opposition we are able to offer, in the years to come I think the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) will look back at Hansard and say, "Well, I was young and a bit naive at that time, but I can put it down to inexperience; and those fellows were right." I thought I saw signs of the fine hand of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) in some of the phrasing we heard not long ago. He did not do a bad job, either. In the years to come, if I am not here-it will be because age has defeated me-my hon. friend will be able to read Hansard and I am sure he will say, "Why, my advisers at that time were not so farsighted. The people who opposed that legislation and attempted to amend it had pretty good judgment. I am sorry I did not listen to them." So I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the construction and operation of pipe lines by a crown corporation, or to a public agency owned and controlled by the government of Canada.
To anticipate hon. members who may go to Beauchesne and Bourinot and May and then back to Walpole, I want to say that an amendment similar to this was moved last session by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Young.


James Sinclair: Where is he now?


Clarence Gillis: Studying law, so he may come back here and understand Beauchesne. On

April 29, 1949, he moved a similar amendment, which appears at page 2775 of Hansard, reading as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the construction and operation of pipe lines by a crown corporation or other public agency owned and controlled by the government of Canada.
That amendment was held to be in order, and was voted upon. I have even softened my amendment a little. That amendment asked that the bill be not now read a second time. I believe that action on this particular bill should be deferred until the house has had an opportunity of recording its opinion. These bills should be sent to a committee. We have lots of time; there is no hurry about this. I am sure every member of this house wants to do the proper thing with these bills. The bill we discussed on Tuesday night, and the one we are discussing now, should be handed to a committee so that the members can meet the people who are sponsoring this legislation. These measures could then be returned to the house with sufficient information to assure the members that they are either good or bad. If the facts are given to the average member, I believe he is reasonable enough to form an opinion that is in the best interests of the people of this country. This amendment merely suggests that we defer action to permit a committee to consider the bill. Later on, we can record an opinion based on the evidence given to us by the people who are capable of doing it, and who have the facts. So far that has not been done.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment moved by Mr. Gillis. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment (Mr. Gillis) negatived on division.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this measure this evening. I listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of the member of Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). He is a new member in this house and I think he meant what he said, but there were some inaccuracies in his statements which will appear as I explain the different facts in connection with this measure.

I believe, as conscientiously as it is possible for one to believe, that this bill should not be passed at this session. I believe that the questions raised by this bill are of the utmost importance, perhaps as important as any questions that will be considered by this house during the whole life of this parliament. This evening I shall try to point out some of those considerations which I believe are of such great importance.
In the first place, it is quite clear that any pipe line which would be laid by the Alberta Natural Gas Company will go to the boundary between Canada and the United States at the first convenient point. From there it will be continued into the United States. There is a possibility that a branch of the main pipe line will be laid back to the Canadian cities on the Pacific coast. There is also a possibility, although I think it is very remote, that a branch line may also be laid up the valley of the Columbia into the district around Trail.
Surely there can be no question that the objective of this company is to get a natural gas and oil pipe line into the northwestern states of the United States of America; that has never been denied. Many hints have been made to the contrary but, in my opinion, there is not the slightest doubt that the purpose of this company is to lay a pipe line to supply the northwestern states of the United States. I know that because about two years ago there were lobbyists in Ottawa, and they came to see me as a British Columbia member. I queried them as to whether this pipe line was to serve Canada or the United States, and they said, "Oh, well, it is to go to the United States but eventually it will get up to Vancouver." That was the plan of the promoters of this company a year and a half or two years ago.
It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) describe just where this pipe line was to go. At page 2109 of Hansard he pointed out that there was a natural route for a pipe line through the Yellowhead pass, down through the centre of British Columbia and eventually to the coast cities. I believe that is the route which should be followed by a pipe line. Then he went on to say that there was another route which would start in southern Alberta, and he defined the start of the route clearly. It would start at Pincher Creek, Alberta, and go through the Crowsnest pass to Frank, then into Cranbrook and Kimberley.
At that point the minister began to get quite hazy. He stopped dealing with geographical locations and began to give hazy directions-the sort of directions which if
Alberta Natural Gas Company one took to find a place would certainly land him at some other place. It reminded me of being given the wrong directions in the army. He said it would go from Kimberley down the west side of the interior. What he meant by the "west side of the interior" is anyone's guess. At page 2110 of Hansard he said:
Anyone who knows anything about British Columbia knows that it is a province of mountains and valleys. It would be utterly impossible to put a pipe line through in just one direction. In my opinion the proper way is to go south and then north into the Kootenay and Okanagan valleys, to go from the south to the north.
The minister was going north and south, and then south and north, but the one thing he neglected to say was that the route would go south into the United States, and then there might be a branch line north into British Columbia. His description was so confusing that even the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who is rather quick at understanding these things, was misled into thinking the minister said the route would go through British Columbia. Actually, the second route mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries is obviously a route through the United States.
I should like to say a word about who is behind this proposed company. I have in my hand a dispatch from the Financial Times of November 25, 1949. It is headed "Natural Gas lines form major group of public utilities". It points out that natural gas lines are now becoming of the utmost importance on this continent, and that they are going to be among the very biggest groups of business. This is not small business we are dealing with at all when we are dealing with these pipe lines. It is business which is going to involve hundreds of millions of dollars and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We are not just dealing with some little side show. This article points out that there is a Westcoast Transmission Company which was granted a charter last spring, and goes on to say:
Westcoast Transmission Company proposes to export gas to British Columbia and United States areas in the northwest . . . The company's plans, which have been approved by the dominion parliament, call for an all-Canadian route, from north central Alberta through British Columbia and1 include numerous retail facilities along the way . . . Total mileage 1,100 miles and total estimated cost $170 million.
Then it goes on to describe the other pipe line, the one which we are discussing tonight:
The Northwest Natural Gas Company, an American concern, expects to export gas via Kingsgate, B.C.-
Which is in the riding of Kootenay East.
-to the state of Washington. Chances for this company do not appear so good, since its plans call for export of Alberta gas primarily to the United

Alberta Natural Gas Company
States, without giving consideration, to the same extent as other companies in the field, to the real needs of Canadian provinces. Total cost $100 million.
It also deals with Prairie Pipe Lines Limited, the other company which is seeking a charter, and says:
The Prairie Pipe Lines Limited, whose plans have not yet found the full approval of the parliament at the time of writing, also call for export of natural gas to Washington state and for re-import of part of this gas to southern B.C.
The Northwest Natural Gas Company which, I suggest, is behind Alberta Natural Gas Company-if it is not, let the members who are sponsoring this bill get up and say who is behind the Alberta Natural Gas Company-is a subsidiary of Venezuela Syndicate Incorporated of New York. If hon. members care to look up Moody's Manual of Investments, 1949, they will find, at page 857, the particulars of Venezuela Syndicate Incorporated. We are dealing here in effect with a United States corporation. The natural gas is not to go through United States in bond to another point in Canada, which is the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that the oil was to go from Gretna, Manitoba, to Superior, Wisconsin, and so to Sarnia. That is not the case here. I do not believe it is the case with the oil pipe line either. I think the bulk of that oil is going to the Chicago area. But this gas is not to go in bond through the United States from one Canadian point to another. It is to go to the northwestern United States to develop the states of Washington and Oregon which are in direct competition with the province of British Columbia in practically every line of our endeavour.
Then there is another consideration. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, with that promptness and readiness with which he so often gives assurances which never turn out to be of much value, assured us one evening that he would see to it that Vancouver got this gas before any went to the United States; that Vancouver would be looked after in any event. That of course was an absurd statement. All that the Minister of Trade and Commerce can do is to give or to withhold a permit for the export of gas. Once he has given that permit for the export of gas, he has no way of forcing it back into Canada. We all realize that he is a "big shot" in this government, but he cannot go that far; and when he gave that assurance, he was talking right through the top of his hat. We need some more certain protection. We require to have far more assurance that this gas is going to get back into Canada once it leaves Canada at Kingsgate in the riding of Kootenay East.
That brings me to this further question. If Canada is to have gas and oil lines across
[Mr. Green.1
the border of the United States, then there must be some international treaty between Canada and the United States, one which would provide in this case that the gas line would come back into Canada; that the United States authorities would see to it that that gas line came back into Canada. If there is to be an exchange as between different parts of the continent-that is, if western Canadian gas is to go into the United States and eastern United States gas is to come into Canada-then that should be set out in an agreement between the two countries. There should also be provision that there would be no interference with the gas going from one point in Canada through the United States to another point in Canada. But there is no such agreement at the present time. I asked that question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in the standing committee on external affairs last Friday, a week ago today. Hon. members will find the questions and answers at page 40 of the reports of that committee. That page, in part, reads as follows:


Howard Charles Green: My first question has to do with
international gas pipe lines. There are some of those lines crossing the boundary at the present time but apparently there are to be others crossing from Canada. Has the department given any consideration to the question of whether there should be international agreements negotiated to cover the installation of those pipe lines? For that matter, are there any such agreements in existence at the present time?


Hon.   Mr. Pearson@: Mr. Green was good enough
to mention this point to me after the meeting this morning-


Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Matane):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to the proceedings of a committee which I do not think has made a report.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has brought to my attention the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is reading, from the proceedings in the committee, evidence taken in a committee which has not yet reported to the house. I do not think it is in order for him to read the evidence at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I can put it in this way. I will make the statement on my own responsibility-and let the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) get up and deny it if he can-that there is no agreement between Canada and the United States at the present time concerning pipe lines to convey either oil or natural gas.
As a result of this question the Department of External Affairs has just begun to look into that whole field. At the moment the control of these pipe lines that cross the boundary is not in the hands of the United

States government or of the Canadian government. It is in the hands of these oil and gas companies. They are setting policy at the present time and the fact that there is no international agreement alone justifies a delay in dealing with these bills.
The minister also said that Alberta must decide. He was very happy that he could evade the responsibility and put it back onto the Alberta government. At page 1599 of Hansard he said:
And may I say in passing that I am very glad indeed, as a member of this government, that the province of Alberta has relieved this government of the responsibility of making a choice of pipe line companies to do this particular job.
That is not the responsibility of the province of Alberta. It is the responsibility of the Canadian parliament under the system which is being followed. The only sort of measures that the province of Alberta can enact, or any other provincial government, are based on the conservation of natural gas. They might bring in a regulation and say: We will impose this restriction in order to conserve natural gas. But when they go further and use that power to stop the movement of natural gas into another province or into the United States they are exceeding their power. That is not within their jurisdiction. I submit that they cannot control the export of these commodities, and therefore the responsibility rests here with the Canadian parliament.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he know how many pipe lines there are supplying oil and gas to Canada from the United States at the present time?


Arthur Leroy Smith: There is a question on the order paper asking the hon. member that question and he could not answer it this morning.


George James McIlraith: I am asking the hon. member if he knows.


Howard Charles Green: This comes under the department in which the hon. member for Ottawa West is a parliamentary assistant. It would be appropriate for him to rise in this debate and give us that information, and make an argument, if he wishes, on the point of whether the Department of Trade and Commerce is following a wrong policy in connection with these bills. It would be interesting to have an argument from the hon. member.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: I hope it is going to be "in a kindly way"!
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. Can he explain to me how the people of British Columbia can eat all their own salmon and use all their own lumber?


An hon. Member:: Don't be silly.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister want them to eat all their own lumber too?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I will leave that to my Tory friends.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are chewing the rag.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra permitted the question. I think the house should allow the question to be asked.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If he will ask it.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are one or two things-


Howard Charles Green: Not a speech.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member does not want to be parochial. Can the people of British Columbia eat all their own salmon, use all their own lumber, and eat all their own apples?


Howard Charles Green: The minister has asked me if the people of British Columbia can eat all their own salmon and use all their own lumber. Of course the answer is no.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You learn something every day.


Humphrey Mitchell: You could not eat all their salmon.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I would not eat it at all.


Howard Charles Green: There is another consideration, and it has been mentioned before in these debates. It is very important and I think every hon, member agrees with it. In these charters the route which is to be followed should be set out. That has been the practice in railway charters right from the start. It should be the same with charters for oil and natural gas pipe line companies. The bill under consideration has no such restriction whatever. It gives this company power to install a pipe line anywhere within or outside Canada. In other words, it is given power to put in a pipe line for natural gas or oil anywhere in the world. That is just ridiculous. The route should be defined. There should also have been a route put in the charter of the Westcoast Transmission Company. There is no doubt of that. On this point I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne).


Mr. Warren:: Carried.

Supply-Secretary of State


Howard Charles Green: No, it is not carried yet. The reason was that these bills came to this house not in March, as the hon. member for Kootenay East said, but in April. They came up for discussion for the first time on the evening of April 29.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: It was around nine o'clock, and they were referred to the committee. The committee sat for about half an hour. The bills came up for third reading the next day, the last day the house sat. I hold in my hand Hansard of that day.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.


Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Matane):: You did a
good job.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I would suggest that those hon. members be permitted to use the only English word they know, namely, "carried".


Ralph Melville Warren: Don't be too smart.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Public archives-
319. General administration and technical services, $176,393.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not take much of the time of the committee. Since we are hearing so much being said about Canadian citizenship and about the building of a proposed national gallery, I submit, sir, that one of the most important matters is the study of the history of this country. I knew intimately the first archivist, Sir Arthur Doughty, who succeeded in making so many important historical documents available to the Canadian people. I wonder how many of my colleagues knew Sir Arthur Doughty personally. He and Adam Shortt working together published real treasures of history from the beginning of the country. Anybody knows how difficult it is for anyone to study in the parliamentary library, which is one of the richest in this country, or to go to the expense of going to the archives to take notes there of all the documents on the past history of this country. Doughty and Shortt succeeded in having most important documents published under the title of "Constitutional Papers" or "Constitutional Documents". A few of the documents were published each year in the annual report of the archives,

but we now find that some of the most historical documents are difficult to get. The publication of these documents was discontinued, either on account. of the war or for some other reason, and the result is that they are not now available to Canadian students. In my humble opinion this publication should be resumed from the point at which it was stopped, in order that all Canadians who want to know something about the history of their country may have easy access to them.
The new Secretary of State is doing very well at the head of his department and I congratulate him. I wish him every success, but I do hope he will give definite instruction that the publication of these historical documents be resumed at the earliest possible date from the time the previous publication was stopped. I make this suggestion in order to promote a greater knowledge of the history of this country by our young people from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Some of these publications are quite difficult to get and perhaps a reprinting may be necessary. Many young people who want to study these things cannot afford the heavy travelling expense of coming to Ottawa. These documents should be available in the home, in the college or wherever it may be necessary in order to promote knowledge of the history of Canada.
Could the Secretary of State tell us how many people have been working at the archives cataloguing the correspondence of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier? What amount was paid for their services? How many people have been working during the last few years cataloguing the correspondence of Mr. King? At the present time historical documents are made available only after fifty years and in my humble opinion they should be available to the people almost immediately. We now have access to the correspondence of Sir John A. Macdonald who died more than fifty years ago and to part of the correspondence of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who died exactly thirty years ago. Sir Wilfrid lived a long time and some of his correspondence, particularly about the Manitoba school question and other matters, should be made available to the public.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: As I said this afternoon, the papers of both Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier are in order. As yet there is not a complete catalogue prepared, but any of the papers that are available can be seen by anyone who wishes to see them. All of Sir John's documents are available, but not Sir Wilfrid Laurier's, because some of them are not yet fifty years old.

I think it would be impossible to say just what it has cost to put these documents in order and prepare them for examination because the work was done under votes which included the activities of other public officials. The number of officials first employed in looking after Mr. King's papers was three. That was back in 1946, and the number has since been increased to four.


Jean-François Pouliot: How much are they paid?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: In 1946-47 they received $3,613; in 1947-48 the amount paid was $8,244; in 1948-49, $10,059; and in 1949-50 up to October 31, $6,680.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but I think that is costing much more than the correspondence is worth. I suggest to him that he stop that expenditure now so that any expenditure necessary will be borne by those who will be reading the correspondence. We are being asked to spend money each year in preparing that correspondence but we cannot see it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Service Commission-
50. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $1,379,143.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a few words with respect to item 50. I gave notice to the Secretary of State last evening, when we were dealing with another item in his department, that I would be asking some questions when we reached this item. I felt last night that the Secretary of State did not quite understand some of the things I was saying. I will try to make it more clear tonight. As I understand, there is in the civil service what is known as a quota system. I believe the effect of the quota system is that in the various departments of the government, not just in the office of the civil service commission itself but in all departments, only a certain percentage of the employees can be permanent. The remainder have to be listed as temporary employees. The result is that many people are temporary for years and years. They are permanent in many respects but not legally, and not so far as pension rights are concerned. I should like to know what progress has been made in recent years by way of increasing the percentage of employees who can be classified as permanent. For example, what was the percentage of permanent employees to the entire civil service two years ago? What was the percentage a year ago, and what is it now?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: At the present time there are
45.000	permanent employees compared with
77.000	temporaries. In 1948 permanency was granted in 5,715 cases. To the end of October
Supply-Civil Service Commission this year permanency has been granted in 4,670 cases. Subject to the conditions which I have outlined, substantial progress in additional permanency is being made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The figures the Secretary of State has just given indicate that 4,670 have been granted permanency this year. Does he mean by that-


Frederick Gordon Bradley: To the end of October.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To the end of October, 1949. Does he mean that that number of people who were previously temporary have been made permanent, or that there have been that many new employees taken on?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: These are temporaries who have become permanent.


Mr, Knowles:: How do the figures of 45,000 permanent and 77,000 temporary compare with any year that the Secretary of State may care to give, two years ago or three years ago? He has said progress is being made. I should like to know to what extent.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Roughly about 5,000 a year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You cannot give me precise figures?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No, I have not got them here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I cannot get them I cannot get them. But having asked the question last night, I do not think it is good enough that the minister cannot give us that kind of information after twenty-four hours.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Of course presumably the figures can be obtained, but I did not know how many years the hon. member wished to go back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said last night I would be asking the question, and I had hoped the minister would be able to discuss what progress was being made with regard to this percentage matter. I did not call it a quota system last night, but that is the name it is best known by. I cannot figure out now what these percentages are as quickly as I might, but with 45,000 permanent and 77,000 temporary it is no wonder that the hon. member for Queens time and time again when we are dealing with the estimates wants to know why there is such a big item for temporary assistance. But apart from that I do not think it is fair to take on so many employees in that way, and among other things that they should have lesser status at least so far as pension rights are concerned.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must know very well that

Supply-Civil Service Commission whenever anyone is employed as a temporary in the civil service he assumes he will be made permanent within a short time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; it is my personal experience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long is "short"?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is that. How many were working tooth and nail to get temporary positions during the war, and afterwards remained as permanents in the service when there was a distinct understanding they would be temporary at the time they were appointed? My hon. friend knows that. It is human nature. They accept the position with the understanding that it will be temporary for a year, two years or three years. They can be told not to report at any time, but they take for granted as soon as they join the civil service that it will be for their whole life. It is unfortunate, but it is human nature and cannot be changed.
Besides that, there is something else my hon. friend knows very well. He knows that the minister is piloting the estimates of the civil service commission, but he is not responsible for the civil service commission for this reason. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre and those of his group speak of the merit system. They tell us to leave the civil service commission alone, let them do their work, and do not interfere with the promotions that are made by them. I have a high regard for Mr. Bland, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Boudreau, the new commissioner. I know them well and have a high regard for them, but it has been the policy of the C.C.F. group to build a Chinese wall between the civil service commission and all other departments of the government. The hon. member knows it and will admit it. Therefore who is to blame in that regard? Is it the commission or the minister? The minister is only here to supply money for the civil service commission to proceed with its work. Of course the civil service commission may have very good reasons for not appointing a larger number of permanent civil servants. It is their own policy, and it may be entirely different from the policy of the government.


Mr. Slewari (Winnipeg Norih):: I think the hon. member for Temiscouata somewhat misses the point. As I see it, the point is that it is unfair to a person who is employed by the civil service to be continued indefinitely on a temporary basis, thus denying him the pension rights which others have. That is the basis of the argument, and I think there is some legitimacy to it. I wonder if the minister can answer this question. If he cannot do so perhaps he can provide the information

later. Can he tell us how many civil servants there are still on a temporary basis who have had ten years' service or more with the civil service?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Approximately 40,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is ten years a short time?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should like to say that sessional paper No. 100C dated November 18, moved by Mr. Fraser, perhaps contains a good deal of the information that the hon. member requires. I notice here that in 1948 in the Department of Agriculture the number of permanent employees was 572, and temporaries 2,003. In the succeeding year the number of permanents was 701, and temporaries 2,629. There was an increase there in both cases. There are some others here I can give him if he is prepared to do a little addition in the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the minister the figures for the film board?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall see if they are here.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister answers may I be permitted to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I never said it was fair or unfair that there should be a large number of temporaries. I did not say that at all. I explained what happened in my own experience, and it is impossible to make a general statement about the fairness or unfairness of the number of temporaries unless there is a report on each case, because each is different. I have recommended some of my constituents, who were temporary, for permanent positions; and what has been the answer by the departments concerned? "We will wait until the civil service commission makes a decision about it." The policy of my hon. friends-whether it is right or wrong I am not going to discuss at the moment-is to give the civil service commission a free hand. Therefore how can they place the blame on the government?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: In the national film board the number of temporary employees is 577; and permanent employees, 23. Before I sit down I should like to say that the conditions under which permanency is granted to civil servants come under four headings. First, the work of the civil servant in the department must be satisfactory. Second, of course, he must pass the necessary civil service examinations. Third, the work in which he is engaged must be of a continuing and permanent character. Fourth, his permanency must fall within the quota of permanent positions prescribed for this department by the treasury board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, in what the hon. member for Temiscouata has said and what the

Secretary of State has just added, we are getting down to what I am talking about. The hon. member for Temiscouata has said that we in this group-and I hope we are not alone in this but that every party in the house takes the same view-feel that a Chinese wall should be built around the civil service commission as far as appointments are concerned, with no political interference. I hope the hon. member for Temiscouata was not crediting that view to us alone; I hope it is the view of all parties.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no power of attorney to speak for anybody else. I just mentioned what I knew from experience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member said he had found that if he made recommendations to departments that so-and-so be made permanent the reply was that this was up to the civil service commission; in other words the departments do not make the appointments, nor do members of parliament-I hope. That is the way it should be. But government policy and the general policy of the civil service commission surely are matters on which we can comment. Just now the Secretary of State indicated-and I think this is the first time I have heard it from such a high official-that there is what is called a quota system, that the civil service commission prescribes that in the various departments there may be only a certain quota or certain percentage of employees classified as permanent. I think the figures given by the Secretary of State as examples, dealing with a number of departments, have made hon. members generally feel that the quota of permanent employees is really pretty low. If it were to be considered that civil service work is a temporary thing, which is on the way out, one could understand it; but the activities with which the government must concern itself are increasing and will continue to increase as time goes by. We are not going to have fewer civil servants in future than we have now; the likelihood is that we shall have more. Since that is the case I still think it is not fair to ask forty thousand civil servants-I think that was the figure mentioned by the Secretary of State- who have been with the government for ten years or more still to be classified as temporary. I do urge the Secretary of State and the civil service commission in this public way, through him, to try to find some way to increase that quota of permanent employees permitted in each department. I think that would be only fair to the service as a whole, to the morale of the service, and to the employees themselves.
Supply-Civil Service Commission


Jean-François Pouliot: After what has been said my hon. friend is too logical to blame the Secretary of State for what he considers the small percentage of permanent employees, which results from the fact that a quota has been established by the civil service commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am trying to get at the civil service commission in the proper way.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: I do not
think anyone is inclined to blame anybody for anything. We are trying to get some facts, which I find very interesting. If we have forty thousand employees of the Dominion of Canada who have been working for us for more than ten years, one must assume that they have a certain degree of competence, otherwise they would have been dismissed. That competence must exist, so surely they have some right to be placed on a permanent basis, like others in the service. The minister has told us that as far as permanency goes they are divided into four groups, those whose work is satisfactory, those who pass the requisite examinations, those whose work is of a continuing nature, and those who are lucky enough to come in under the quota. Can the minister tell us how many of those who are not permanent have failed to achieve permanency for each of these four reasons?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: For only one, or for all four?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to know the figures for all four, very roughly, if the minister can give them to me.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The position is that during the war very little was done in the way of shifting from temporary to permanent. Since the war a good many of the openings have been filled by veterans. I believe that is declining in volume now, and I think I can say that the number of changes from temporary to permanent will show a considerable increase in the near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A couple of times during the course of my remarks I made the statement that civil servants who have to continue as temporaries thereby fail to qualify for pension rights during those years. Just to get it confirmed may I ask, was I right or wrong in making that statement?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All the more reason for hoping that this process will be speeded up.


Clarence Gillis: I think the subject discussed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre requires a little more elaboration. How did the civil service commission arrive at this quota basis? Ten years is not a long time when you consider the position of many of

Supply-Civil Service Commission the employees of this House of Commons. Some of them have been here for twenty-five years, and they are still temporary. They have no pension rights, no security of any kind. They are just getting older and older, and expecting to go out some stormy night and find themselves with no means of livelihood at all. That is not a very nice thing to look forward to after having been employed by the people of Canada. We have forty thousand people who have been working for the government for ten years or more but who are still in the position that they do not know whether or not they have a job; they are temporary employees. They do not come under the superannuation scheme. Perhaps after ten or fifteen or twenty years someone in the commission will come along and say, "You are going to be made permanent tomorrow. You will then have the right to come under the superannuation provisions, but you will have to pay into the fund everything you would have contributed during the last twenty years, plus interest on the money you did not pay, to cover the security you did not have during the fifteen or twenty years you were temporarily employed." Does that not sound rather ridiculous? I should like to see any corporation, large or small, sit around the table with a bargaining committee of a union and try to justify that sort of an arrangement. Does that not mean there is something wrong there? I imagine anyone who is responsible for the administration, and who thinks in those terms, should go and see a psychiatrist; there is something wrong upstairs. We have discussed this time and again. Will the minister tell us how they arrive at that quota?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The hon. gentleman will have to ask the treasury board that question. They will have to answer it because I am unable to do so.


Alphonse Fournier: May I give some information on this subject? The number of temporaries in each department can be explained in different ways. The establishment of each department is not only decided upon by the civil service commission after it investigates the needs of the department for permanent and temporary positions, but their report is submitted to the treasury board. The treasury board officials then inquire into the requirements of this department, and decide on the establishment as a whole, as between permanents and temporaries.
Before the war those departments would have their establishments on a percentage quota; some would have seventy per cent permanents and thirty per cent temporaries, and so on. When the war came along, to protect

the rights and privileges of those who were in the armed forces, the civil commission made no permanent appointments-perhaps the occasional one, but very few. At that time thousands of temporary employees were hired. After the war the commission and the government of the day applied the veterans' preference, and those men were brought in but could not become permanent without having at least one year of service. The temporaries employed during the war were replaced by veterans, and as the need for permanents developed in the departments those veterans became permanent.
I do not suppose there are two departments in which the percentages as between permanent and temporary employees are the same. I do not think the civil service commission should take the blame for the number of permanents or temporaries in the department because, in the final analysis, they do not make the decision. It is the treasury board that decides.
Mr. SI swart (Winnipeg North): Under what estimate could we. discuss the treasury board?


Alphonse Fournier: Why not wait until the Minister of Finance is present? I am answering these questions at the moment because I have been interested in civil service matters, and I am trying to give some help on the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we ask questions about the policy of the treasury board on the estimates of the Minister of Finance?


Mr, Fournier (Hull):: Certainly; I have never heard the Minister of Finance refuse to answer questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been here for some time but I have never heard the treasury board discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Finance, or on any other item.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know who they are.


Alphonse Fournier: If you do not know the composition of the treasury board after the length of time you have been here, you should not be lecturing the new members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who are the members of the treasury board?


Alphonse Fournier: It is the Minister of Finance and five of his colleagues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who are they?


Alphonse Fournier: The Minister of
National Revenue; the Minister of Public Works-


Clarence Gillis: Good, now we know whom to blame.


Alphonse Fournier: The minister without portfolio, who was formerly the Minister of

Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Mr. MacKinnon; and the last is the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Perhaps I am making a mistake in the name-oh, and the Minister of Agriculture. Those are the members of the treasury board. Any time you need further information, I shall be glad to supply it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are making progress, Mr. Chairman. A while ago the hon. member for Temiscouata and I had a difference in endeavouring to find out where to go to deal with this quota problem. He finally said that it was clear that we should go to the civil service commission. In one of his answers, the Secretary of State said the civil service commission laid down these quotas to the various departments.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Public Works now tells the committee it is the treasury board that reviews the proposals made by the civil service commission, and that body has the final say as to these quotas.


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it is a proper matter to discuss on the floor of this house if the decision is made by the treasury board, which consists of five or six ministers who are in this house. It becomes more evident it is a matter of government policy, and I believe we are more than justified in pleading from the floor of this house for an increase in those quotas.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not telling the hon. gentleman he is wrong in pleading that the number of permanents be increased and the number of temporaries decreased. I am not speaking about that. I am trying to give the procedure which is followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have done very well.


Alphonse Fournier: During this discussion certain things have been said that are not in accordance with the facts. It has been said that these temporaries lose their right to superannuation. If one considers the prevailing rates employees, and there are a number of them in my own department, if they are veterans who have been employed in the department for two years, they are entitled to make a contribution to the superannuation fund. If I am not mistaken those who are not veterans have a right, on the recommendation of the department, to make a contribution after five years' service, and they are entitled to superannuation at sixty-five.
I am told that what I have just said would not apply to temporary employees. I am
Supply-Civil Service Commission informed that there is a deduction of five per cent from the salary of temporary employees for savings purposes-


Mr. Lennard:: Is that for unemployment insurance?


Alphonse Fournier: Part of it is, but
when they leave the service that money is returned to them with interest at the rate of four per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we be told which department has the lowest quota of permanents and which department has the highest?


Alphonse Fournier: The quota may differ as between different branches of the same department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has told us that these quotas vary from branch to branch and department to department, but some of that information should be available to us. Among civil servants this is a rather sore point. After all, as members of parliament, surely it is within our province to be concerned about the morale of civil servants, and this quota system is one of the things that affect morale.


Mr. McCann:: There is always a good defence for every action of the government. My hon. friends of the C.C.F. who, if they could, would have a socialist state in this country, would proceed along the line that everyone who works for the government should be on a permanent basis. The hon. member has asked something about the quota system and I will give him an example by referring to the Department of National Revenue.
The quota of permanents for that department is quite low at the moment, approximately 40 per cent. There is a reason for that. On the taxation side there were as many as 11,600 employees in the department because of the backlog of business that had accumulated during the war years. That backlog of business will be accomplished by the end of this fiscal year and we can carry on exactly the same duties that we are doing now with probably two-thirds of that number or at least with about 75 per cent. I ask hon. members this question, as a matter of good business. Would it have been good business to have all of these employees permanent when we knew absolutely that within two or three years we would carry on the business of that department with 8,000 people instead of 12,000 people? From the point of view of economy and of saving the taxpayers' money, it would have been sheer folly to give those people the idea that at some time or other they would be permanent officials. On the other hand, it is the only means whereby there can be some latitude in weeding out.

Supply-Civil Service Commission All people who work for the government are not of the highest calibre, although in general they are. People who are in private business or in industry have a perfect right to dismiss employees if they are not giving competent service. But once somebody gets into a government department, is in a permanent position, and has become a permanent employee, you are hamstrung and you are tied right there if you try to promote efficiency in the department, because he is in there feeling that he has a comfortable seat for the rest of his life.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Does the minister mean that his permanent employees are inefficient?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Joseph McCann: No, I do not. I think that all of my permanent employees are highly efficient.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Why should that not happen with the others?


James Joseph McCann: But there would be no use in giving those who are not permanent employees the inducement that because they had gotten into the department, they could become permanent employees just because they were there. There is not the need for them. As between one department of government and another, if some people are supernumerary, they are transferred. We make a request to the civil service commission to transfer them to another department where there will be work for them. The point I want to make is that from the point of view both of economy and of efficiency it is not in the best interest of the government to have 100 per cent permanency in any department.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Will the minister tell me if they have any difficulty in getting applicants for those various jobs in his department?


James Joseph McCann: No, not the slightest difficulty.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I know the readiness of the Minister of National Revenue to answer questions, but I must tell the committee that we are now considering the estimates of the Secretary of State.


James Joseph McCann: That is all right. I am speaking as a private member with reference to this particular appropriation.


Mr. Hatfield:: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue how many permanent employees and how many temporary employees are in the customs and excise department.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I think that some hon. members did not understand quite

clearly what I said a moment ago. The Minister of National Revenue intervened in this discussion merely to point out what was temporary employment by the civil service commission, by giving an example within his knowledge in his own department.


Howard Charles Green: He butted in.


Louis-René Beaudoin: After he sat down, the hon. member for Charlotte asked a question with reference to the employees in his own department. At that moment I intervened and said that I must stop the discussion and remind the committee that we were now dealing with the estimates of the Secretary of State's department. All hon. members from now on should direct their questions to the Secretary of State. I understand that later on the estimates of the other ministers will be presented, at which time questions may be asked of them.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How many temporary and how many permanent employees are there in the department of customs and excise?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There are 7,800 temporary employees and 9,000 permanent employees.


James Joseph McCann: No, that is wrong too; that is the two departments.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No! There are 5,800 of each.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Which is the right answer?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The latter.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the right answer?


Howard Charles Green: Nobody knows.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: Wait till the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton gets an answer.


Clarence Gillis: I have been waiting.


Howard Charles Green: Wait some more.


Clarence Gillis: I can do a little bit of talking for entertainment purposes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, we want an answer.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Has the Secretary of State completed his answer?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I said 5,800 of each.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that perhaps it is unfair for us to ask the Secretary of State about this matter on this particular discussion; but I think it is a matter that has not been discussed enough in the House of Commons, at least during the period that I have been here.

During the war period it was necessary to extend the departments of government, to organize new ones and to take pretty much what you could get. But I think the time has arrived when this matter of civil servants, how they are employed and what their terms of employment are is one for the House of Commons to give serious consideration to.
I know that the methods of employing civil servants through the civil service commission outside the House of Commons and in a large part of the country leave much to be desired, and that the commission is not considered to be the impartial body that it is supposed to be. The Minister of Public Works, who is not here at the present time, undertook to answer for the Secretary of State; and in my opinion he made a worse job of it than would have been made if he had left the Secretary of State alone. The Secretary of State was not doing so badly. He at least was careful in his answers. But his adviser, when he took over, laid great stress on the fact that the civil service commission did the employing, that the civil service commission set the quotas, and that the civil service commission was all-supreme. Then in the next breath he said that the civil service commission had nothing to do with it, that treasury board is supreme, and that in the final analysis "we five men make the decision".
An. hon. Member: Six.


Clarence Gillis: Five and himself. The civil service commission, I believe, employs approximately 122,000 people. Of those, 40,000 have been employed in some capacity in the government service under the commission for the last ten years. They go back in their employment previous to the war. So the Minister of Public Works cannot write that situation off by saying that, with the veterans coming back, preference had to be retained for them. That 40,000 were employed previous to the war, and they are still temporaries. They cannot become permanent until the treasury board says so. The chiefs of the departments who work with the personnel who are taken in under the terms of the commission know the qualifications of these employees. Why should the final say in determining whether they are essential and should be permanent or not rest with six men who have nothing to do with most of them? That is something which should be corrected. The Minister of Public Works made it quite clear that not for reasons of efficiency but for reasons of economy they say they are not needed, whether departments are crippled or otherwise.
Supply-Civil Service Commission
While the Secretary of State indicates that there are some 40,000 temporaries, many instances will be found of people who are only six months, and sometimes less than that, employees of the department under the civil service commission and who are made permanent at very good salaries, while those who are performing essential services drag along for over ten years and never become permanent.
I agree with the Minister of National Revenue that, no matter whether they are designated as permanent or not, if they are not fulfilling the duties of the position that they occupy and there is reason to dismiss them, the fact that they are permanent employees should not interfere with it. I have no hesitation in saying that nobody should be put on a job and be told that he is going to stay there permanently, and because he is a permanent employee he can sit around and do nothing. I do not think it is fair to anyone who has supervision over a department. A certain amount of work has to be performed. The probationary period of an employee should not be longer than a year. The chief of a department and the head of the civil service commission should know in a year whether an employee is good, bad or indifferent. If he measures up and performs his duties he should be made permanent after a year's employment. They should not go along for a longer period than that. The fact that an employee is permanent should not preclude his dismissal if there is cause for it.
The permanent employee who has more security is a much better employee than a person who is sitting around for ten years in an insecure position, not knowing where he fits in. That employee is not much good. I am just a human being, and if I were in that position I would be watching for a better position than the one that I occupied. I would be looking for the time when I would have to get out. There is something wrong with a job or with a person who drags along for ten years and is not entitled to the rights and privileges that are given to other employees in the organization.
We have to do a lot more talking about this kind of thing. Government in Canada is becoming quite a large organization. I have always looked on this House of Commons as a trades union of the civil servants who are employed under the regulations laid down by this house. We are the people who should be protecting them. We make these laws. We should not leave it to any six-man board to have the final say on the future of thousands of people who are rendering essential service in this country; and we should not be keeping

Supply-Civil Service Commission them in the insecure position in which they are today, without the provisions of the superannuation allowance. That is all I have to say on the subject tonight. In the future we are going to have a lot more to say about it. I just wanted to say this because I think the Minister of Public Works did not do as good a job as he thought he did. I am sorry he left the chamber.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
sure whether a certain private member intervened in this debate as a cabinet minister or whether the cabinet minister intervened as a private member, but I think he succeeded in helping to add to the confusion. He conveyed to me the impression that forty per cent of the employees of his department were on the permanent list; whereas the Secretary of State when he answered the question- I am not sure whether I have the right percentage-gave me a percentage of fifty. The only way to clear up this difficulty and have everything crystal clear is to have the Secretary of State give parliament the quota for every department of government.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman wishes me to read this, but there are six pages of it. For instance, in the Department of Agriculture, under departmental administration, the quota is 85 per cent; publicity extension, 80 per cent; advisory committee, marketing services, administration, 85 per cent; economics and dairying, 70 per cent. I do not know whether the hon. member wishes me to read all these.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to get the information that is available.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Does the hon. member want me to read it, or will he look it over himself?


Some hon. Members:: Put it on Hansard.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I will read the whole thing.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, take it as read.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I presume the hon. member has heard the minister say that the document covers six pages.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Put it on Hansard.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have no objection to its being placed on Hansard, for I think the information should be made public.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I will put it on Hansard.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would it be agreeable to the committee to have the document placed on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The document follows:

Quota of permanencies allowable in various departments
Department and unit	Quota-Percent
Agriculture-
Departmental administration	 85
Publicity and extension	 80
Advisory committee	
Marketing service
Administration	 85
Economics and dairying	 70
Fruit and vegetables	 50
Livestock and poultry	 80
Marketing	
Production service
Administration	 85
Health of animals	
Veterinary officers	 80
Other staff	 80
Livestock and poultry	 80
Plant inspection	 70
Plant products	 80
Experimental farms
Administration	 85
Central farm	 40
Branch farms	 35
Science service
Administration	 85
All other units	 70
Archives	 85
Auditor General-
General administration	 90
Canadian Maritime Commission	 85
Civil Service Commission	 55
Chief Electoral Officer	 Exempt
External Affairs-
Administration and passport office		80
Finance-
Administration	 85
Comptroller of treasury	 85
Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act.... Exempt
Mint and assay office	 80
Tariff board	 Exempt
International Joint Commission	 90
Fisheries-
Administration, engineering and publicity and extension	 85
Promotion and inspection	 50
Fish inspectors	 20
Salt fish board and fisheries research
board	 Exempt
Fish culture	 45
Insurance	 Exempt
Justice-
Administration	 85
Supreme court	 95
Exchequer court	 95
Clemency	 80
Penitentiaries headquarters	 85
Penitentiaries	 80
Labour-
Administration	 85
All other units	 80
Mines and Resources-
Varying-50, 55, 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85

Quota of permanencies allowable in various departments-Con.
Department and unit	Quota-Percent
National Defence-
Administration	 50
except
Inspection board	 20
Navy	 20
Army	 20
except
Royal military and national defence
colleges	 50
Air	 20
Defence research board-
Officers-Up to 50 per cent of the total number, whose employment is authorized by the Table of Organization, to a maximum of 154 officers.
Employees-Up to 50 per cent of the total number, whose employment is authorized by the Table of Organization, to a maximum of 524 employees.
National Health and Welfare-
All branches	 80
Indian health services	 30
Family allowances	 60
Quarantine, immigration medical and sick mariners' division	 65
National Revenue (Customs and Excise) -
(Except ports, outports and preventive
stations)	 85
(Ports, outports and preventive stations)	 90
National Revenue (Taxation) -
6,500 employees Public Works-
Administration	 85
Architects-Administration	 80
Architects-Outside	 50
Chief engineer's administration	 80
Chief engineer's branch-Outside	 50
National Research Council	 50
Office of the Secretary to the Governor General	 Exempt
Post Office	 80
except
Executive	 85
Revenue post offices	 Exempt
District offices	 90
Railway mail service-Operating	 Exempt
Public Printing and Stationery	 80
except
Administration	 90
Privy Council	 85
Air Transport Board	 80
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	 80
Secretary of State	 80
except
Administration and Bureau for Translations	 85
Trade and Commerce-
Administration	 85
Other units	 80
except
Exhibitions	 65
Elevators	 50
Dominion Bureau of Statistics	 60
Board of Grain Commissioners-
Administration and laboratory	 80
Inspection and weighing	 70
Supply-Civil Service Commission Quota of permanencies allowable in various departments-Con.
Department and unit	Quota-Per cent
Transport-
Administration	 85
Air services-Administration and	radio. 85
Civil aviation	 60
Meteorological services	 80
Other branches of air services	 80
Canals-Administration	 85
Quebec and other canals	 80
Marine services-Administration	... 85
Floating equipment-Administration_____ 80
Examiners of masters and mates	... 80
Nautical and miscellaneous services___	80
Pilotage	 60
Aids to navigation-Administration		80
Operation	 35
Steamship inspection	 80
St. Lawrence ship channel	 20
Signal service	 80
Agencies	 80
Railway service-Operation of official
cars	 80
Government employees' compensation.. 80
Telegraphs-Administration	 80
Outside	 40
Board of Transport Commissioners-
Administration	 85
Other branches	 80
Unemployment Insurance Commission-
Headquarters	 85
Outside	 80
Veterans Affairs-
No quota pending stabilization
Veterans Land Act	 80
except
Administration	 85
Travel Bureau	 70


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Brooks:: There is another matter in connection with superannuation in the civil service that I wish to say a few words about. The superannuation act was amended in 1947 in order to make provision for the superannuation of veterans. A return which I received a short time ago indicates that very few veterans are taking advantage of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I asked the department how many active service veterans of world war I, who were not in the civil service prior to enlistment, but who had subsequently joined the civil service, applied for superannuation benefits under the superannuation act. This is the information I received. In the Department of Agriculture there were 423 veterans who joined that department after returning from overseas. Of that number only 53 have taken advantage of the superannuation act. I will not give all the departments. In the comptroller of the treasury branch there were 231 in that category. Seventy-three applied to take advantage of the act. In the fisheries department there were 70 and only seven are taking advantage of the superannuation act. In the penitentiaries commission there were 257
2270	HOUSE OF
Supply-Civil Service Commission returned men and only 43 are taking advantage of the act. I could go all through the different departments. They all indicate about the same percentage. This must surely indicate to the minister that the section of the act which was passed for the benefit of veterans is not really doing for them what it was intended to do.
Is there any intention to amend this act so that it will benefit the veterans, as I am sure the intention was. The chief reason why these men are not taking advantage of the act is that it is costing them far more for their annuity than they should pay. For instance, the act provides that during the time they were overseas they contribute not only their own assessment but the assessment which the government would have to pay. Besides that they have to pay four per cent interest on all that contribution over a long period of years. Many of these men did not join the government service for five, ten or fifteen years after they left the service and the result in many cases is that they are paying $1,000 or more above what they should have to pay to provide for the annuity which the act is supposed to give them. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if this matter has been called to his attention and if it is intended to make proper provision for these cases.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The matter has not been called to my attention. This concerns the superannuation act and would be a matter for the Department of Finance.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The details show that there are 171 permanent employees of the civil service commission who receive $495,915. How many temporary employees are there and what salaries do they receive?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: At Ottawa there are 493 and in the field there are 77.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The details show the number of permanents as 171.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: One hundred and eighty-eight are permanent and 382 are temporary.


John Alpheus Charlton: The figure given on page 122 is 171.	.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Changes have been made since the estimates were prepared some months ago.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has the head of a department the right to make a temporary employee a permanent employee? The other day I had occasion to go to a department where there were three or four temporary employees who had been employed for four or five years and who were anxious to become permanent. The head of the department told me that it was


his prerogative to make those people permanent. I asked him how that would be done and he told me it would be by recommendation to the civil service commission. He told me that it would then go to the treasury board. That is taking the right away from a commission and giving it to government patronage.


Alphonse Fournier: Nonsense.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If the treasury board makes the final ruling, then that ruling is being made by politicians at the top and not by the commission. If it is made by the head of the department, nine times out of ten he is a political appointee and he would make his recommendation on that basis.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The head of the department may make a recommendation and then the civil service decides on the appointment provided that it is within the quota set by the treasury board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-
320. Departmental administration, $60,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad the king's printer is in front of the Secretary of State in case he is needed to answer some questions I should like to ask. I understand it has been a practice at the printing bureau, for as long a time as some people can remember, to pay overtime at the rate of time and a half for the first three hours after the regular quitting time and double time after that. If an employee of the printing bureau is called in earlier than the usual time at which he goes to work, that is paid for at double time. The statement I have made as to payment of time and a half for the first three hours after the regular quitting time and double time after that is substantiated by sessional paper 106C which was tabled on April 4, 1949.
My information is that some changes have been made in connection with this matter, or shall I be extremely cautious and say that at the present time there is great uncertainty about the payment for overtime to employees at the printing bureau. It appears that there are a couple of orders in council which may have some bearing on the matter. One is order in council P.C. 1/4646 of September 13, 1949, and the other is order in council P.C. 4840 of September 20, 1949. The first of these orders in council relates to employees at the printing bureau while the second is of general application to prevailing rates employees.
It seems that as a result of these two orders in council certain changes have been made at the printing bureau with regard to overtime rates of pay. As I say, the long-established practice is that the overtime rate began, to

quote the language of sessional paper 106C of April 4, 1949, "after the regular quitting time". Whenever that regular quitting time was over, if employees were asked to work another hour or two or three they were to be paid at overtime rates. Apparently as a result of these orders in council it is now the case that, if a man for any reason is not there to start work at the regular time of commencement, he has to work that night or after the regular quitting time, the amount of time that he was late before the overtime rates begin. May I say at the moment I am not arguing the pros or cons of the case. I do not think I need to. I am simply pointing out that a change has been made, and it was made without consulting the employees concerned.
Another point that has been drawn to my attention is that there has also been a change with respect to the rate of pay when employees are called in ahead of time. I understand it has been the custom through the years that, if it were necessary to ask a printer at the bureau to come in ahead of time, perchance because Hansard gets thicker with these all-day sessions, he was to be paid double time for that previous time. I am told they are now being called in ahead of time and are being asked to work any previous hours for straight time.
I have made these remarks in the form of statements. I could have put them in question form, but these are the points that have been drawn to my, attention. I believe they are correct. At least there is uncertainty about them, right at this very time. If I am wrong the Secretary of State can get the information from the king's printer and correct me. If I am right it seems to me that the matter should be given consideration. It is not conducive to the best morale amongst working forces to change long established conditions and customs, particularly when they relate to the rate of pay.
Another point concerning which there is dissatisfaction amongst the employees at the printing bureau has to do with the differential between the day rate and the night rate. Some hon. members may recall that I put quite a lengthy table on Hansard last spring having to do with this matter and pointing to the discrepancies between the rates of pay at _ the government printing bureau and at printing offices in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. I may say the reason I name these cities is because the Public Printing and Stationery Act names Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal as a standard for rates at the printing bureau.
As I pointed out when I put these figures on Hansard before, employees at the printing buieau get a little less than is the case in
Supply-Civil Service Commission each of these three cities. From time to time under the general practice having to do with prevailing rates employees, the rates have been increased, but there has always been a time lag. Last April, however, a welcome increase came through, but since then there has been a change made in the differential between day and night employees. I believe the previous plan was in existence for a long time. Evidence of the old plan was given in the sessional paper to which I have referred and which was tabled on April 4, 1949. It said that the rate for night work was 25 per cent over the day rate. As I say, that 25 per cent differential ^ has obtained for a good many years. Just recently it has been reduced to 15 per cent. One of the reasons which has been indicated to the employees at the printing bureau for the reduction from 25 per cent to 15 per cent is that 15 per cent is the differential in effect at the printing shop in the patent record office. The answer to that is that over the years it has been recognized, and I may say recognized by the printers in the patent record office as well, that the strain of the work at the printing bureau, particularly during the months when the House of Commons is in session, is such that night work well deserves the 25 per cent differential.
I have done it before, and so have other members, but I think that again we should pay tribute to the efficiency of the printing bureau. Some of the things I am saying may indicate that I am a little bit critical of the king's printer himself because he is the administrative head of the bureau, but I want to include him with all of the employees. I want to say that they do a mighty good job especially when we consider that after these all-day sessions of the house we have the complete Hansard delivered to us next morning together with all the other documents we require. I wish Hansard could record the applause being given my remarks because it means that my statement meets with the approval of members generally.
May I suggest that working at the printing bureau these nights is a pretty tough racket, and that the 25 per cent differential is more than deserved. I should like to hear some explanation as to why it was reduced to 15 per cent, and I hope that it can be restored.
There are one or two other things that are also of concern. I may have to come back to them later but I shall mention them now. One is the feeling on the part of the employees at the printing bureau that the forty hour week should be instituted without delay. I know that at times when printers have asked for a forty hour week, and other trade

Supply-Civil Service Commission union workers for that matter, employers have said:	All you want is to reduce the
number of hours you work regularly so that you can start drawing overtime sooner. Workers in a good many trades, and particularly in the printing trade, have demonstrated across the country that when they ask for a forty hour week it is not for the reason that I have just mentioned. They want a shorter work week so that life may consist of something else than their daily toil. I hope that the government may give a lead in this matter, and the printing bureau would be a good place to start; and soon, I hope.
I understand that some of these grievances about which I have been speaking are issues right at the present time, perchance tonight, over at the printing bureau, while we are discussing them here. I feel it is unfortunate that these labour-management relationships in a plant that belongs to the people of Canada should be handled, as they have been to a large extent, by order in council. That is not the best way to achieve the best in labour-management relations, and it is because it has been done that way, because there is this dissatisfaction at the bureau, that I feel it is necessary to raise these matters tonight. The forty hour week and the labour-management relationship are extremely important but perhaps they are more or less of a long run nature. The immediate sore spots are the uncertainty as to when overtime rates of pay start, and the reduction in the night differential from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. I would be most happy if the Secretary of State could answer these points satisfactorily.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not know whether or not I can answer them satisfactorily, but I can attempt to answer them. The hon. member is quite correct on the question of overtime. An employee is supposed to put in his day's work before his overtime begins. If he stays away from work in the morning for an hour or two hours, as the case may be, the rule is he must put in his time that day before his overtime begins. If he is called in ahead of time he gets his overtime that much earlier in the day. As to the night differential, it is quite true that formerly it was 25 per cent, but I understand that in ordinary trade circles it is only 15 per cent, and it has been reduced in accordance with prevailing rates. The question of the forty-hour week is under consideration at the present time, but at the moment I understand that efforts are being made to readjust wages in both Toronto and Montreal, and we are awaiting the result of those negotiations. Then I think we shall be in a position to make a move in the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says my statement with respect to what is now being done in regard to the time that overtime rates begin is correct. I am sorry to hear that. I had hoped he would say there was uncertainty which was being cleared up. May I ask if I am correct in saying that a change has been made; in other words that formerly overtime started, as was indicated in the sessional paper tabled in the spring of this year, after regular quitting time? Is it the case that formerly the hour a man worked by being called in early was -paid for at double time?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is correct. The change was made under order in council P.C. 1/4646.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the matter discussed with the employees at all before the change was made?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I should say also that in this order there is no specific quitting time or starting time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister answer my question as to whether or not this matter was discussed with the employees before the change was made? After all, it is a change to the detriment of the position of the employees.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: As far as I know the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, Mr. Chairman, about all I can say is that this is hardly the way to bring about the best of labour-management relations. Despite the fact that now, across the floor, the Secretary of State is not in a position to meet the points I have raised, I hope the fact that I have raised them in public will mean that they will be gives more serious consideration.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is all the government printing done at the printing bureau?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is most of it farmed out? If so, could I have the names of some of the larger concerns to which it is farmed out? How far east do they go, and how far west?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I understand that, as the hon. member says, most of the printing is farmed out. I do not know whether I can give him any names. One of the things farmed out was the annual report of the department, which is not printed yet though it has been in the hands of the printing branch since the beginning of the session. Owing to lack of equipment and staff I very much doubt whether it will be printed before the end of the session. The total amount spent by this department to meet the requirements of parliament and of the departments of government was $7,811,000, including the cost of

paper. The amount spent in 1948 for parliament and the departments of government will be found on page 24 of the annual report.


Frank Exton Lennard: What proportion of that is farmed out?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Of the $7 million?


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The outside printing amounted to $3,060,214.74, not including paper stock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What firms did the printing?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have here a sheet from the public accounts showing the names and the amounts farmed out to each firm where the amount was over $10,000.


Alphonse Fournier: On what page of the public accounts?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Page U-7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to offer one other suggestion to the Secretary of State. I feel that he is not taking as seriously as he should the grievances of these very faithful employees of ours over at the printing bureau. If nothing else can be done to meet their requirements I would suggest that some time -as far as I am concerned it could yet be done this session, but if not certainly it could be done next session-the matter of working conditions at the printing bureau be referred to the standing committee of this house on the printing of parliament. I am not in the position the leader of the opposition was in the other day of having to ask that a committee be set up. That committee is in existence. It meets only about once a year to do a routine job. I am not suggesting that this should be done every year, although that might be a good plan. But certainly once in a while it would be a good idea to have this question referred to that committee, before which might be called the king's printer and members of his administrative staff, together with representatives of the employees.
I am not asking the minister to answer that suggestion tonight. I was glad to note that he nodded his head as I was speaking, but I do not suppose that that commits him firmly to the proposition. In all seriousness, however, I do ask that thought be given the suggestion. I am sure it would be a good idea, and I believe it would help relieve some of the tension that now exists if the matter of working conditions at the bureau could be referred to that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Secretary of State
322.	Canada Gazette, $130,000.
Mr. Cardiff:: What is the reason for the increase in this item? I see that in 1948-49 the amount required was $94,980, and there is an increase of $35,020 this year.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is an item of expenditure and does not give us any idea of the revenue of the department for the past year, which is in another book. All the cheques for the payment of notices appearing in the Canada Gazette are made payable to the Receiver General of Canada. It is only the expenditures that are shown, therefore, and the revenue is not. This leads to inevitable misunderstandings, as my hon. friend can easily appreciate.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Chairman, the increase is caused by reason of the fact that the Gazette has been divided into two parts. Part I is now the general Gazette, and part II consists of the statutory orders and regulations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would not be due to the fact there are more orders in council?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It might be.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the revenue from the Canada Gazette? It has a circulation.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: For the year 1948-49, there was a deficit of $34,844.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
324. Distribution of official documents, $95,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Last night the Secretary of State told us there were approximately
150,000	booklets printed for his department. Was it not the king's printer who printed those booklets?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Those were printed by the bureau and paid for by the department.


John Alpheus Charlton: Approximately $70,000 was spent on that particular item, and if the total income of the printing bureau was only half that amount-


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I did not say that. I said that the deficit of the department was $34,000.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then that was not an answer to the question. The question asked by the hon. gentleman was as to the amount of revenue derived from the Canada Gazette.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The revenue from subscriptions was $27,570, and from advertising $59,943.25.


Frank Exton Lennard: What was the cost of printing and distribution?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The printing and binding cost $97,615.07, while editing and translating cost $9,870.

Supply-Secretary of State


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to ask the minister who pays for the printing of the voluminous divorce evidence the members receive. There are only two sources from which payment could be made, either out of public funds or out of the fees that are paid by the principals in those cases. I believe that in either case it is a waste of someone's money. I suppose it is logical and correct from the point of view, I was going to say of history, that some printed record of the evidence in these cases should be available, but I do not understand why copies should be sent to every member.
I do not know of any member who ever looks at one of these reports. Personally, I throw the package in the waste paper basket unopened. If someone is interested in a particular case, I suppose he should be able to send for printed copies of the evidence, but I know of no occasion during the five years I have been here upon which I would have sent for such a copy. It seems to me a waste of someone's money. I should like to know whether it comes out of public funds or whether it is paid for out of the fee that is charged the applicant.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is referring, I presume, to the copies of the Canada Gazette which are supplied the members of parliament.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No; there are such things as printed copies of the divorce evidence which are sent to our rooms.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Those matters are ordered printed by the house and are paid for by it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The expense of printing that evidence comes out of the public revenue of this country?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us the cost per year for printing this divorce evidence?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have not the figures, Mr. Chairman, and of course it changes from year to year.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Can the minister obtain the figures for the last year in which the figures are complete?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I believe it would be possible to obtain the information, Mr. Chairman, although it is not here.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Can the minister obtain it? Is it obtainable?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I believe we can get it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Will the minister produce it?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall do the best I can.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Thank you. Before I resume my seat, I should like to repeat that if the cost is met out of public funds, then I consider it a waste of public money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The last item is item 854 which may be found in the further supplementary estimates at page 11.
854. Plant equipment and replacements-further amount required, $327,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Secretary of State tell us how much of this item is for equipment? On page 37 of the supplementary estimates, I notice the item is broken down into equipment and supplies. Is some of this for new equipment at the printing bureau, and if so what is the nature of the new equipment?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: During the war years-and the conditions of the war years exist in a limited way today-it was not possible to purchase new equipment, with the result that much of the machinery of the department has deteriorated to an extent that its replacement is necessary.
Additionally, new production methods, particularly with respect to press work, are being adopted and the absorption of the Victoria island plant and the establishment of the patent printing service have necessitated the purchase of new machinery.
I do not know whether the committee want me to read all the details, but for the offset section for the Victoria island plant the total is $89,501.10. Then there is the duplicating pool in the same place; the cost is estimated at $9,481.50. Then there is the patent printing plant; the cost amounts to $3,186.50 In the printing bureau proper, there is quite a list of articles, the total of which amounts to $194,149.41.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mainly presses, I take it?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There are various machines; quite frankly, I do not know what some of them are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
272. Departmental administration, $365,500.
George Alexander Drew: Before dealing with any of the items in particular, there is one subject that I should like to mention at this point. I will explain to the Minister of Mines and Resources that, in doing so, I am presenting these views at this time instead of waiting until the appropriate item comes forward; and because of the fact that any statements that may be made with regard to the different distinct

subjects that come under the Department of Mines and Resources can be dealt with as each of those headings arises, I would defer any other remarks until those come up in that way.
At this point I should like to speak about the situation which we have today in this country in regard to a large number of our people, namely the Indian population. It seems to me that there is a mistaken impression that the Indian population in our country is steadily decreasing and that, with the passing of the years, the number will become iess and less. That is not so. There was a Jecided drop in the Indian population of this country, from the figure of approximately
200,000	at the time the country began to be settled. As the Indian population, which had oeen living in the open air, came in contact with the diseases of the white man as well is with the advances brought by the white nan, there was in consequence a substantial oss of population in certain areas. Because rf the extension of health measures, improve-nent in the understanding of nutrition and ;he availability of a better type of food in some cases, the population is now steadily ncreasing. That is clearly demonstrated by he last accurate census figures of the Indian copulation of this country taken in 1944, as compared with the figures of ten years before hat. In 1934 there were 112,510 Indians, iccording to the census taken that year of he Indian population. In 1944 there were L25.686, an increase of 11-7 per cent. The estimate of population growth is being main-ained on that basis.
This is a substantial number of people iving in Canada belonging to a race who were lere before the white man came. With the constant increase of health services, the ever-ncreasing availability of good clothing and ;ood food, and the readier communication vith hospitals and other facilities of that and, it would seem that we may still see a *apid increase in this already substantial copulation.
There is no use in saying what should lave been done at any time in the past. The cast is gone. I suggest that the time is over-iue for us to find a way of bringing into full citizenship within Canada these people who lave demonstrated, by certain individual examples of achievement, that given the right ;ype of education they will make as fine citizens as there are in this country. When ! make that rather sweeping observation, I am naking no loose statement. My own contact vith the Indian population of this country las covered a fairly wide area from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have seen them not 45781-145J
Supply-Mines and Resources only in my own native province of Ontario, in which I had certain responsibilities in regard to educational facilities that were afforded, but I have seen them right across Canada. I have seen them in the sub-Arctic where the most northerly tribes are to be found. Wherever you meet the Indian population you find striking evidence of the fact that, given education and the opportunity to use that education, and given the surroundings in which they are able fully to associate themselves as citizens in our communities, they are under no natural disadvantage which in any way limits the possibility that they can take their full place wherever they may live. In my native province I have known doctors, lawyers and businessmen of full Indian blood who have made a great success of what they had undertaken. One of the most highly regarded magistrates in Ontario today is an Indian of pure blood who saw service in two world wars and who served as a brigadier in the last war with a very fine record.
I simply offer these individual examples, which include names like that of Dr. Orono-teki of Toronto, a very well-known and famous doctor there in the early part of the century, and other men like him, to demonstrate that we have a responsibility to extend the full opportunity for citizenship which has not been accorded to these men and women with their proud traditions and with their background, which is so closely a part of the whole development of our country.
It is not something that can be done rashly; it is not something that can be done in an unplanned way, because the very type of training that has been given does unquestionably impose some limitations upon some part of that substantial population. But I do not think we can begin too soon to make sure that every young boy and girl of Indian blood in Canada is given the same education as any other person in our country. At a time when we are thinking so much of the full equality of every human being within this and other countries, it cannot be a source of satisfaction to us that today some 130,000 of our people are under limitations which make it very difficult for many of them to accept their full share within our social and economic structure.
The problem is very largely one of education. Education is exclusively under the provincial governments, but it is essential that there be something more than education simply from the academic point of view. The education must be given in surroundings which suggest no limitation afterwards upon the full employment of such advantages as each pupil may obtain from the education he
2276	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Resources receives, because they must feel while they are being educated that they can employ to the full that education in their contacts and in their lifework afterwards. For that reason I would strongly urge that at the earliest possible moment either a parliamentary committee or a royal commission be appointed to examine this whole problem and to recommend a course which may be followed in cooperation with the agencies of the dominion and the provincial governments which would have some share in tackling this great problem.
I mention a royal commission as an alternative because I know that a parliamentary committee did sit for some time on this subject. It may be that certain difficulties were encountered which prevented a successful outcome of the discussions which took place before that committee. I do not pretend to know what happened, because I have not had an opportunity of personally inquiring as to just what did take place. If for any reason it was found that the parliamentary committee was not the satisfactory procedure to deal with this subject, then I should think a royal commission, which would probably be composed of several commissioners embracing a knowledge of health, a knowledge of education and a special knowledge of Indian affairs, might well be set up to tackle this problem.
I do not want to add anything more on this point than to say that it is estimated we have approximately 130,000 Indians in Canada today. I do not think that any of us can feel entirely satisfied with the situation as it is. I think we have ample proof that given good education under circumstances that implant in the minds of the Indian youth a feeling of full opportunity in this country of ours they can succeed as well as anyone else. Therefore, through you, Mr. Chairman, I convey this suggestion to the minister, and urge that this subject be taken up in view of the evidence we now have that this population, far from diminishing, is steadily increasing, and that the sooner we tackle this problem the more certain we are of doing it before the difficulties have greatly increased the task that is before us.


Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn I should like to say that the Indian affairs committee did do splendid work. There was nothing in the work that has not been satisfactory. While we have not been able to implement all the recommendations of the committee, a great many of them have already been carried out and further consideration is being given to the others. I would not like any suggestion

to go forth that the work of that committee had not been greatly appreciated and most satisfactory.


George Alexander Drew: Without extending the time I would not want any impression left that I had been expressing a critical comment about the committee, because I said I was not aware of the details. Because of my own association with educational matters I was aware, however, of certain limitations under which the Indians of this country are carrying on at the present time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On page 7 of today': order paper four resolutions appear in the name of the Prime Minister concerning three new departments, namely, the Departmenl of Resources and Development, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Citizenship and Immigratior and a fourth resolution concerning an amendment to the Salaries Act. We should like tc proceed with these four resolutions as the first order of business tomorrow. I saw members of the different parties and thej agreed that it would not be a very lonj debate. We may even discuss the three oJ them at the same time. Then there is anothei resolution to be found on page 6 of the ordei paper in the name of the Minister of Finance to amend section 7 of the Dominion-Provincia Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947. Ther we will go into committee on Bill No. 174 to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act Then there is the second reading of Bill No 143, to amend the Export and Import Per mits Act. I understand that this is to extenc the provisions of the act for another year Then there is the second reading of Bil No. 133, respecting the application of a na tional trade mark to commodities anc respecting the true description of commodi ties. When those bills have been dealt witl we will go into committee of supply and tr; to take up the estimates of trade and com merce and mines and resources.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In tha
order?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question pul pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Office of the chief electoral officer-
49.	Salaries and expenses of office, $39,668.
Civil service commission-
50.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $1,379,143.
Public archives-
319.	General administration and technical services, $176,393.
Public printing and stationery-
320.	Departmental administration, $60,000.
321.	Printing, binding and distributing the annual statutes, $30,000.
322.	Canada Gazette, $130,000.
323.	Plant equipment and replacements, $30,000.
324.	Distribution of official documents, $95,000.
325.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $230,000.
409.	Patent division, $488,805.
410.	Copyright and industrial designs division, $15,985.
411.	Patent record division, $55,200.
Supply-Secretary of State
412.	Contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, international copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works, $4,000.
711.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $5,000.
Patent and copyright office-
712.	Patent division-further amount required, $4,540.
Civil service commission-
765. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, including the chairman of the civil service commission and two civil service commissioners at $2,000 each, additional to chap. 53, statutes of 1947-further amount required, $36,000.
Public archives-
853.	General administration and technical services -further amount required, $16,530.
Public printing and stationery-
854.	Plant equipment and replacements-further amount required, $327,500.
896.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $6,100.
General-
897.	To provide for expenses in connection with the bibliographic centre (national library), $18,950.


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 9, 1949
Honourable Maurice Duplessis,
Premier of Quebec,
Quebec City.
My dear Premier:
On October 23, 1948, I wrote to you about rent control, confirming the intention of the federal government to ask parliament for powers to extend rental control for a further twelve months beyond March 31, 1949.
In that letter I pointed out that:
"The constitutionality of continuing federal rent control has already been questioned and is now before the courts. The federal government does not wish to do anything to prevent any province from making provisions to deal with the situation that would arise should continuing federal rent control be held invalid and is prepared not only to make available to any province federal rental administration with all available staff, but also, subject to parliamentary approval, to pay the cost of any provincial rental administration for one year."
An exchange of correspondence then took place between us, but your government did not avail itself of our offer. Similarly, no other province requested us to vacate the field of rent control in its favour. Newfoundland, when it joined Canada, retained its own system of rent control.
Accordingly legislation extending rent control to March 31, 1950, was introduced into parliament and received approval.
On Thursday last, November 3, I made a statement in the House of Commons outlining the government's intentions with respect to the further extension of rent control. My statement will be found at page 1433 of Hansard for November 3.
In that statement I said:
"The government has therefore decided to refer the question of the validity of the rental regulations to the supreme court, in the hope and expectation that a decision will be given before the present legislation expires. As I have said, the law officers of the crown are of opinion that the rentals regulations are valid. They are also of opinion that both the law and the facts support the view that it lies within the authority of parliament to extend these regulations for a further period. Counsel will be instructed by the Attorney General of Canada to press this view before the court. The order in council making the reference is being prepared and when approved will be tabled in this house.
If no unfavourable decision is given, the government at the next session will ask parliament to grant a further extension of the rentals regulations. The government intends to continue with its program of orderly decontrol as rapidly as conditions warrant, but we do not believe that this program can be completed before March 31, 1950. Let me make it quite clear that the purpose of clarifying the legal position is not to perpetuate federal rent control. On the contrary, the purpose is to confirm our authority to proceed in an orderly way towards the eventual withdrawal of all controls. This has been our firm policy towards wartime controls in general and rent control is no exception.
Should the supreme court find that the rentals regulations are now beyond the powers of parliament, then of course a different situation arises. I am accordingly writing at once to the premiers of the provinces acquainting them with our intention and offering to assist in the preparation of what might be termed "stand-by" legislation if they wish to present such legislation to their respective legislatures.
After the most careful consideration of all the alternatives, the government believes that this course of action is the best. We believe that gradual and orderly decontrol is the right policy. At any time, however, that policy could be frustrated by an adverse decision of the courts. Such a decision might come at a most inconvenient time when the provinces might not be in a position to act as they see fit in the interests of their residents. By referring the question to the supreme court before the present legislation expires and by giving ample notice of our intention to do so, such a situation can, we hope, be avoided.
I should add that the federal government, of course, continues to stand ready at any time to vacate the field of rent control to any province which makes a formal request to that effect. We do not wish to stand in the way of any province which desires to operate in the field of rent control."
My purpose in writing to you at this time is to draw your attention to this statement of government policy and to offer to assist you in the preparation of provincial rent control legislation. If you wish to avail yourself of this offer, I shall be pleased to arrange to have Mr. Owen Lobley, the rentals administrator, put himself at your disposal.
Yours very truly,
D. C. Abbott
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec
Quebec, November 16, 1949
Hon. D. C. Abbott,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Mr. Minister of Finance:
At the first cabinet meeting held since November 10th instant, I communicated to my colleagues of the executive council your letter concerning federal rent control, dated November 9 and delivered at my office the next day.
Your letter obviously concerns only particular aspects of this important problem. We respect your attitude in the matter without approving it.
Our view is and has always been that rental matters, concerning civil property and our civil code, come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. We are certain that if the rights of the provinces in this matter had been recognized by the federal authorities the situation would have been considerably improved.
For more than eight years the federal authorities have assumed, in this field, powers of an essentially provincial nature. As a result, the situation has become very complicated, and many orders and rulings of the federal rental board have been unfortunate. We are of opinion that had the federal

authorities from the beginning consulted the provinces and recognized their rights in this field, we would not today have to deplore an unfortunate situation giving rise to numerous and legitimate protests and causing regrettable confusion.
For more than eight years federal bodies have, in that matter, caused many difficulties and disturbances which could and should have been avoided. After all the harm has been done, after the federal authorities have decided everything and the situation has been bungled and worsened, you say that the province may have some rights. As for us, we consider, as we always have, that these rights are unquestionable.
Eight years after entering a provincial field, you express the desire to submit to the supreme court the question of the constitutionality of the federal action and, at the same time, you anticipate the judgment of the supreme court and complicate the problem if possible still more.
It seems to us obvious that at the approach of winter, when householders are faced with the heavy expense of providing for the heating of their houses, and climatic conditions add considerably to the difficulties, the time is ill chosen to impose additional charges and obligations on the people.
Without any desire to criticize, but simply in order to re-establish the facts, we are of opinion that the central government's persistence in controlling rents has brought about a situation for which that government is undoubtedly responsible and which adds considerably to the inherent difficulties of the problem.
Ottawa has never offered to restore to us the full exercise of the rights which it has assumed in this field: the offers made to us in this matter are conditional, restrictive and, in the end, subordinate to the decision of the federal authorities.
As we declared on several occasions, the present government of the province of Quebec has always been willing to assume its obligations as it has always wished to see the federal government assume its own.
During eight years many federal orders in council have been passed and many rulings issued concerning rental control. All those documents are in the possession of the Ottawa authorities. In our view, it would be proper that we be permitted to make ourselves acquainted with their terms so that we might obtain at first hand the necessary explanations and information.
We thank you for your offer to place at our disposal the services and advice of the federal rental administrator. Without questioning his good faith and sincerity, we must say that we have greater need, in order to familiarize ourselves with the matter, of obtaining the rulings themselves and the federal orders in council.
As soon as we shall have received these necessary documents and have been able to examine them, you may be assured that the Quebec government will without delay take the fairest and most appropriate steps in the circumstances.
Yours sincerely,
M. L. Duplessis

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 24, 1949 The Honourable M. L. Duplessis,
Premier of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
My dear Premier:
I acknowledge and thank you for your letter of November 16, in reply to mine of November 9, regarding rent control.
May I first comment on one or two of the points raised in your letter.
More than a year ago the federal government offered to vacate the field of rent control to any
Appendix
province which wished to introduce provincial legislation. In my letter to you of October 23, 1948, which contained that offer, I said:
"At the same time the federal government is prepared to vacate the field at any time after March 31, 1949, to any province which may decid to undertake rent control. Normally rent control would come under provincial jurisdiction and is peculiarly suitable for provincial or local administration because of the immovable nature of real property. The federal government is anxious not to stand in the way of any province which believes that rent control can be better undertaken and administered locally.
"This announcement of policy is being made at this time so that any provincial government which wishes to do so will have sufficient time to prepare legislation for presentation to its legislature before March 31, 1949."
Again, in a letter to me on November 3, 1948, you asked the following question:
"Does this mean that after March 31, 1949, you will definitely recognize the right and power of the province to establish, or not establish, as provincial authorities judge best, a provincial control on rentals? In other words, after March 31, 1949, will the federal government give the province exclusive power in these matters?"
On November 12, 1948, I replied to this question as follows:
"The government's policy, as announced, is that if after March 31, 1949, under the proposed extension of rent control, any provincial government formally requests that federal rental control be withdrawn in that province, the federal government will announce that it has received such a request and proceed to withdraw its controls at a date to be fixed by the provincial government in the light of the legislative plans of the province. The responsibility for rental control in that province will then rest with the provincial government and legislature."
As you will see, our offer was unconditional, without any qualification whatsoever. I therefore find it difficult to understand the statement in your letter of November 16, 1949, that:
"Ottawa has never offered to restore to us the full exercise of the rights which it has assumed in this field; the offers made to us in this matter are conditional, restrictive and, in the end, subordinate to the decision of the federal authorities." The federal authorities entered the field of rent control as part of a national policy of controlling prices and wages during wartime. It is generally agreed, I believe, that action on a national basis was in the general interest and essential to the successful conduct of the war. The government has been removing these controls gradually, as it announced it would, and as, indeed, it was bound to do. Broadly speaking, only rent control now remains, and this is also gradually being relaxed.
The reference to the supreme court is for the purpose of establishing whether or not the federal government has the authority to continue with this policy of gradual decontrol. At any time during the past year, however, any provincial government could have requested the federal government to vacate the field of rent control so as to leave that province free to enact its own legislation.
The federal government does not venture to suggest whether or not any province should enter the field of rent control. This is a matter which must be decided by the government and legislature of each province in the light of local circumstances. We have tried, however, to avoid standing in the way of any province which decides to do so.
The province of Newfoundland retained rent control on a provincial basis at time of union. Within the past few days I have also received a letter from
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
Premier T. C. Douglas, of Saskatchewan, stating that it is the intention of the Saskatchewan government to enact rent control legislation in that province, to become effective on April 1, 1950. I have replied to Premier Douglas that the federal government is prepared to withdraw its regulations in Saskatchewan as of March 31, 1950, so as to avoid any possible conflict, and, if it is his wish, to suspend the operation of orders 813 and 814-which make provision for the recently announced changes in maximum rentals-in Saskatchewan so that the status quo will be retained in that province until provincial legislation comes into effect.
You ask for copies of our rent control regulations to assist you in reaching a decision on the matter. I have pleasure in forwarding, under separate cover, copies of all the orders, at present unrevoked, made in relation to rent control.
Yours very truly,
D. C. Abbott

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 9, 1949
Honourable T. C. Douglas,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Sask.
My dear Premier,
On October 23, 1948, I wrote to you about rent control, confirming the intention of the federal government to ask parliament for powers to extend rental control for a further twelve months beyond March 31, 1949.
In that letter I pointed out that:
"The constitutionality of continuing federal rent control has already been questioned and is now before the courts. The federal government does not wish to do anything to prevent any province from making provisions to deal with the situation that would arise should continuing federal rent control be held invalid and is prepared not only to make available to any province federal rental administration with all available staff, but also, subject to parliamentary approval, to pay the cost of any provincial rental administration for one year."
On January 28, 1949, you replied saying that "the government of Saskatchewan is desirous that the dominion government continue to exercise its jurisdiction in this field and to extend the legislation relating to rental control for at least another year". Similar replies were received from all the other provinces, except Newfoundland which, when it joined Canada, retained its own system of rent control.
Accordingly legislation extending rent control to March 31, 1950, was introduced into parliament and received approval.
On Thursday last, November 3, I made a statement in the House of Commons outlining the government's intentions with respect to the further extension of rent control. My statement will be found at page 1433 of Hansard for November 3.
In that statement I said:
"The government has therefore decided to refer the question of the validity of the rental regulations to the supreme court, in the hope and expectation that a decision will be given before the present legislation expires. As I have said, the law officers of the crown are of opinion that the rentals regulations are valid. They are also of opinion that both the law and the facts support the view that it lies within the authority of parliament to extend these regulations for a further period. Counsel will be instructed by the attorney general to press this view before the court. The order in council making the reference is being prepared and when approved will be tabled in this house.
If no unfavourable decision is given, the government at the next session will ask parliament to grant a further extension of the rentals regulations. The government intends to continue with its program of orderly decontrol as rapidly as conditions warrant, but we do not believe that this program can be completed before March 31, 1950. Let me make it quite clear that the purpose of clarifying the legal position is not to perpetuate federal rent control. On the contrary, the purpose is to confirm our authority to proceed in an orderly way towards the eventual withdrawal of all controls. This has been our firm policy towards wartime controls in general and rent control is no exception.
Should the supreme court find that the rentals regulations are now beyond the powers of parliament, then of course a different situation arises. I am accordingly writing at once to the premiers of the provinces acquainting them with our intention and offering to assist in the preparation of what might be termed "stand-by" legislation if they wrish to present such legislation to their respective legislatures.
After the most careful consideration of all the alternatives, the government believes that this course of action is the best. We believe that gradual and orderly decontrol is the right policy. At any time, however, that policy could be frustrated by an adverse decision of the courts. Such a decision might come at a most inconvenient time when the provinces might not be in a position to act as they see fit in the interests of their residents. By referring the question to the supreme court before the present legislation expires and by giving ample notice of our intention to do so, such a situation can, we hope, be avoided.
I should add that the federal government, of course, continues to stand ready at any time to vacate the field of rent control to any province which makes a formal request to that effect. We do not wish to stand in the way of any province which desires to operate in the field of rent control."
My purpose in writing to you at this time is to draw your attention to this statement of government policy and to offer to assist you in the preparation of provincial rent control legislation. If you wish to avail yourself of this offer, I shall be pleased to arrange to have Mr. Owen Lobley, the rentals administrator, put himself at your disposal.
Yours very truly,
D. C. Abbott
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, November 16, 1949 The Honourable Douglas C. Abbott,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Abbott:
Re: Rent control
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th instant.
I may say that the Saskatchewan government still holds the opinion expressed in my letter to you of January 28, 1949, that the dominion government should continue to exercise jurisdiction in the field of rent control. Dominion-wide control allows uniformity and other advantages. However, in view of the recent increases that you have announced, we are now of the opinion that if left in this type of dominion control, there will be no effective rent control. Further, you made the statement that:
"The government intends to continue with its program of orderly decontrol as rapidly as conditions warrant, but we do not believe that this program can be completed before March 31, 1950."

This confirms our belief that while your government intends, if jurisdictionally possible, to stay in the field, it will be in name only. The Saskatchewan government is gravely concerned with this problem, and feels that as long as there is as critical a shortage of housing as there is today, with the resultant grave injustice incurred by the people of this province, equitable rent control is a necessity.
We, therefore, believe that rental control should continue; we further believe that it would be most effective if dominion-wide, but as stated, we must express our dissatisfaction with the type of control that your government has indicated it intends to exercise. The government of Saskatchewan is, therefore, willing to accept the responsibility forced upon it and enter the field of rental control. It can, however, do this only if it has the assurance that its legislation will not be declared invalid by the Supreme Court of Canada. The law officers of the crown in Saskatchewan are not at all certain that either you, as the minister in charge, or the federal cabinet, has the power to carry out the offer made in your letter, and I quote:
"I should add that the federal government, of course, continues to stand ready at any time to vacate the field of rent control to any province which makes a formal request to that effect. We do not wish to stand in the way of any province which desires to operate in the field of rent control."
You can perhaps rescind all rent regulations in respect of Saskatchewan, and you can apparently, by order in council, vacate the field entirely. That is dominion-wide, but you do not appear to have authority to confer legislative jurisdiction on one province simply by executive action in rescinding regulations and orders respecting that province.
As a reference is being submitted to the supreme court, I would strongly urge your government to include in that reference a question that will settle this issue of power in yourself or the governor in council to confer legislative jurisdiction on a province by executive action designed to turn rent control over to that province.
It would seem that as long as the dominion has its present emergency legislation on the statute books, any single province, or any number of provinces less than all, is barred from the field.
In the tentative opinion our law officers have given, they have not overlooked the following provisions:
"4. The governor in council may revoke in whole or in part any order or regulation continued in force by or made under this act."
"3. (4) Every order made pursuant to the powers conferred by these regulations shall apply throughout Canada unless otherwise provided therein, but may apply to such area or areas in Canada or to such class or classes of persons or to such type or types of real property as such order may designate."
If, of course, the supreme court holds that jurisdiction lies in the provinces, none of these considerations will arise.
I would further strongly urge that until these matters have been settled, your government should rescind the recent increases announced and retain the status quo while these questions are being decided.
The Saskatchewan government, therefore, provided that this assurance of jurisdictional legality is given, would be prepared to enter the field of rent control. While we are at present preparing stand-by legislation, and while it would take some
Appendix
time to set up the necessary machinery, I would suggest the date of April 1, 1950, as the time at which we could be prepared to enter the field.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas MINISTER OF FINANCE
Ottawa, November 23, 1949 The Honourable T. C. Douglas,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
I wish to thank you for your prompt reply to my letter of November 9 regarding the future of rent control.
While the federal government has always believed that its wartime rent controls could not, and should not, be continued indefinitely, it recognized that some provinces might wish to enact measures of provincial rent control under the authority of section 92 of the British North America Act. For that reason the federal government, more than a year ago, offered to vacate the field in any province which wished to introduce its own legislation. This offer, as you know, was repeated again in my statement in the House of Commons on November 3.
You have now stated your intention to introduce legislation in Saskatchewan which will be effective as from April 1, 1950. The federal regulations are accordingly being amended to make them inoperative in Saskatchewan after March 31, 1950-or at an earlier date if that is your wish. There can then be no possible conflict between provincial and federal rental regulations in Saskatchewan, for ours will simply cease to be operative in that province. I am advised that there is no reasonable doubt regarding this point and that a reference to the supreme court is unnecessary.
You also asked that the recent amendments to the regulations which I announced on November 3 be suspended, pending clarification of the legal position and of the introduction by Saskatchewan of rent control legislation. As I have said, any doubt about the legal position seems to be without foundation. The federal government is, however, willing to amend orders 813 and 814 of the wartime prices and trade board, which provide for the changes recently announced, so as to make them inoperative in Saskatchewan. The status quo will therefore be maintained in Saskatchewan until provincial legislation comes into effect on or before April 1, 1950. You will understand, however, that this action was possible only because of your request to us to vacate the field and will be concurrent with an amendment to the federal rent control regulations which revokes them in their entirety in Saskatchewan as of March 31, 1950.
In other words, the position will be similar to what it would have been if your province had acted at an earlier date and was ready to put this legislation into effect now, with this exception, of course, that the federal regulations as they apply to Saskatchewan will remain as they are at the present time, unaffected by the changes recently announced, until your own legislation supersedes them.
Unless I hear from you to the contrary before December 1, I shall assume that these arrangements are acceptable to you. May I repeat my assurance that officials of the rentals administration will be ready to assist in the preparation of your legislation, should you desire them to do so.
Yours very truly,
D. C. Abbott
[Stage Direction]

Saturday, November 26, 1949