1949-11-04

COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Siuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table correspondence between Mr. F. A. McGregor and myself relating to his resignation, and correspondence dealing with the resignation of the deputy commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, Mr. Ian MacKeigan.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the resignation of a minister or a high official, letters are sometimes read. The minister has tabled the letters in this case. Could they be printed in Hansard so that hon. members might have access to them?


Mr. Howe:: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would have no objection to that, if it meets with-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Was there not a memorandum attached to Mr. McGregor's letter, and if so, is that also tabled?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, quite right; the memorandum is there.


Major James William Coldwell: Do we understand that all the correspondence is to be printed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the custom is to table letters of resignation. It is not the custom to print such correspondence in the records of the house. This is the resignation of an officer of a department. The letters have been tabled, and my hon. friend can get them from the Clerk.


Major James William Coldwell: Will they be printed in Hansard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I submit that this correspondence is of sufficient importance to justify its being printed in Hansard and made part of the record.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimous consent to have the documents printed in Hansard.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Is there any reason why they should not be read by the minister, if they are not printed in Hansard?


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: As one minister seems to have one idea in the matter, and another senior member has another, let us clarify the situation and get this group together as one unit. I think the Minister of Justice should clarify the situation. Let us have it.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am-


Donald MacInnis: In view of the fact that there is objection to placing the correspondence on Hansard, should it not be read to the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Donald MacInnis: In a case of this kind, where there is so much public opinion in regard to the matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, it is this. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me whether there was any objection so far as I was concerned to the publication of these letters in Hansard. My answer is that there is none.


Joseph Henry Harris: So far as the government is concerned.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just a moment. I understand, however, that before the letters can be published in Hansard as my hon. friend suggests, there has to be unanimous consent of the house, and as it is apparent that there is not unanimous consent, I am afraid it will not be possible to comply with the hon. member's request.


Major James William Coldwell: Who is objecting? Is it the understanding that there is unanimous consent to the tabling and printing of the documents?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is apparent that there is not unanimous consent of the house to have them printed in Hansard; therefore I cannot order that that be done.


Donald MacInnis: Who is objecting?


Mr. Mitchell:: I am.


Donald MacInnis: What are you hiding?


Humphrey Mitchell: On a point of privilege, the hon. member for Vancouver East has suggested I have something to hide.

Combines Investigation Act


Joseph Henry Harris: That would be something new.


Humphrey Mitchell: I ask him to withdraw that. At one time during the last war, as the hon. member tor Lake Centre will vividly recollect, I had twelve ranking civil servants resign in a week. The fact that a civil servant hands in his resignation does not necessarily mean that the correspondence must be put on the record.


Major James William Coldwell: Again I say that the officer who has resigned was the chief commissioner under one of the important acts of parliament, ranking as a deputy minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; there is nothing before the house. An announcement by a minister is not, strictly speaking, debatable.
[Later:!



QUESTION AS TO REPORTS ON INQUIRIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As reported on page 891 of Hansard of February 5, 1948, the then minister of justice, Mr. Ilsley, speaking in connection with the Combines Investigation Act, said:
. ^ can the house at the present time six major inquiries are being proceeded with, that the report in one case is expected before long and the other should be made within the next few months.
Has the minister received any other reports than the two already made public, and the third which is about to be made public? If so, what commodities or industries were reported on, and when were the reports received by the minister?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is no.


Mr. Knowles:: Is the Minister of Justice now in position to answer the question I asked yesterday, namely, the date on which the flour milling report was transmitted to the Minister of Justice by the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: December 29, 1948.


Mr. Church:: May I ask the Minister of Justice if this whole matter is not one of property and civil rights and employer and employee, which would come within the jurisdiction of the provinces and as such would not apply federally?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I understand my hon. friend's question correctly, my answer would be that it has been the view of lawyers that the Combines Investigation Act is perfectly within the powers of parliament to enact


under its control over the criminal law. I think I am right in stating that that has been so found by the privy council.


Thomas Langton Church: And for that reason it has failed.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Minister of Justice a question about the withholding from parliament of the report in connection with the flour milling industry which was received on December 29, 1948. What was the justification for withholding such a report, when under the statute it should be tabled in parliament within fifteen days? I see that is one of the reasons for Mr. McGregor's resignation, and I think the House of Commons is entitled to an explanation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that the hon. member's question is clearly one which, under the rules, cannot be asked on the orders of the day, especially without notice. Certainly it is a question which I could not answer within short compass. If my hon. friend will refer to the letter which I have written to Mr. McGregor in reply to his letter of resignation, he will find a condensed account, it is true, but nevertheless an explanation of the point that is bothering the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: The statute says that the House of Commons should have the report within a certain time. I ask why it was not tabled as required by statute.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: State your question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lake Centre has asked his question, and the Minister of Justice has given an answer. The answer may not be satisfactory to the hon. member, but the rules provide that a minister may even decline to answer a question, and of course no debate is allowed on an answer. I think the house will have to be satisfied with the answer which has been given.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Justice has said that the reasons are set forth in his communication. I submit that is all the more reason why these letters should be published in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NEW MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz.:
Of Marcel Monette, Esquire, for the electoral district of Mercier.
Of James M. Macdonnell, Esquire, for the electoral district of Greenwood.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: for leave to introduce Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This bill is designed to carry into effect three recommendations of the combines investigation commissioner which are designed to strengthen the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act and the related legislation contained in section 498 of the Criminal Code. The bill proposes no changes in the definition of offences or in the basic pattern of the legislation. It contains a number of provisions which are intended to remove certain procedural and evidentiary difficulties that have been encountered in combines proceedings, namely, difficulties arising out of the judgment of the Ontario court of appeal in the dental supplies case.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STEEL INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the government has noted certain news stories, particularly one which appeared on page 7 of the Montreal Gazette of this morning, foreshadowing the building of a fully integrated steel plant in the New England states to utilize iron ore from the newly-discovered deposits in Canada? Will the government consider taking all necessary steps to protect the interests of the Canadian people in the utilization of this great resource, and place before parliament proposals for the establishment of an efficient steel industry in this country for the utilization of Canada's iron ore?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have looked up the clipping
Inquiries of the Ministry referred to, and I notice that it deals with a statement by the vice-president of the federal reserve bank in Boston to the effect that an integrated steel mill will be built in the New England states. The report reads:
If and when such a mill is established, there's an immediate ore supply available from Belle isle, Newfoundland.
Then the report goes on to say that, later on, the mill will be able to get ore from Quebec. I can see no reason for objecting to the building of a fully integrated steel plant in the New England states. Iron ore mines in Newfoundland have been for many years supplying iron ore to Great Britain, Germany and other European countries. Those mines are also the sole suppliers of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, in Cape Breton. I am sure that if another outlet for the ore can be found we shall all be happy to see the Belle isle operation enlarged.
So far as the Labrador iron ore mines are concerned, I understand that the plans call for an initial production of 10 million tons of iron ore per year. I believe the total requirements of all Canadian steel mills total about 5,500,000 tons per year. It is obvious that our steel mills can be supplied with all the ore they require, and, if a new market convenient geographically to the mines is available, it would provide a desirable outlet for that ore.
We have an integrated steel industry in Canada, which has been expanded by nearly 100 per cent within the past ten years, and is still expanding. The Canadian industry obtains part of its iron ore requirements in Canada and part in the United States. Regardless of how much iron ore this country produced, our steel industry would continue to obtain its ore from both sources, because of the desirability of having a number of different types of iron ore with which to make the steel. Therefore, I see nothing alarming in this newspaper report, nothing that threatens in any way to jeopardize Canada's interests in iron ore or in steel.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Is the Minister of Justice in position to give us any report on the replies received from the provincial attorneys general in response to the inquiry he was making of them with respect to obscene literature and comics? Can he indicate when we can expect to be able to proceed with Bill No. 10?

Temiscouata Railway


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Having received notice of this question only about two minutes ago, I shall have to draw upon my memory in replying to it. The only acknowledgment to our letters of inquiry which we have received so far has been from Mr. Duplessis, premier of Quebec. It was merely an acknowledgment and an undertaking to go into the matter and advise us further.
In my letters to the provincial attorneys general I suggested that the matter was one of some urgency, and that we should like to have the replies as soon as possible. I even had the temerity to suggest that if possible we should get them not later than November 15.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (SI. John's West):: Arising out of the answer I received yesterday from the Minister of Public Works, I wish to ask him a supplementary question. I was inquiring as to the investigation that had taken place in Placentia, Newfoundland, with regard to a bridge over the gut there, and the answer I received was that a survey of the site and a preliminary report only had been made. Has any action been taken on that report since the investigation was made before May 27?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: If the hon. member will put his question on the order paper, I will endeavour to answer it.



TEMISCOUATA RAILWAY


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the purchase by the government of Canada of the Temiscouata railway and that the Minister of Finance may, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, pay any amounts, not exceeding in the aggregate four hundred and eighty thousand dollars, that are payable under the terms of an agreement dated the 14th day of October, 1949, between His Majesty the King in the right of Canada and the Temiscouata Railway Company at such times and in such manner as are set out in the agreement.


Mr. Green:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I might have the permission of the house to make my statement in committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Howard Charles Green: Pounds or dollars?


Lionel Chevrier: At the time that the pound was $4.80. I make that point now because at the time of purchase the bonds were valued at $2,362,000.


Howard Charles Green: Is that dollars or pounds?


Lionel Chevrier: That is dollars. No dividends have been paid on the capital Stock since issue, and no interest on the bonds since 1930. Prior to 1930 only partial interest was paid on the bonds. The operating results of the railway have not been good, particularly in the years 1943 ito 1948. I have a table which perhaps I might summarize fairly quickly. For instance, in 1943 operating revenues amounted to $319,000 and operating expenses to $304,000, but because of other expenses the net corporate income of the Temiscouata Railway Company was only $208. In 1944 the net income was $315. In 1945 there was a deficit of $272. In 1946 there was a net income of $9,821, and in 1947 a net income of $1,161. In 1948 there was a deficit of $156.
The traffic handled over the railway was small. I refer to the years 1943 to 1948. The total tonnage varied from 180,943 in 1943 to 192,081 in 1948. The greatest tonnage carried was in 1946, when it amounted to 202,223 tons. The forest products which originated on the line accounted for over eighty per cent of the freight traffic I have just mentioned. The number of passengers carried varied from 37,245 in 1943 to only 11,670 in 1948. The present train service consists of a mixed passenger and freight train on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday between Riviere du Loup and Edmundston, and freight service only between Edmundston and Connors.
It has been evident for quite some time, at least two years if not more, that the Temiscouata railway could not continue to operate under present conditions. It has been able to operate only through assistance given by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and also because of the willingness of the employees of that railway to accept subnormal wages.


Howard Charles Green: How many employees are there?


Lionel Chevrier: I am coming to that. The average number of employees in 1948 was 144, with a total pay roll of $258,702. If the wage rate of the Canadian National had been in effect, the pay roll would have been $399,490, an increase of $140,000, or 54 per cent.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Is it a standard gauge railway?


Lionel Chevrier: Temiscouata Railway
ac prices arrived at by negotiation with the interests holding the proprietarial rights, and they were incorporated in the Canadian government railways. Under the authority of chapter 16, 5 George V, acts of 1915, the government acquired some nine railway lines from private companies, totalling 407 miles, at an average cost per mile of $9,191. Under the authority of chapter 22, 6-7 George Y, acts of 1916, the government acquired two additional lines of railway totalling 97 miles, at an average cost of $37,048 per mile.
Then there is the position in reference to competition. Highway competition is quite keen in that area. Several highways parallel the Temiscouata railway and bus and truck services are operated in competition with it, which have contributed in no small measure to the falling off of both passenger and freight traffic.
After giving this matter careful consideration the government requested the Canadian National Railways to purchase the Temiscouata railway at a price not to exceed $500,000. The owners, represented by the bondholders' committee in London, England, held a meeting and accepted the offer made by the Canadian National on behalf of the government, and called a special general meeting of the shareholders for that purpose. Meanwhile an agreement was drafted between the government and the Temiscouata, both of which were ratified at the special general meeting. That is the agreement referred to in the resolution, dated October 14, 1949; and parliament is now being asked to sanction it.


Mr. Brooks:: What rolling stock is being taken over?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a lengthy list of locomotives, box cars, equipment and the like. I would have to get it for my hon. friend. I would be only making an estimate if I attempted to give the value now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was the value more than the quantity I wanted to get, in order to compare it with the cost of the railway.


Lionel Chevrier: Dealing with the value, perhaps I can say that twenty-five per cent of the bonded indebtedness amounted to $950,000. As I stated, the Canadian National was authorized to make an offer not exceeding $500,000. They were able to purchase it for $480,000. The house will be interested in knowing that current assets, less the current liabilities, amount to $137,000. Furthermore, the Canadian National Railways indicated to us that, as scrap, the railway was worth about $240,000; so that, with the $137,000 cash to which I have referred, the agreement is an excellent one, I should think. This is

particularly true when it is compared to the amount per mile which was paid for the other railways I mentioned.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is there any intention of scrapping any part of the railway? There is a rumor to that effect.


Lionel Chevrier: Not the slightest; it is intended to operate it.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I gather from the minister's remarks he expects this will mean another $20,000 loaded on to the Canadian National Railways operating deficit?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what the exact amount will be, but it might be in that neighbourhood.


Mr. Hatfield:: Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to improve that part of the railway from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston, and from Edmundston to Connors. I believe that portion of the railroad is the crookedest in the world. It goes around in circles. Is there any guarantee that the stations now on this route from Edmundston to Connors will not be closed? The transcontinental route parallels this part of the road from Connors to Edmundston.


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the first question, it is the intention of the Canadian National to spend substantial sums of money, but what those amounts are I am unable to tell the committee. It will take a considerable sum of money to put the railway in fair condition. I cannot answer the second question. I should not think it is the intention of the railway to close any stations-certainly not at this time.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Can the minister tell us how much the railway intends to spend on improvements? In my opinion the road from Riviere du Loup to Cabano could be eliminated. Cabano is the largest revenue-producing station on the route. I suppose the member for Temiscouata would object to that. From Riviere du Loup to Cabano the route goes through a wilderness, so it does not produce any revenue. The remainder of the route from Edmundston to Cabano and from Edmundston to Connors should be kept in operation as a feeder to the Canadian National Railways.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, apparently this is the first time in about thirty-three years that action of this kind has been taken. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I gathered from his remarks. I suggest to him that he agree to have the bill referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection.


Howard Charles Green: The minister says he has no objection to that course being followed. It may be that we are establishing a precedent here, and the facts indicated by the minister certainly seem to warrant some sort of inquiry. I understood him to say that the government had instructed the Canadian National Railways to purchase this line; is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, Canadian National Railways did not recommend that the line be taken over; that is correct?


Lionel Chevrier: I made my statement, and it is quite clear from what I said.


Howard Charles Green: In fairness to the Canadian National Railways I think it should be pointed out that if the Canadian National is expected to provide a service which cannot possibly pay its way, the cost will have to be borne by the Canadian people as a whole. It would not be fair to blame the Canadian National if they have a deficit on this line. I think this should be borne in mind. We cannot expect them to operate profitably when such a railway line is handed over to them by the government. Will the minister table the agreement? We have had no opportunity of seeing it or studying its terms. Is there any objection to that?


Lionel Chevrier: There is at this stage. The agreement forms a part of a bill, and the whole matter will be referred to the committee for discussion.


Mr. Sinnoti:: We are dealing with a half million dollars now; can the minister tell us what has been the deficit of this railway line over the last five years?


Lionel Chevrier: It is on the record.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: From the statement of the minister it would appear this has been an unprofitable railway line, but probably a necessary railway operation. It would appear also that other railways have been taken over because they have been unprofitable to operate. I should like to ask the minister whether it is proposed to take over any other lines of railway that have been profitable over the years. I refer to two in my county, one running from Maccan to Joggins, and the other from Springhill Junction to Parrsboro. These lines have been operating at a profit for a good many years. The shippers have had to pay local freight rates which are excessive in comparison with what is paid for the same mileage on lines operated by the Canadian National.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of any other lines that are being taken over-certainly not at this session.
Temiscouata Railway


Mr. Sinclair:: I am more interested in the measure concerning the Pacific Great Eastern than I am with the Temiscouata railway. The Canadian National is taking over the Temiscouata railway but has refused on various occasions to take over the Pacific Great Eastern. May I ask the minister if the reason for this difference in approach is the fact that the Temiscouata railway already connects with the Canadian National, whereas the Pacific Great Eastern does not?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that enters into the picture. Perhaps I should say this to my hon. friend, that one is a provincial railway and the other is a railway which was authorized by the parliament of Canada. It is easier, of course, to take over a railway which connects at both ends with lines of the Canadian National, as does the Temiscouata. It connects at the northerly end with the Canadian National transcontinental, and at its southerly end with another line of the Canadian National at Edmundston. While that is not the only reason, it might well be one reason.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not believe the minister informed us as to the original capitalization of the Temiscouata Railway Company.


Lionel Chevrier: I did say that the share capital authorized at first was ten thousand shares at $100 each.


Major James William Coldwell: How much was paid up?


Mr. Poulioi:: None.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Major James William Coldwell: What is to be the disposition of this $480,000?


Lionel Chevrier: It is to be paid to the bondholders' committee in London who represent the holders of the mortgage bonds.


Major James William Coldwell: So we are really buying at a bankrupt price a railway that is insolvent?


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Major James William Coldwell: Are we? That is the question I am asking.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think we are doing that, because the assets have some value. As I mentioned a moment ago, even if the railway were to be scrapped today; it is valued at some $240,000 or $250,000; and there are

Temiscouata Railway
assets, the equivalent of cash, of some $136,000. The railway is therefore worth something as a going concern.


Major James William Coldwell: But we are not paying the full value of the original bond issue?


Lionel Chevrier: No. The offer which was made was twenty-five per cent of this value of $2,800,000, and the purchase price was, roughly speaking, twenty per cent of that, namely, $480,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Was this agreement put through before the depreciation of the pound sterling?


Lionel Chevrier: The agreement was put through before the depreciation of the pound sterling-I speak now from memory; but the agreement provides for payment in Canadian dollars.


Donald MacInnis: I was called out just as the minister began to make his statement, and perhaps he has covered the point I have in mind. If the Canadian National Railways buy this railroad, will it be self-supporting from an operating point of view? Is the amount that we are to pay for the Temiscouata railway more or less than the estimated value of the present assets of the railway?


Lionel Chevrier: To answer the first question, the railway is barely self-supporting now, from the figures which I gave. For instance, I indicated that in the year 1943 the net corporate income was $208, and in 1948 the net corporate income showed a deficit of $156. But it is hoped that it may be made profitable.


Howard Charles Green: They are going to have to pay higher wages, are they not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. As to the second question of the hon. member (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had already asked the same question, and I answered it. My hon. friend will find the answer on the record.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask if a
valuation was made of the physical assets?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes-$240,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other words there is not much good will, is there?


Lionel Chevrier: When I say $240,000 I mean that the Canadian National Railways put that value on it for scrap purposes: if the railway were scrapped at a certain time in 1949, it would be worth $240,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hope that it will not be thought that I am opposing this measure. I gather the reason for it to be that there are some people who are served by this line-


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -and that you are anxious to continue that service to those people. That is the main reason for this measure.


Lionel Chevrier: That is one reason.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It will be a feeder road to the Canadian National.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will explain what the Temiscouata railway is. There are two arteries of the Canadian National Railways from Quebec city to the maritimes. One is the old Intercolonial, alongside the St. Lawrence river, and the other is the Transcontinental railway, which follows the Saint John river. Between them is the Temiscouata railway, which is the last link to the east between the Transcontinental railway and the Intercolonial railway. It starts at Riviere du Loup, a town of about 9,000 on the shore of the St. Lawrence, and goes direct to Edmundston. It covers a . distance of eighty-one miles to Edmundston on the Saint John river, just across from the state of Maine. Then the railway follows the Saint John river to the west; it goes from north to south, from Edmundston to Riviere du Loup and then goes west to Connors. The whole length of the railway line is approximately 113 miles.
The Temiscouata railway has received a good deal of help from the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific in the way of freight rate reduction. The proportion of freight rate allowed by the major railway companies to the Temiscouata railway was larger, just to give some help and to permit the Temiscouata railway to keep going. It is important to realize that both great railway companies have understood the necessity of the Temiscouata railway, and have made certain sacrifices in order to help it. The Temiscouata railway celebrates its diamond jubilee this year; it is the sixtieth anniversary of its establishment. It has given valuable service to a population which is much larger than the minister has indicated. It helps the whole county of Temiscouata, the population of which is 50,000; and it also helps the county of Madawaska, the population of which is
35,000	or 40,000.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton suggested that the section from Riviere du Loup to Cabano should be dispensed with. In saying that he has proved that he is a great humorist. I could not take him seriously when he said that, because he knows the country, and he knows as well as anyone else that the Temiscouata railway is rendering great service to the population.

For instance, we might speak about the competition of trucks. We can put a great deal of furniture in a truck, but no one thinks of putting telegraph and telephone poles in trucks.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: In my district we regard that railway essential for heavy traffic. We need the railway. There are big industries in this area. Fraser Companies Limited have big mills at Cabano and Notre Dame du Lac. A large manufacturing plant of shoe-trees is at Notre Dame du Lac. There are many mills at Cabano and in the back country at Squatteck and in all the other places. They are all dependent on the Temiscouata railway.
I must pay a special tribute to those who built the Temiscouata railway. They had the spirit of the pioneers. It was a long time ago. The financing was done with English capital. I might explain to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that no shares were paid; the shares were there just for the picture in the financing until subsidies were paid by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald and other governments in the old days. Those shares were transferred as a collateral guarantee until the subsidy came. The Temiscouata railway was built, as were most railways of the time, by British capital and Canadian subsidies, because the shrewd English businessmen and the far-seeing politicians of the time understood the necessity for railways. Let me tell my hon. friend that the policy of Cartier, one of the great men of the Conservative party, was a policy of railways. He said: my policy, my program, is railways-and they must know it.
Here we have a railway which has rendered good service under unfortunate circumstances, and precisely because shares were not paid in full, as they should have been, it incurred hardships. The population needs the railway. I could show my hon. friend many resolutions passed by county councils asking for immediate consideration of this matter by the government. A delegation of big businessmen and lumbermen came here from my district to urge upon the minister and the government the importance of taking immediate action in connection with this railroad.
Now the time has come. I must express the appreciation of my constituents and of those of Madawaska to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and all members of the government who have understood the seriousness of the situation and have decided that the Temiscouata railway should at once be placed under the control of the Canadian National Railways.
The area east of Quebec has been forgotten for a long time; only those places near
Temiscouata Railway
Montreal had a chance. Now, however, the men we have in power have an understanding of the situation and are taking the necessary measures to put the Temiscouata railway on the map.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has taken them a long time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, it has taken a long time. As I said the other day, we have a new era, and I am glad we have a new leader. With the old one my people would never have got it.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport and all those who are helping to complete the settlement of this important question. The other day I invited the hon. member for Cape Breton South to come to my constituency by automobile, and said I would drive him there. But if he comes next summer-either he or any of my colleagues-they will be welcomed in Temiscouata, and we shall all have a good ride on the Temiscouata railway.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I am in favour of the government's taking over this road. I believe that for the sake of the Canadian National Railways it could be made a paying feeder line. The Temiscouata railway gave over all the Edmundston part of their freight to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. I do not suppose they will permit the giving of any freight to the Canadian Pacific now; they will take all the freight that accumulates on this feeder road.
This is a feeder for the Canadian National, and I am in favour of it. But I do not see the advantage of maintaining the road from Riviere du Loup to Cabano, because I do not think there is any feeder freight in that district. Notre Dame du Lac and Cabano are big feeders on this road.


Howard Charles Green: Had there ever been a previous application to have this road taken over by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, on many occasions, by the manager of the Temiscouata railway. I speak concerning the last three years.


Howard Charles Green: Any earlier than that?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of any earlier than that.


Howard Charles Green: With whom were the negotiations carried on?


Lionel Chevrier: There were no negotiations. On several occasions the manager of the Temiscouata railway came to my office to tell me that if he did not have additional assistance he would have to throw up his hands. Following that, representations were made both to the Canadian National and to the Canadian Pacific to go to the assistance of the Temiscouata railway, which they did.

Temiscouata Railway


Howard Charles Green: But neither of them would take it over?


Lionel Chevrier: Neither of them would take it over. The assistance which was given, as I said a moment ago, amounted to about $75,000, and was divided at the rate of two-thirds by the Canadian National and one-third by the Canadian Pacific. While it helped, it was not sufficient.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the people in the district in question are entitled to the services of the Temiscouata railway. It does seem to me, however, a tragedy that in the past thirty-three years we have had to load up the Canadian National Railways with other lines which had been established under private enterprise and ran into difficulties. My point is that in such cases the deficits should not be loaded on the Canadian National Railways. If the management of the Canadian National states that it does not wish to take the railway over, then, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the government should make provision for any deficit so that it would not stand as a further deficit on the Canadian National Railways. That system today is responsible for capital expenditures which should be removed from it. I believe this is a matter which is under consideration by the government, and I hope something substantial may be done about it in connection with another resolution which is on the order paper.
Apparently there are other railways in the same position. One hon. member this afternoon mentioned a railway in his constituency which he would like to see taken over-and he added that it was a profitable one. In any event, in circumstances such as these the losses should be segregated from those of the national railways as a whole.


Lionel Chevrier: The question raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, is a difficult one. If we do it in this case, we have to do it in all others. Under these circumstances we would find the estimate book cluttered up with items for railway services operating at a deficit, of which there are two or three or more at the present time. This is a matter concerning which advice is being sought by the government from the royal commission on transportation, and I hope it will be able to bring in some recommendation which will be of assistance. Whether or not it would be desirable to segregate losing projects from the general operations of the Canadian National Railways is a question to which I believe the commission is giving study. It is a

problem which I am pleased to have raised at this time, but one which certainly cannot be solved in the resolution before us.


Howard Charles Green: Was the question of the purchase of this railway referred to the royal commission? The government has now embarked upon a new policy, at the very time when a royal commission is investigating the whole transportation structure in Canada. One of the things the commission was to investigate was the financial position of the Canadian National Railways. Yet here is a railway, which certainly will operate at a loss, and which is being loaded on to the Canadian National. Was the question of this purchase referred to the royal commission?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Mr. Hodgson:: Will the wages of the men now employed on the Temiscouata railway be increased to compare with those of other railway men in Canada, after the line is taken over?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that that is the intention of the Canadian National, once the railway is given to them for operation.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: I think many hon. members forget that all of these railroads were subsidized at some time or other, if not by this government at least by the various provincial governments. There is not a railroad in Canada that has not received assistance from the public treasury. The Canadian National has been referred to as a tremendous organization that took over a number of bankrupt or semi-bankrupt railroads some years ago, but the fact remains that all those railroads that were taken over had rendered great service in developing this country.
They made it possible for settlers to get into remote areas and develop the resources of the country. The fact that some of them fell upon evil days does not mean that they were not of great service to the country. The railroad now being considered has operated for sixty years in a very difficult part of Canada and no doubt has rendered great service. We seem to be in a sort of socialist era and I think the best thing to do would be to amalgamate these railroads, get them all under one management. I believe that this particular railroad could be brought under Canadian National management and with the resultant reduction of overhead and management costs it might pay its way very handsomely. I am much in support of the minister's bill.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am more or less in agreement with what the hon. member for Cariboo has said. No doubt a great

deal of the development in Canada has come out of the treasury of Canada through the cost of these different units which have been amalgamated and which are now known as the Canadian National Railways. To keep this matter apart, to put it on a separate basis, would make simply another entity, another downpipe into which this chamber would have to pour more and more funds.
All of us on all sides of the house must assume our responsibility for having formed these different railroad entities into the one organization. However, it is much easier to control one organization than it is to control two or three. I am of the opinion that we are caught with this. I am of the opinion that there are people along these lines who look to this organization to give them service, and I do not know if there is much we can do about it.
I suggest to the hon. member for Cariboo that there is no other organization better able to meet the problem set out in this bill than the Canadian National Railways. It has been my privilege in days gone by to criticize the management of that railroad for extravagance and other things, but let us be sensible. What else can we do? Is it not much easier for us to sit here and criticize one unit than it would be to deal with three or four units? Let us concentrate our efforts on keeping this Canadian National organization on an orderly footing. If all these units are split up it is likely to throw the whole country into a state of chaos. Let us co-ordinate all these activities, admitting all the time that we are in a mess, admitting all the time that we are in financial difficulties with regard to the ever-mounting cost of our railroads. At the same time we should keep together and see if we cannot tear down an edge here or an edge there and make it as economical an operation as possible for those who have to pay the cost, namely, the people of Canada.


John Lambert Gibson: Is there a road paralleling this railroad?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a highway paralleling the railroad. This railroad joins the Intercolonial with the Canadian National.


John Lambert Gibson: I was thinking that perhaps the hon. member should go to the premier of Quebec and have a highway constructed so that these lumber products could be brought out to the railhead at the other end. In British Columbia we truck 40 or 50 tons of logs as far as 50 miles. We find it much cheaper to do it that way than to put them on railroad cars. In fact, we consider that railroad cars are obsolete.
Temiscouata Railway
What I am afraid of is that in taking over this railroad we are assuming an obligation of $200,000 a year in perpetuity. I would hate to think that was the case. Would there not be a possibility of the lumbermen changing their type of operations down there? I can understand how they have been most useful to the economy of the country, but it seems to me that we are paying a rather heavy bonus when we assume this obligation in perpetuity.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni might apply if the railroad remained in the position in which it is, but if the road is taken over it is quite possible that with improved equipment it might be operated profitably. I am looking forward hopefully to that happening.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not more likely that in addition to assuming the annual deficit the Canadian National Railways will have to make considerable capital expenditures? The minister has told us that he cannot give us any idea as to how much money will be spent by way of capital expenditures, but I think he should be able to tell us how much it is going to cost. The government must have some idea of how much will have to be paid out.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course the Canadian National will have to pay out a certain amount of capital at this time if the railroad is to be put in shape. In so far as the exact figures are concerned, if I am to give the figures we had better not refer the bill to a house committee but deal with it in committee of the whole. However, if the bill were sent to the committee these figures could be got firsthand. I can give them in a general way, but I think it would be more satisfactory to have them supplied in committee.


Howard Charles Green: Why not let us have them now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the resolution.


Lionel Chevrier: If the bill is referred to the committee they can be given there.


Mr. Murphy:: In answering a question
asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar I believe, the minister said that the capitalization-I may be wrong about this- of this railroad was a million shares. I understood from an earlier statement that it was
10,000	shares.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as the stock capital is concerned, it is 10,000 shares of $100 par value or a capitalization of $1 million. The bonded capital is $2,800,000.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I understood in answering the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the minister said one million shares.
1448	HOUSE OF
Pacific Great Eastern Railway


Lionel Chevrier: That was an error and I thank the hon. gentleman lor bringing it to my attention.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 145, respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to grant to the province of British Columbia a subsidy of $15,000 per mile, but not exceeding eighty-two and seven-tenths miles, towards the construction of a line of railway from Quesnel to Prince George in the province of British Columbia.
He said: May we proceed in the same manner on this resolution?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is to grant to the province of British Columbia, the owners and operators of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, a subsidy of $15,000 per mile for the construction of an extension from Quesnel to Prince George, the extension not to exceed eighty-two and seven-tenths miles. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company was incorporated in 1912 under charter granted by the government of the province of British Columbia. The charter provided for the construction of a railway from Vancouver along Howe Sound to Squamish, thence to Lillooet on the Fraser river, and then following the direction of the Fraser river to Prince George. A later provision was for a line from Prince George to a point in the Peace river block with the intention of connecting with the present Northern Alberta Railways.
The reasons for the construction of the Pacific Great Eastern were: (1) to provide an independent or direct route for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the city of Vancouver; (2) to open the central portion of British Columbia; and (3) to provide an outlet for the Peace river country through Vancouver. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway purchased the Howe Sound and Northern Railway, which operated a line of railway from North Vancouver along Howe sound a


distance of seven miles, and extended it to Whytecliff, making a total distance of 12-7 miles. The connecting line to Squamish was never completed.
Major construction started from Squamish, and was slow owing to difficult construction conditions. It was further prolonged by reason of the war. By 1917 approximately 180 miles north from Squamish were completed when construction virtually stopped. In 1918 the government of the province of British Columbia acquired ownership of the railway and undertook to complete construction and operate the road. By 1919 the line was extended 211 miles from Squamish, of which 180 miles were operated. Construction was continued until 1922 when the line was completed and in operation from Squamish to Quesnel, a distance of 347-8 miles. Some construction was undertaken beyond Quesnel, but this section was not operated. In 1929 operation was discontinued on the section from North Vancouver to Whytecliff. The line between Squamish and Quesnel has been continuously operated by the British Columbia government.
The government of that province has decided to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway by the construction of a line from the present terminus at Quesnel to connect with the Canadian National Railways at Prince George, a distance of 82-7 miles. The estimated capital cost of the extension is $8 million, or an average cost per mile of approximately $96,700. The construction of this extension will provide traffic for the railway and assist in developing the natural resources in the area consisting of large tracts of timber suitable for lumber, newsprint, pulpwood and plywood, mining possibilities, sections of agricultural and grazing lands, hydroelectric power potentialities, and sport and recreational attractions. The government of the province of British Columbia is proposing to develop hydro power in the Quesnel area, and the establishment of a pulp and paper business there. The government of the province of British Columbia has solicited dominion aid in the construction of this railway extension, and the resolution would authorize the governor in council to grant to the government of the province of British Columbia a subsidy of $15,000 per mile towards the construction of the extension, not exceeding 82-7 miles in length. The total subsidy payable would amount to $1,240,500.
There is a precedent for this practice. In 1913 the government proceeded in the same manner for the Ontario Northland Railway, and paid a subsidy of $6,400 per mile. The act, which was assented to on the 6th of June, 1913, provided for the payment of that subsidy for certain portions of the line as mentioned

therein. If hon. members of the house are interested in looking at the precedent, the act is to be found in 3 and 4 George V, chapter 53, 1913.


Joseph Henry Harris: That was not the
name of the line at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: No; the name of the line at that time was the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway. I am informed that the name has since been changed to Ontario Northland Railway, and that it is operated by the Ontario northland commission.
The resolution seeks the approval and sanction of parliament for the payment of this subsidy.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, as the member for the riding in which the southern terminus of this railway is situated, I feel I should say a word or two on the resolution. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway occupies a position in the province of British Columbia quite similar to that occupied by the Canadian National Railways in Canada. While the railway is now publicly owned by the province, it was not built by public ownership but rather privately. The securities were guaranteed by the province. When the company failed the province had to take over the railway and operate it.
It has not been a very profitable operation for the province. On the contrary it has been the largest single item of expense in the provincial budget. I believe that the people of British Columbia now have over $100 million invested in the line. The main reason for this railway being a losing proposition is the fact that it is isolated. The people of British Columbia often describe it as the railway which starts nowhere and ends nowhere. The hon. member for Cariboo, who represents the village of Quesnel in the northern section served by the railway, and I, representing the village of Squamish at the southerly end, might quarrel with this description, but the fact remains that the Pacific Great Eastern Railway does not connect with any other railway on this continent.
The original intent behind the railway was, however, a good one. The existing railway lines in British Columbia generally all run east and west. The most southerly line is the Kettle valley line of the C.P.R. which enters British Columbia at the Crowsnest pass just north of the United States border, and continues across British Columbia skirting that border. The main line of the C.P.R. comes into the Kicking Horse pass a little west of Banff, proceeds to Kamloops, and then down the Thompson and Fraser rivers to Vancouver. The next line, which is a part of the Canadian National system, is the old Canadian Northern line which, at Jasper, goes 45781-921
Pacific Great Eastern Railway through the Yellowhead pass, and then to Kamloops and down the same route as the C.P.R. The old Grand Trunk line, now also a part of the Canadian National system, goes through the Yellowhead pass and proceeds straight west to the ocean port of Prince Rupert. The promoters of the P.G.E. therefore believed that there was an opportunity for a north-south line, cutting across these other lines and stretching from Vancouver into the northeast corner of the province, the area commonly called the Peace river block.
The railway was actually begun in the city of North Vancouver, which is on the north shore of Vancouver harbour; and, as the minister said, it continued some thirteen miles to the community of Whytecliff. Twenty miles of mountainous country then intervened, and no attempt was made to build the railway over that area. A new start was made at the small village of Squamish, at the head of Howe sound; and, as the minister stated, some 347 miles of railway were built in a general northeasterly direction, through the Lillooet country, through the Cariboo country, to the town of Quesnel. As the minister said, the ultimate hope was to connect with the northern line of the Canadian National at Prince George, which is roughly in the centre of our province though we generally think of it as in northern British Columbia.
One of the difficulties faced by the P.G.E., of course, is the fact that because of its isolation, because neither its terminal at Squamish nor the terminal at Quesnel has any other railway serving it, it has not had the traffic which it might expect. At various times various provincial premiers have tried to sell the P.G.E., either to private railway lines or to the Canadian Pacific or to the Canadian National. These latter two lines never showed much interest in it, no doubt for the reason that it did not connect with the existing Canadian National or Canadian Pacific systems. When Byron Johnson became premier of British Columbia in 1947 he declared that if he could not sell the P.G.E. he would try to complete it, so we would not have it as a white elephant on our hands for all time. The northern gap between Quesnel and Prince George now is being completed, a distance of some 82 miles through country fortunately not as difficult as the southern end. The estimated cost of completing this gap is around $8 million. When completed it will give the P.G.E. its first link with some outside railway line, connecting as it will with the Canadian National transcontinental system to Prince Rupert at the town of Prince George. This will help the P.G.E. and also the C.N.R.,

Pacific Great Eastern Railway which will then have an exclusive opportunity to carry on its lines the traffic coming from the great Cariboo country.
Having announced this plan and construction having actually started, Premier Johnson then asked for federal assistance. I was very glad to give him what support I could. He first asked for an interest-free loan for the period of construction of the line, to commence bearing interest once the line was in operation. It was not thought desirable to set a precedent like that but, as the minister has just pointed out, it was found that in 1912 or 1913 the federal government of the day did help the government of Ontario with a subsidy of $6,400 a mile in the construction of the T. & N.O. railway. I think hon. members will agree that a subsidy of $6,400 a mile at that time would be at least equivalent to a subsidy of $15,000 a mile in these times.
As I have said, upon completion of this construction the P.G.E. will extend from the sea at Squamish to Prince George. That will be of great assistance to the Canadian National Railways, because it will mean opening up all central British Columbia as a traffic tributary to the northern line of that railway. The federal government, however, is giving still more assistance than this. It is expected that a greatly increased amount of traffic will flow south to Squamish when this new territory between Quesnel and Prince George is tapped. When the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) speaks I am sure he will detail the many resources of that area, where there are a great number of small sawmills, as just one example. So larger docking facilities will be required at Squamish, particularly an assembly dock at which the output of these small mills can be collected and sorted for deep-sea shipment to export markets. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was very helpful in this respect. In the supplementary estimates this fall the Department of Public Works has included an initial appropriation of $100,000 for the construction of such as assembly dock, the total cost of which is estimated at half a million dollars.
The P. G. E., of course, will never be a profitable operation until the other gap is also completed, that is the gap between the village of Squamish and the city of Vancouver. This is not included in the present plans. The country between Squamish and North Vancouver is quite mountainous; construction would be extremely expensive at this time, and present traffic would scarcely warrant it. However, Premier Johnson has announced that he will build a highway between Squamish and North Vancouver, so this railway at least will have a bus and truck outlet from its terminal at Squamish to the city of North Vancouver.

I want to warn hon. members, however, that when this subsidy of $15,000 a mile for this construction is passed, I do not think it will be the last time this house will be asked to help in the extension of the P.G.E. Premier Johnson's avowed purpose in connection with that railway is to do what was originally intended; that is, push it through the Rocky mountains into the Peace river block, where there is great traffic in wheat and in the finest anthracite coal in Canada, and where there are also potential oil fields. At the present time the Peace river block of Alberta and British Columbia is served by the Northern Alberta railway; but from the town of Prince George in British Columbia to Dawson Creek at the end of the line, traffic now must travel back to Edmonton for a total of 947 miles. In other words, wheat moving to Prince Rupert has to travel this distance of 947 miles, whereas the actual distance between the two points is only 160 miles. Completion of the next link between Prince George and Dawson Creek will shorten the rail haul from the Peace river block to the Pacific coast by some 750 miles. At the present time the provincial government is building a road between Prince George and the Peace river block, but heavy freight such as wheat and coal will never be moved efficiently by truck; it will require a railroad.
Once that is done, of course, there will be need for much greater port facilities at the town of Squamish, including grain elevators and coal docks. In addition, this will provide sufficient traffic to justify the construction of the last link between Squamish and North Vancouver.
As the minister pointed out, this railway has trackage facilities within the city of North Vancouver, and eventually there is no doubt that this last twenty miles between Squamish and Vancouver will be bridged by a railway not along the sea but down Capi-lano valley following the old logging railways into North Vancouver. This will be of very great importance to our own system, the Canadian National, because it will mean a three-way link with that system: a link at Vancouver, a link up in Prince George, and then a link away up in the Peace river country, with the Northern Alberta railway. It will give the Canadian National traffic in British Columbia which that line has never had.
I want to just mention this briefly, because when we are passing this appropriation I think we should be fully aware of all the implications, since we are committing ourselves to a policy of subsidizing the extension of this provincial railway. Today British Columbia is pretty well a C.P.R. preserve as far as the most lucrative freight traffic

is concerned. The Canadian Pacific were first in the field, of course. When they came in with their main line to Port Moody, on Burrard inlet, they soon found they could do better if they moved further down, so they extended their main line 13 miles to the present site of the city of Vancouver. Nowhere along that waterfront are the C.P.R. lines more than 50 yards from the water, so they have a monopoly of the service on the Vancouver waterfront. As a matter of fact almost all the waterfront was owned by the Canadian Pacific. Since 1886 they have sold some of it to private concerns and some to the national harbours board, but the fact remains that as far as the south shore of Vancouver harbour is concerned it is pretty well a C.P.R. preserve. They got more than that. To make quite sure nobody else would have an approach to Vancouver they built a spur to the city of New Westminster, then came down the Fraser river to encircle Vancouver, so the city is completely surrounded by the railway. On the other hand the closest the Canadian National comes to Vancouver is some 15 miles, on the other side of the Fraser river at Port Mann. Our national railway actually has to come in over a United States line to reach the terminal in Vancouver; and that terminal is not on the waterfront. However, the national harbours board has a harbour board railway which does connect with the C.N.R. and go over to the north shore of the harbour.
The early leaders of the C.P.R. had thought they had completely bottled up Vancouver by having the Vancouver side of the harbour and the Fraser river as C.P.R. domain. They had forgotten that eventually a bridge would be built across the harbour to North Vancouver. The members from that area will recall how the C.P.R. blocked as determinedly as possible the construction of a railway bridge and the Lions Gate bridge. Those bridges were built and the harbour board railway does form a link over to North Vancouver. It connects with the P.G.E. North Vancouver yards.
I intend to advocate strongly that the Canadian National take over the Vancouver harbour board railway, so that the Canadian National will have the same domain on the north shore of Vancouver harbour that the C.P.R. has on the south shore. I am glad to say that this shore is now principally owned by the national harbours board. Then, when the P.G.E. links North Vancouver with Squamish, the Canadian National will not only have the north shore of Vancouver harbour as its domain, but it will have a profitable feeder line striking up through central British Columbia tapping the Lillooet and Cariboo district and linking it with the
Pacific Great Eastern Railway Canadian National at Prince George. It will link this part of British Columbia with the Peace river country by means of the main line of the Canadian National and the Northern Alberta Railways. This profitable line should then be bought from the people of
B.	C. by the C.N.R.
This investment which we are now making in the P.G.E. has long been needed. I believe it will be well worth while. Premier Johnson is to be congratulated on being the provincial premier who, at last, is doing something positive about the P.G.E. I think this federal government is to be congratulated also on helping him in this effort to expand the P.G.E.


Donald MacInnis: I cannot do better, Mr. Chairman, than to begin with the remark that was made by the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) about this subsidy, that is that the house should be aware of all the implications of the subsidy we are now giving. I believe both political parties in British Columbia are committed to the building of this line, that is the coalition and the
C.	C.F., but, I think, we should be aware of the tremendous financial obligation the province is assuming in undertaking to build and operate this railway. The member for Coast-Capilano said the road has been a white elephant ever since it was first operated. I am of the opinion that it will still be a white elephant when this section of the road is built from Quesnel to Prince George.
I cannot see any possibility of the road paying for itself. I was rather surprised at the estimate for the construction of the eighty-two miles which, if I recall correctly, was approximately $8 million. I am not an engineer, but I am doubtful, having in mind the estimates for other construction work that I recall, that this estimate will prove large enough to complete the road. Even after this portion is completed and the road is in operation, a very large amount of money will be required to put the first part of the road in proper operating shape. The part of the road which is now operating is not a class one railway. I do not know how railways are classified, but I would say that this would be a class three or four railway. Trains can proceed only at a snail's pace. The rails are light, and before the road can operate properly the section between Quesnel and Squamish wiR have to be rebuilt.
I saw an estimate of the cost of that reconstruction-I am not giving it as a correct estimate-$50 million. Then, the section from Squamish to North Vancouver will be a very costly section to build. In addition to the difficulties of the terrain, there is the objection of the residents in that area to having the railroad go through the residential

Pacific Great Eastern Railway district. Perhaps one could call that a political difficulty in a certain sense, not in a party sense, but that political objection may prove more difficult to overcome than the cutting of the route through the rock. Those are important facts that we should keep in mind when we are discussing this subsidy.
I believe the financial possibilities of the P.G.E. can be understood from the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that John Hart, when he was premier of the province of British Columbia, tried many times to dispose of the road to the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific, and to United States interests. Now, anything that John Hart could not sell must have something wrong with it, because he is an able and a persuasive negotiator. If he could not get you to buy something it was because the intrinsic value was not there. He failed to get a buyer for the road.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Or to give it
away.


Donald MacInnis: Someone has said he failed to give it away: I do not know, that may also be true. As I have said, I believe the building and operation of this railroad is beyond the financial capacity of the province of British Columbia. I am sure that sooner or later we shall find that out. There is a large investment there now but it will be a still larger investment eventually, and some day this government will have to step in and take over that road. We might as well face that today as face it in five or ten years' time.
Why do I say it is beyond the capacity of the province of British Columbia? I admit at once the possible wealth of the area that is going to be tapped by the present extension- Quesnel to Prince George. Perhaps there is still greater wealth in the section-Prince George to the Peace river country. I believe that Canadian railways are going to be in a difficult position in the next few years. This is important for us as members of parliament, because if there is any country in the world in which railroads are essential, it is Canada. Owing to the commodities that are carried over our railways and the size of the country, railways in Canada are essential. Then we must make up our minds about one or two things. Either we are going to pay subsidies to our railways so that they can operate, or we are going to provide revenue for the purpose by higher rates. Here is where we meet the greatest difficulty: The competition facing railroads is increasing every day. The bus, freight truck and air line are faster and more mobile than the railways. The result is that they are taking the cream of the passenger, express and freight traffic. The only thing that goes over the railways is the long haul, heavy

material that cannot be carried easily by truck or aeroplane. All the good paying freight, express and passenger traffic now moves over the transportation systems I have mentioned. As roadbuilding is improved-and there has been considerable improvement in roadbuilding in British Columbia during the past three or four years and there will be more in the future-that competition will increase.
I think the time has arrived when this government and the government of British Columbia should be realistic in the matter and start discussions with the Canadian National Railways. I think some arrangements should be made with the Canadian National Railways with the view of that company taking over the Pacific Great Eastern railway. As I said, we shall have to subsidize the railroads in any case. I think probably the ultimate solution is to co-ordinate all railroads and air traffic and have one complete system. That perhaps is in the future, but may not be so far in the future as we think. Before we put much more money into subsidies I think we should know exactly what we are doing, where we are heading and what the ultimate cost is going to be.


George Matheson Murray: As the member for the district through which the northern reaches of the P.G.E. are being extended I suppose it would be my duty to say something in support of this measure. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano has ably and brilliantly set out most of the facts and I would be duplicating what has already been said if I went over the early history of that railway. It was launched by the Conservative government of British Columbia and by a distinguished statesman, the late Sir Richard McBride. Although I happen to be identified with the opposing party, the longer I live the greater appreciation I have of the splendid vision and the statesmanlike character of the late Sir Richard McBride. It is true that there have been deficits and that the railway is not in a flourishing condition. Yet last year it paid $1 million in revenue, paid its operating expenses and paid for extensive improvements as well on the short section of it which is now built. But it stands as a living memorial to those who built it, and a rebuke to those who procrastinate, who are afraid to move forward, who see all the hazards and difficulties in that part of the country but have not the enthusiasm and youth of my friend the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, and the courage to step forward with a project which was well thought out in the beginning and which within the lives of men in this parliament will prove to be one of the greatest assets in the Dominion of Canada.

This railroad will be connected at Prince George with the Canadian National Railways; that action of course will vitalize it and will also vitalize that western portion of the Canadian National Railways from Jasper to the coast which is now not getting the sort of assistance it should have. That is an extremely rich part of Canada, yet the railroad service from Jasper to Prince Rupert, B.C., is of a limited character, and the required energy is not being put forward in developing the industries tributary to it.
I have heard some reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway. While I am no champion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I want to say that when they put their line through southern British Columbia their directors and their men went in and developed the coal, the mines, the sawmills and the natural resources of that country, rightly or wrongly, and they laid the foundation for what exists in British Columbia today.
The great mining operation at Trail, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, had it not been for the genius of the late James J. Warren and the men who were around Shaughnessy, would be an abandoned mineral claim today instead of being the great operation which it is, employing thousands of men and pouring wealth into British Columbia and this country, being one of the greatest metallurgical plants on the face of the earth.
Up in northern British Columbia there are resources equal to those in the Kootenay country. All we need is to have operating our railways men with the imagination and genius of those who launched the railways elsewhere in British Columbia. As to losing money on this division, I repeat what I said a few minutes ago in this chamber, namely, that there never was a railway started in Canada which was not assisted either from the dominion treasury or from the treasury of one of the provinces. I will challenge any hon. member to check up on any of them and show me one instance in which lavish grants of money or great grants of land were not made. One needs to step only a few feet from the entrance doors of this building to see the Rideau canal. How did it come into being? Why was it built?


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is what I want to know.


George Matheson Murray: The hon. member for Calgary West knows a great deal about oil. He should study up on transportation.


John Lambert Gibson: The army went to work.
Pacific Great Eastern Railway


George Matheson Murray: The Rideau canal served its day and generation as a great trunk system of transportation and it was built by the taxpayers of the then Canada. Today it is a tourist attraction and a beautiful one. It memorializes the early history of this land.
But to return to British Columbia, we have a situation there today which is unique in Canada or in the British commonwealth. My riding is nine hundred miles long and in one place it is five hundred miles wide. This summer I tried to proceed from one end of the riding to hold a meeting in the southern part. I had a motorcar, and I wanted to get in there so that the motorcar could be used in getting around to meet the voters and to give them the good gospel. I was obliged to travel two thousand miles to get to that meeting.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What brand of gospel is that?


George Matheson Murray: Of salvation and light; of progress and development.
The town of Fort St. John is located fifty miles from the railway. It is quite a flourishing town as the Minister of Agriculture will know. He is one minister who comes around, sees us, and meets the farmers and the settlers at Fort St. John and elsewhere up through the Peace river country. Fort St. John is fifty miles from a railway, and yet that town is a modern and progressive place. I can take you to a soldier settlement which was put in there not so long ago, and which is seventy miles from a railroad. These men were put upon lands there which are extremely fertile. This year their crops were good, but they must haul those crops fifty miles, sixty miles, seventy miles, and in some other parts of the district one hundred miles, to the railroad.
I know young people in the Peace river block who were old enough to vote, and who voted for me in the last election, who had never seen a railway or a train or had never heard a train whistle outside the motion picture shows. I say that is not good enough for Canada. These railroads should be extended into these fertile areas. The old order of procedure was to build a railway and expect the settlers to come in following the railway. That was the order in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and in southern British Columbia to some extent. Today we have in the Peace river country settled communities far removed from a railway; and this work we are going to do today in granting this subsidy or loan will be the first step in providing those far-flung communities with direct transportation to the Pacific coast.
1454	HOUSE OF
Pacific Great Eastern Railway
I have here a record showing the acreage up in there which could be settled by families. There are millions of acres, but I shall not burden the committee with the statistics. As the hon. member for Peace River said the other day, we imported something like $230 million worth of coal from the United States, paid United States dollars for it, and depleted the resources of Canada to that extent.
The railway about which we are talking today would develop a coal area which would enable us to supplant American coal in the Canadian market. This is not a figment of the imagination; it is a fact which can be confirmed by geological survey, at the university of British Columbia or in the mines branch at Victoria. The information is on record.
I would refer the committee to a book published by the mines branch here in Ottawa entitled "The New Northwest", containing tables and statistics bearing upon all the natural resources of the area which this Pacific Great Eastern Railway will open after it is extended beyond Prince George. Not only is this a great farm area and not only are there great mineral resources, but also there is the greatest remaining stand of soft woods on this continent, which would then be near transportation and made available to the pulp and paper industry, to the sawmill industry and to industrial development generally. That is the first stage of the development of that country, should the railway be extended beyond Prince George.
The next step would be to send it farther up to Hay River, into that country where uranium is being produced, where oil is being produced, and where there is a vast area of agricultural, mineral and fishing resources available, awaiting good transportation to the markets of the world-and that would naturally be to the Pacific coast via Prince George and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.
I do not wish to speak at greater length. I would hope however that the committee would endorse this move to focus attention on the Pacific Great Eastern, get it on its way and have it extended beyond Prince George up into the Peace river country and, later on, up to Great Slave lake, so as to service that great hinterland of northern Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, we have heard interesting talks this afternoon in support of the resolution. I think it is appropriate that I speak at this point, and point out to you and the members of the committee that we have now heard from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, in whose constituency the railway starts; we have now heard from the


hon. member for Cariboo, in whose constituency it stops: perhaps it is time we heard from the member through whose constituency the railway runs.
As a matter of fact about 250 miles of the present 340, in rough figures, run through the constituency of Kamloops. I agree fully with those who have spoken before me to the effect that we should know more about the implications of the resolution before us. I agree fully with what has been said by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and the hon. member for Vancouver East, that probably this will be only a beginning. We in British Columbia certainly hope that it marks only the beginning of the completion of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that the railway will not serve its true purpose until it is completed up into the Peace river country.


Donald MacInnis: Completed at both ends.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member says, "completed at both ends". I believe the most important part-well, no; perhaps it would be difficult to say which is the more important, for reasons which I shall indicate later.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are playing the middle against both ends, are you?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As has been pointed out, the hon. member for Calgary West knows a good deal about oil. However his knowledge of transportation may have some gaps which should be filled in-and which I shall endeavour to do.
In the Cariboo range country there are, in extent, some of the largest cattle ranges in Canada. Those are the people in whose position I am most interested this afternoon because they have no adequate outlet by rail to their market in Vancouver. They have no adequate railway communications over which they can get feed grains. Their normal outlet for cattle to market would be through Vancouver. The place to which they would look for their feed grain required to bring their cattle to a marketable condition is the Peace river district.
Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary West, with his great knowledge of logic, will tell me which of those aspects is the more important-because, frankly, I confess that for my own part I cannot decide whether it is more important to complete the first outlet to the market, or more important to complete the line inland so as to prepare the cattle for market.
I do know however that we are now commencing with the construction of the railway to Prince George. It seems logical therefore to look as a next step for the completion of

the railway up into the Peace river area. The hon. member for Cariboo has dealt with some of the resources of that country. It has been pointed out that that particular area is served at the moment only by the Canadian National Railways main line through Prince George up to Prince Rupert.
I would leave with the committee this point for consideration:	It seems to me high
time that the Canadian National Railways took a greater interest in the Pacific Great Eastern. I do not altogether agree with what was said by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano when, as I understood him, he implied that the Canadian Pacific had a virtual monopoly of the productive freight in British Columbia. Of course members from the coast and the interior of the province of British Columbia find to our cost sometimes that some people tend to think of the province as centering around Vancouver, and they forget the great productive areas of the interior of the province which produce large quantities of paying freight.
The Canadian National now serves the Okanagan fruit country and the lumbering country of the northern North Thompson valley, and the Prince George area. It serves of course the commercial and industrial plants of New Westminster and the Fraser valley, as well as sharing with the C.P.R. the freight revenues from the Fraser valley agricultural land. So the Canadian National has a very considerable stake in British Columbia.
The result of this expansion of the Pacific Great Eastern is to link that railway up with the Canadian National at Prince George. It it, in a sense, a gift to the C.N.R. I certainly hope the national railways will no longer continue to wait for things to fall into their lap in connection with this particular railway, and that they will show that interest in it which its potentialities as a revenue-producing line fully justify.
I trust the management of the Canadian National on their part will work in cooperation with the province for the completion of the railway up into the Peace river. In turn, I hope that they will press for, and cooperate with the province in the eventual completion of the railway to Vancouver, to link up with the other terminal of the Canadian National.
I have not much more to say. This is a project which in my view has been too long delayed. I turn to the debates of 1946 when the former member for Cariboo raised the subject. One is amazed upon looking at the record to find how often the extension and completion of the Peace River Railway has been promised, and how unfortunately 45781-93
Pacific Great Eastern Railway promises have exceeded performance. It was pointed out in the debate that at one time the late Sir Henry Thornton promised to build a line into the Peace river country when the export production of wheat reached 10 million bushels. That figure has long been reached and passed, it being now away past 20 million bushels; but we are still waiting for the rail link with the Peace river.
I support this resolution on three grounds. First, because it will provide an intermediate link on the railroad which will help to develop our province. Second, because it will be a step in the development of our railroad system which will connect our interior with the prairies and Peace river markets, thus enabling our cattle ranchers to bring in their feed grain at reasonable rates from the logical place in which to get it. Third, because it will be one more step in the completion of the railroad to provide those people with an outlet to their logical market in Vancouver.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in the debate on this resolution, but as one member from the constituency through which this line will run and two other members who come from constituencies at the two terminals of this line have taken part in this discussion, and in a most able manner, I feel that I as a British Columbian who has only a general interest in this resolution should rise at this time to correct what possibly might be an inadvertent error by the hon. member for Vancouver East. The hon. member referred to the future costs of building railroads, and I think his statement in that connection is quite true, but he then implied that the Hon. John Hart, while being an excellent salesman, had failed in the job of selling the Pacific Great Eastern railway to the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. I think that statement created a wrong impression which the hon. member for Vancouver East did not intend to leave.
From what was said it might be assumed by the hon. members of this house that this railroad was more or less of a white elephant. I think we are all agreed that the future, not only of British Columbia but of Canada generally lies in the things that grow. During the last two years it has been my privilege and honour to be associated with the pioneers of the Peace river country. In this instance I am not boasting about my own specific constituency, but I feel I can truthfully say that the area through which this resolution will make possible the building of a railroad line is one of the finest areas on the North American continent.
Getting back to the failure of the Hon. John Hart to sell this railroad to the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, despite

Pacific Great Eastern Railway the fact that Mr. Hart is a very able salesman, I ask hon. members here what they would have done had they been the president of the Canadian Pacific or the president of the Canadian National? The presidents and boards of directors of those railroad companies knew perfectly well that the tremendous natural resources in that north country would have to move east over either of their railroad lines. They knew that if and when the provincial government or some private organization eventually completed that line their railroad lines would benefit. That being axiomatic, it is natural that they were prepared to wait until such time as these products did begin to move down to the ocean terminals at Vancouver or North Vancouver.
I am sure that if any one of us had been the head of either of these railroads and were asked by Mr. Hart to invest money to extend that line, knowing full well that if the line were completed the other two lines would be the beneficiaries, he would have waited until that development occurred. The extension of this line is going to provide a tremendous lift, not only to British Columbia but to the general welfare of all Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. Low:: I want to support the resolution as it has been proposed by the Minister of Transport. I was interested in the speeches already made on this matter and am in full agreement with practically everything that has been said. I do not represent a constituency through which the proposed line will run, but I do represent a district which will contribute, perhaps indirectly, to the success of the new line when it is built.
The full value of the Pacific Great Eastern railway can never be realized until it is finally linked up with the Northern Alberta Railways, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano so well said. That being the case, I can assure the minister that he has not heard the last of the requests for subsidies for railroads. He is going to hear more of these in the future, not only from those people who are determined to see a link built between Prince George and Dawson Creek, but also from those who are determined to see a link built between Hines Creek on the north side of the river and perhaps Hazelton and Prince Rupert to the west.
We are up against a real problem there and I should like to draw this to the attention of hon. members who may not know the situation. Northern Alberta Railways operate between Edmonton and Dawson Creek on the south side of the Peace river. There is a branch running from McLellan, just above Lesser Slave lake, up through Peace river 
and into Hines Creek on the north side of the river. A number of years ago this line was purchased by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National and has since been operated under their joint ownership but still under the name of Northern Alberta Railways. Because of the fact that both great railways of Canada are interested in its ownership and management, neither of them can ever come in and threaten the monopoly that exists. There has never been any serious threat from highway competition to the monopoly that exists under the Northern Alberta Railways owned jointly by the two great transcontinental systems. That situation is gradually being improved as British Columbia and Alberta build better highways. We hope that some time the competition will be great enough to needle the two old companies into doing something about the extension of these branches and filling the gaps so that there will be a northern system linking up with Prince Rupert north of the river and back into Saskatchewan, as has been so well put before the house on various occasions by the hon. member for Athabaska.
One thing that the minister ought to take into consideration is this. The fact that there is a monopoly today will require that the government take rather unusual action to get something done about the extension of these routes. There is no doubt in my mind that the traffic is already there. As the hon. member for Kamloops has so well stated-and it is a fact-the Peace river country today is producing over 20 million bushels of wheat a year, and that is only one product. It is also producing millions of bushels of oats and barley, thousands of head of livestock, much pulpwood and lumber, and in many sections seed production is now reaching great volume.
Have the railways lost their pioneering spirit? Have they grown fat and lazy in their middle age? They must be needled into a more venturesome spirit. I wonder if it would not be well to call in question their right to hold a charter if they do not get busy and fill these gaps so that there may be a western outlet, and thus prevent the long backhaul of over 500 miles around through Edmonton and out to the Pacific coast, where much of the produce has to go. If I were in the minister's seat today I would seriously consider calling their charters in question.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I ask the hon. member if he is speaking to the resolution?


Lionel Chevrier: He is not speaking anywhere near it.


Solon Earl Low: Pardon?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is not speaking to the resolution at this time.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps I have been speaking about a corollary of the resolution. I started in by stating that the full value of the Pacific Great Eastern can never be realized until the link between Dawson Creek and Prince George is completed. That is a matter which must be considered in connection with this particular resolution. If the minister is going to lay down the principle of subsidy at the rate of $15,000 a mile to help to complete the link between Quesnel and Prince George, which I am told is a distance of some eighty-two miles, then he must also be prepared to give consideration to means by which he can make that subsidy, which will come out of the taxpayers' money, repay the people of Canada for advancing it.
It is not going to be enough to subsidize this small link. That does not help the situation materially although it may provide an inlet to the Pacific Great Eastern, but what are they going to do about an outlet on the south, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has said? A link will have to be furnished there eventually. Furthermore, to obtain a sufficient volume of traffic without any question they will have to back in from Prince George to Dawson Creek. It is that aspect I want to emphasize now. I also want to stress the fact that eventually the minister is going to be approached for subsidies on these other links because they are just as important to the economy of Canada, and to the welfare of a great many human beings, as the link we are now considering. I support the resolution.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I assure you I will not keep you very long. I think I am in favour of the resolution, but I want to make sure that we go into it with our eyes open. To that end I should like the minister to answer three questions. First I want to know the basis of the subsidy. I know the amount, and I know the estimated over-all cost of the mileage. I wonder, for example, if defence might not be one of the reasons.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not hear that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wonder if defence might not be one of the prime reasons for the resolution. One would suppose there must be an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the dominion government. I would think that agreement would be in writing. If there is one I should like to know its terms and have a look at it. I think the minister has already said that he intends to refer this measure to a committee.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I have not.
Pacific Great Eastern Railway


Arthur Leroy Smith: I beg your pardon. Then perhaps at some time the minister might let us know that. I have no hesitation in saying that the House of Commons may as well understand, as was so well put by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, that this is only the beginning. In order to have all these rich speculations and promises come true that have been made by various hon. members, it is going to cost a good deal more money than is mentioned in the resolution. It may run into a considerable sum. Even so, I am still in favour of the resolution. There is one rather major difficulty that is bothering me. If I am correct in assuming-and I have some support for doing so from what other hon. members have said-that this is the beginning of a major expenditure, then may I ask whether the minister or the government has considered an alternative scheme, namely, the one we are adopting in connection with the Temiscouata Railway. Would it not be advisable, owing to the major expenditures which are being undertaken, that the P.G.E. should also become a part of the Canadian National Railways for which system we are accustomed year by year to vote money to cover deficits.
I believe the hon. member for Cariboo said that there is enough coal for the whole of Canada in the area to which he referred. Apparently he has not followed the rate discussions which have taken place before the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada in times past as to the freight on coal to eastern Canada from areas much closer than this will be. The simple fact is that the freight on a ton of coal from that area to Toronto would be well above the $8.55 which is the rate from a closer point, even with a subvention paid by the dominion government to producers of coal in nearer areas. Therefore-and I speak most respectfully because I think the speech made by the hon. member was a fine one-with the exception of a market on the Pacific coast I do not think the coal we shall find there will be of any use to the rest of the Dominion of Canada. The prairies themselves produce the kind of coal they want, and I cannot see that within my time in any event we will be putting British Columbia coal into the heavy market here in central Canada.
Then someone spoke a moment ago about our having this railway, and the tremendous benefit it would be to the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. Well, it has been lying at their doorstep all these years; and while the hon. member for Peace River may be able to say that they have lost their pioneering spirit-as a matter of fact they have lost their shirt with it-and are afraid to take a chance, I do not think they are so dumb that if it

Pacific Great Eastern Railway would have been any advantage to them they would not have picked up this great P.G.E. railway, which is a white elephant now. There is no question about it; it has been a white elephant for a great many years. Yet I am still in favour of this legislation.
Now I put forward this proposition. It seems to me that we are now embarking upon a major venture, namely the revival of the subsidization of railway construction. If that be so, a great broad question immediately presents itself, as to whether it should not be taken over by the system we already own, which has very able men at its head. In fact some of them are so able they can go to New York and make speeches concerning things about which they know nothing. But I make that point, in regard to who is to be in charge of the operation of this line.
I conclude by saying I believe that is something to which a great deal of consideration might be given. No doubt the minister will be able to tell us that he has already considered that point, and will give his reasons for adopting this method rather than the one I have suggested. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that even at considerable cost we should try to do something for those pioneers who have gone into this area, some of whom are from seventy to ninety miles from railhead, who bring in their goods as best they can and ship what they produce an extra five hundred miles around through to Edmonton. That is by Canadian National of course; much of it goes around through Calgary, because hon. members will find that the freight rate from Edmonton to Vancouver direct is exactly the same as the rate through Calgary. The people who have gone in there have done splendid things. They have won the highest prizes in the world with their wheat and other grains. They need encouragement, and the opening up of the area will do immense good not only to the people immediately involved but to all Canada.
Just in order to bring the hon. member for Kamloops up to date on my knowledge, or lack of it, in connection with railways, let me tell him that in 1905, when the only issue was the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, I supported my uncle, D. W. Bole of Winnipeg, who beat Sanford Evans. I was then a good Liberal; but I had done that much politically before he was born, so at least I had that much of a start.


Lionel Chevrier: There is always time to come back.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Winston
Churchill has been the only person to prove the fallacy of that. It is a fallacy that you can change more than once; only Churchill could change twice and get away with it.

May I say also that I have attended more freight rate investigations before the board of transport commissioners than anyone else in this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps that is why they are so confused.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There is one thing I am happy about; I love my confusion and respect it more than I do my hon. friend's knowledge of railway matters. But may I conclude by saying that I approve of the bill. I think it is a step in the right direction; but following the major expenditures which were explained to us by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano I believe the matter will become much more serious, and finally I am quite sure this little railway will fold up, as all little railways in Canada are folding up, and that day we will have it as part of our national system.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may immediately answer the three questions asked by my hon. friend-


Joseph Henry Harris: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but in order to save time perhaps at the same time he would answer a question that comes to my mind. In the first place, is the traffic there? The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard thinks it is. The hon. member for Kamloops is quite sure it is there. I can understand that the livestock might be there and the oats might be there. As far as the coal is concerned, it is there but I am afraid it will stay there; it will not reach the markets in Montreal and Toronto.
But having said that much let me say this. I do not know of any province that has gripped the imagination of the Canadian people, especially those who have come back from overseas, as has British Columbia. Therefore I am of opinion that, having regard to those who will come after us, we must recognize that that province has the most marvellous potentialities, and that we from our places in this house should show some initiative and some drive to assist any undertaking which will help that province to properly look after those who are going there in thousands. We should help give them something to do; we should help provide an outlet for what they produce from the God-given resources that are to be found in that province. So from that point of view I am anxious to do anything that can be done to help our friends from British Columbia to develop those wide open spaces out there, and the tremendous natural resources of that province.
Someone to my left asked, "Are we getting fat and lazy in Canada?" My answer to the leader of the Social Credit party is, pray God

we are not getting tat and lazy. We are ready to develop this country, because no other country in the world has such resources ready for development. It is our duty to provide some initiative, and one way of doing that is to support this bill. I notice the minister smiling. He is from Ontario, just as I am. I am thinking of the whole of Canada; I am not thinking of Cornwall or Toronto or any other particular place. We have a population here not nearly large enough to develop the resources which are at our doorstep, which should be developed for the benefit of the whole world, though I do not want to get on that strain.


Lionel Chevrier: I was smiling not at my hon. friend, but because I was waiting for the question he is going to ask. He is proceeding to make a rather lengthy statement.


Joseph Henry Harris: This will be a short session, and you will get the question quickly enough. I hope, Mr. Chairman, when the minister does get the question that he is qualified to answer it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am wondering whether the hon. member is qualified to ask it.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am not quite sure, Mr. Chairman. I have never yet bragged about my qualifications, but I will match them not only against any member in this chamber, but also against the minister's. I do not want to brag, but I shall ask the voice of experience to answer my question in a moment. I do not know what the rush is. I was hoping we might sit here long enough for some of the members to collect their fifty days' pay.
The question I want to ask the minister is based on the following fundamental idea: Is the population now, plus the influx into British Columbia, large enough to warrant us, as members of this House of Commons, voting for this bill? I believe it is, and I am ready to vote for this bill. I am ready to vote for anything that will aid in the expansion of this country or that will enable us to absorb a greater population.
I now come to the straight question which the minister wanted me to ask. Is the traffic there? Are the livestock, oats, coal and other products in that area in such a quantity that they will find their way to a market? I know that the coal will not find its way to Toronto or Montreal, but a great deal of coal is consumed in the area between British Columbia and Winnipeg. Has that been measured? Has an estimate been made of the amount of coal that might be consumed, first in the area around Vancouver and, second, between
Pacific Great Eastern Railway there and Regina or Winnipeg? Can anyone say that the coal produced in this area can be absorbed along the line?
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we are in this position: Canada has abundant resources, but an insufficient population. I think we should be seized with the idea of the magnitude of our responsibility to civilization. For that reason, after I receive a reply from the minister as to whether or not the traffic is there, I feel disposed to vote for this legislation.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister replies to those questions, there are two questions I should like to place before him. Some remarks have been made this afternoon which were rather disparaging to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. I think it would be unfortunate if the members of this house were left with the impression that the railway is nothing but a white elephant. It has had a great deal to do with the opening up of the interior of British Columbia. It is the most friendly railway in the country and I always enjoy riding on it. That has been discovered not only by the people of British Columbia; many tourists from the United States ride on the railroad because it is so different from the transcontinental lines. It has an attraction for the people from the United States as a railway on which to take a holiday trip. As the line is extended to the north, that will be even more true.
One other feature which the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) did not mention was the agreement between the province of British Columbia and the Grand Trunk Pacific to the effect that passengers and freight destined for Vancouver would be routed over the Pacific Great Eastern via Prince George. That was one of the main reasons why the province of British Columbia went ahead with the railway. When the Grand Trunk Pacific got into financial troubles and was eventually taken over by the Canadian National Railways, the main line to Vancouver went from Red Pass Junction down through Kamloops over the line of the old Canadian Northern. All that freight and passenger traffic which would have gone over the Pacific Great Eastern from Prince George to Vancouver was lost to the provincial government railway. The dominion certainly has a moral obligation to help the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, in addition to what benefit will be gained by the dominion as a whole through the help given to the railway. I hope that this payment of $15,000 for a few miles will not be considered as settling any obligation that the dominion may have.
Turning now to my two questions, I should like the minister to tell me what the policy

Pacific Great Eastern Railway of the government is with regard to subsidizing the road from Prince George north. Personally, I believe the government should be willing to offer the same amount of subsidy to the British Columbia government for construction from Prince George north into the Peace river country. It is almost unbelievable that a progressive people such as the Canadian people would not have insisted on a western outlet from the Peace river country many years ago. The minister's reason for taking over the Temiscouata Railway was to aid settlers. Thousands of settlers have gone into the Peace river country and been left to fend for themselves. I am asking what the policy is to be with regard to subsidizing the road north of Prince George.
The second question has to do with a proposal which is receiving consideration in the United States. It has to do with building a railway from Prince George to Alaska. I have seen a press dispatch dated October 26, under the heading "Bill for Railroad Canada to Alaska Signed by Truman". That is not a very accurate heading, but apparently what has happened is that the President has signed a bill which gives him the power to negotiate with the Canadian government with a view to extending the railway system which will now terminate at Prince George to the territory of Alaska. It further gives him power to cause surveys to be made, plans, specifications, cost estimates and budget requests to be prepared for the purpose of constructing a railroad connecting the existing railroad system terminating at Fairbanks, Alaska, with this railroad system extending from Prince George to Alaska.
A few days ago I asked the following questions of the government:
Have there been any negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning the construction of a railway through Canada to Alaska?
Have any surveys been made or authorized by the Canadian government in connection with such a railway?
The answer to question No. 1 was as follows:
There have been no formal negotiations, but informal discussions took place in September and October, 1942.
That was seven years ago, and apparently there have been no negotiations since that time.
The answer to the other question was:
Yes, the Canadian government authorized the United States army engineers to make a survey in 1942.
I do not know whether the United States engineers actually made that survey. I suggest that we should have from the minister some information concerning this United States proposal, because it seems to be one
[Mr. Green.l
which might be of great interest to Canada. Half of the province of British Columbia lies north of the main line to Prince Rupert. Everyone in British Columbia therefore is vitally concerned with developments in that part of the province.


Lionel Chevrier: There is not a great deal of time left but in the few minutes that remain before six o'clock I shall try to cover the questions.
The hon. member for Calgary West put three questions to me. The first was: What is the basis of the subsidy? Is this a matter of defence? When he used the word "basis" I presume he was not concerned at all with the question of financial basis. I see that the hon. member is not in his seat now, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: I think perhaps he meant the reason for the bill-if that was the reason.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Joseph Henry Harris: It is already
answered.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, That is what I was going to say. Let me tell my friend the hon. member for Danforth that I meant no offence to him a moment ago when I smiled. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra knows that I was smiling at him because of a remark that he had made.


Joseph Henry Harris: The record is clear; I am satisfied.


Lionel Chevrier: Two questions which were asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra are quite easy to answer, I think, although I know the answer will not be to his satisfaction. One was: What is the policy of the government with reference to further extensions? This resolution seeks authority for a subsidy for 82-7 miles of railway, and that is the only thing with which parliament or the committee is concerned at the moment. As to future subsidies, they will be considered at the time and the policy of the government will then be announced.
I hope that some day it will be possible to grant what has been asked by various members by way of extension up to Finlay Forks in order to meet the junction of the Northern Alberta railway at the terminus at Hines Creek and Dawson Creek on the north and south sides of the Peace river. I am not saying that will be done, but I hope it will be possible to do that.
As to the second question, with regard to the proposal of the United States, I understand that the bill to which my hon. friend referred has been passed by congress. Until representations are made on the official level by the United States government to the Canadian government, it is impossible to consider the question of a survey such as my hon. friend suggests.


Howard Charles Green: Would Canada participate in a survey?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the answer would depend on whether or not we are invited to participate. At the moment I am not aware
Private Bills-Divorce
that we have been invited. When we are invited, I presume we shall look at the position then.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce 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.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bills Nos. 15 to 59 inclusive and 67 to 103 inclusive:
Bill No. 15 for the relief of John Henniker Torrance.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16 for the relief of Edith Harriet Black Hambly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17 for the relief of Margaret Reid O'Connell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18 for the relief of Alton Charles Bray.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19 for the relief of Kathleen Gertrude Macartney Dorken.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20 for the relief of Louise de Forest MacAlpine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21 for the relief of Jessie Fraser Blaiklock Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22 for the relief of Alice Lafond Burnham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23 for the relief of Muriel Annie Elizabeth Hicks Kurtzman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24 for the relief of Robert Walsham Herring.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25 for the relief of Leta Helen Butler Waller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26 for the relief of Violet Blodwyn Young Murdoch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27 for the relief of Joseph Tannen-baum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28 for the relief of Isabel Christine MacLean Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29 for the relief of Marie Annette Vallieres Handheld.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30 for the relief of Nicholas Kouri. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31 for the relief of Viateur Fortier. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32 for the relief of Lois Elizabeth Rolph.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 33 for the relief of Madeleine Dunn Landry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34 for the relief of Arthur Joseph D'Avignon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35 for the relief of Jessie Gwendolyn Paul Giroux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36 for the relief of Celia Maria Gabrielle de Costa Baxter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37 for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Beattie Harrison.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38 for the relief of Rosaline Laham Anber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39 for the relief of Anna Starzyn-ski Sztafirny.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40 for the relief of Marjorie Claire Dickison LeMieux.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41 for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Brown Bailey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42 for the relief of Lome Bradbury Ashton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43 for the relief of Harry James Seaban.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44 for the relief of Julia Seram Odenick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45 for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Howat Brammall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46 for the relief of Francis Gilmer Tempest Dawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47 for the relief of Imelda Poirier Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48 for the relief of Joseph Charles Paul Emile Chales.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49 for the relief of Robert Mason Watson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50 for the relief of Catherine Alexandra Mackenzie Mitchell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51 for the relief of Irene Filion Primeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52 for the relief of Mary Jean Strachan Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53 for the relief of Edna Kate Folley Dickenson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54 for the relief of Gerald Geoffrey Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55 for the relief of Yvonne Marshall Balfry Corbin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56 for the relief of Colleen Ethel Thornhill Clark.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57 for the relief of Leith Albert Anderson Baldwin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58 for the relief of Marie Jeanne Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59 for the relief of Irene Emily Katerelos Stones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67 for the relief of Margaret Helen Milne Ward.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68 for the relief of Lizzie Brogden Hibberd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69 for the relief of Eric Jeffrey Burn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70 for the relief of Agnes McIntosh McKillop McBride.-Mr. Winkler.


Bill No. 71 for the relief of Elizabeth Audrey Beauclerk Quinlan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72 for the relief of Thelma Blanche Collins Geick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73 for the relief of Thora Beck-ingham Lock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74 for the relief of Hugh William Lloyd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75 for the relief of Linda Emilia Wilen Robitaille.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Brina Paskin Warshaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Thomas Han-usiak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78 for the relief of Loretta Waugh O'Dell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79 for the relief of Marie Rita Plante Boyer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80 for the relief of Dorothy Wax-man Sherman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 81 for the relief of Laura Cohen Kaminsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82 for the relief of Annie Marion Lesnichuk Krushelniski, otherwise known as Annie Marion Lesnichuk Krush.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83 for the relief of Marjorie May Smart Birmingham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84 for the relief of Anna Sandberg Goldbloom, otherwise known as Anna Sandberg Gold..-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85 for the relief of Olive Frances Harper Morrison.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86 for the relief of Delphis Brous-seau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87 for the relief of Gladys McCar-rick Bonnemer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88 for the relief of Bernice Beverly Corry Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89 for the relief of Bessie Zinman. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90 for the relief of Marion Lillian Gargan Thomson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91 for the relief of Mary Piekos Rynski.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92 for the relief of Victor Chryssolor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93 for the relief of Blanche Ruth Serokey Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94 for the relief of Raymonde Belanger Skaife.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95 for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Gwendolen Tobi Hearns.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96 for the relief of Ruby Muriel Keith Gray.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97 for the relief of Laurel Jeanne MacGregor Thomson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98 for the relief of Edith Sara Hamilton Warlund.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99 for the relief of Donald Duncalf Birchenough.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 100 for the relief of Joan Gertrude Fox Corbett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101 for the relief of Richard William Henry Wark.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102 for the relief of Eileen Dorothy Richards Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Janey Beryl MacPhail Shuttleworth.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Gagnon:: Where is the mover?


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on Bills Nos. 15 to 59 inclusive and 67 to 103 inclusive, Mr. Dion in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the bills carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I should like to ask a question in connection with this. First I want to know how many children are concerned in the first bill, and how they are to be provided for?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are eighty-one bills.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: We have no information on that here.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Louder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not hear the
answer.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: There is no information here on that tonight.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then, Mr. Chairman, if there is no information as to how these children are to be cared for, or as to how many there are, I object to any bill submitted to this committee without that information-and I am surprised that Quebec members do not object further.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bills
carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Carried on division.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report the bills?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On division.
Bills reported, on division.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: the third reading of Bills Nos. 15 to 59 inclusive and Bills Nos. 67 to 103 inclusive.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On division.
Private Bills-Divorce


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the third time, on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Winkler moves, seconded by Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria): that these bills be now passed and that the titles be as on the order paper. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On division.
Bills passed, on division.



MOTION TO RETURN EVIDENCE TO SENATE

Howard Waldemar Winkler: That a message be sent to the Senate to return to that house the evidence, etc., taken before the standing committee on divorce, to whom are referred the petitions on which divorce bills Nos. 15 to 59 and Nos. 67 to 103 inclusive, were founded.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No-unless the hon. member explains the details upon which I asked the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the hon. member that the motion now before the house is one to return the evidence sent here previously in connection with the bills which have just received third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bills Nos. 104 to 115 inclusive, 121 to 132 inclusive and 134 to 141 inclusive:
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Edith Cohen. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Ida Lindy Angel Katzman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Marian Latora Glendening Joncas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107 for the relief of Eva Neren-berg Anger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108 for the relief of Josephine Teweson Paul Bero.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109 for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Ross Erskine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110 for the relief of Jeannette Mathilda Seymour Oswald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill for the relief of George Bennett Gagnon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112 for the relief of Bertha Rudolph Holzberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 113 for the relief of Lillian Elizabeth Moore Bowen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Laurence Bouchard Pappini.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Nana Rosenberg Taube.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 121 for the relief of Cecile de Mers Asheim.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122 for the relief of Elsie Margaret Harding Lewin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123 for the relief of Raymond Webster Elliott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124 for the relief of Hazel Wilma Drysdale Warnecke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125 for the relief of Ruby Rabino-vitch Friedgut, otherwise known as Ruby Rabinovitch Freygood.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126 for the relief of Mildred Carmen Mitchell James.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127 for the relief of Bessie Biren-baum Abrams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128 for the relief of Grace Elsie Mills Johnson.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129 for the relief of Robert Ewen Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130 for the relief of Mary Cecilia Helliwell Glassco.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131 for the relief of Betty Malca Stillman Shugar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132 for the relief of Tessie Charow Hersh.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134 for the relief of Cicely Manley Sampson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Paul Paquette. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Joseph Simon Adelard Barrett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137 for the relief of Edith Daisy Steer Catto.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138 for the relief of Gwen Pollock Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139 for the relief of Sonia Eagle Davies.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 140 for the relief of Evelyne Louis Steinwold.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141 for the relief of John Gilbert Speak.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No.


William Joseph Browne: I think the mover should explain these bills.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether the attitude of hon. members is in approval of or opposed to the principle of divorce, these bills are here for second reading. They have been considered in the Senate divorce committee, have been passed by the Senate and are here for our confirmation. If any hon. members here tonight had heard the evidence of the four members of the Senate in our private bills committee yesterday, or if any of the members here had attended the Senate divorce committees, they would have been firmly of the opinion that the members of the Senate were discharging


their duties in a very conscientious manner. Whatever the private opinion of any member may be, the part that we as members of the House of Commons take in this matter is merely judicial.
These bills have to become acts of parliament to become law, and therefore they must pass the House of Commons as a matter of form. That is entirely within our jurisdiction. But unless we have some fault to find with some particular phase of the evidence, I maintain that we have no alternative but to pass these bills. We are not here to discuss the principle of divorce. We are merely carrying out the law.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I not be permitted to ask the sponsor of these bills a few questions in explanation?


Mr. Speaker:: When the Speaker is in the chair it is not in accordance with the rules of the house to ask questions. However, the hon. member would have the right to attend sittings of the committee and if he is a member of the committee he could ask questions at that time. I am sure he would get the answers then.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, since the last debate of the house upon bills of this nature, I have inspected some of the bills and some of the evidence in cases that had been taken. Then I went to the room on the other side of the building where a case was in progress. It happened that when I went there the case was being opposed.
I sat during the morning session and heard the evidence given at that time. I was unable to go back in the afternoon, but I discovered afterwards that the committee had divided on the question of whether or not a divorce should be granted, by a vote of four to three. Since then I have been told by a member of the committee that further evidence has come to light in that particular case indicating that one of the witnesses had not been telling the truth. Although the bill was sent over here, an application is going to be made to have it sent back so that this evidence can be taken and the committee consider the case again in the light of the further evidence being advanced.
So I think we can say that the cases being put before the house tonight, when we have no information at all about them, constitute something like a farce.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Did you attend the committee meeting?


William Joseph Browne: No, because I did not know it was on. I did not receive notice of it.


Donald Ferguson Brown: It is in Votes and Proceedings.


William Joseph Browne: In another case which I examined I noticed that the parties had celebrated a marriage in New York. They came back to live in Montreal and had another celebration of marriage there. They had a disagreement before the second marriage, and ten days later they separated, with the result that proceedings for divorce were subsequently taken. From my examination of the evidence it seems to me that there was collusion between the parties notwithstanding the fact that it had been sworn that there was not.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Is the hon. member referring to one of the bills now before us?


William Joseph Browne: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might reserve his remarks until that particular bill is before us. Might I suggest to the hon. member that the question he is raising with regard to collusion might be raised when the bills go to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, to which they will be referred if they receive second reading tonight.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in years past I have been more or less pronounced in my views, particularly in respect to the way we have had to deal with divorces from two of the provinces. I do not agree altogether with the member of the private bills committee when he says that it is only a matter of form to put these bills through this house. As the House of Commons we perform a particular function. These bills constitute part of the law of the land. They represent the breaking up of a marriage in order that the principals may be legally married again. Whether this procedure is formal or not, we have a perfect right to prevent these bills from becoming law. That is our privilege as members of the House of Commons.
I must raise my voice in respect to the method used to deal with divorce bills. During the course of about three minutes tonight 82 of these bills were dealt with, and there are 29 of them in the next batch that is being presented to us. Within a very few minutes a total of 110 odd bills will have gone through. As far as this procedure is concerned, this chamber could certainly be described as a divorce mill.
Private Bills-Divorce
It is true that the evidence is heard, and I think thoroughly, in the Senate committee on divorce. It is true also that members of the House of Commons have a right to go there to hear the evidence without the privilege of discussing it. When these bills are brought before the committee on miscellaneous private bills any hon. member can attend, but he cannot ask questions except with the consent of the committee which I suppose would be granted. The committee on miscellaneous private bills does not go into the evidence although it has the privilege of doing so.
The fact that the entire parliament of Canada, both lower and upper houses, has to deal with a subject like this is nauseating to me. We have implored the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government to devise some other way whereby divorce bills from these two provinces could be dealt with. I think that divorce comes under the heading of property and civil rights, which are provincial matters. If I am not right, some member of the legal profession can say so. However, that is a minor point.
Some other method should be used to deal with these bills. As far as I am concerned, if the issue has to be forced it can be forced by simply voting against the bill. If we turned down a couple of hundred of them in a batch, you bet your life something would be done. That is all I have to say tonight.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, as it seems to be out of order to ask questions I should like to say a few words on this motion. Twenty minutes of the time of the house has been taken up tonight with divorce bills. I do not know why the people of Fraser Valley elected me, but they certainly did not elect me to act as a judge on divorce bills.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The name of the constituency of my hon. friend has been changed since he was here last to Coast-Capilano- think that over, but the name of my constituency is still Fraser Valley. I am being asked to decide for or against divorce bills. I am going to read some of these to the house because I have a little time. One reads:
No. 24. House in committee on Bill No. 15 (Letter G of the Senate), intituled-
I seem to be getting a lot of advice from nearby. I want to say to the house that I am not opposed to divorce in any way, shape or form, but not under present procedure. We have heard a lot in this house about dominion-provincial relations and our good leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), has told us that we can depend upon the

Private Bills-Divorce
judgment of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe that even in Saskatchewan there are judges who are capable of ruling in the best interests of everybody. There are important bills being brought forward by some United States interests that possibly may come up before nine o'clock.
I do not think I was elected to sit as a judge on divorce matters. If I was, I wish I had been left in Coast-Capilano or somewhere else out there. We can joke all we like about this, but the fact remains that the rights of the children may be involved and they should be of primary importance. No mover or seconder of any of these measures has told us what is to happen to the children or what alimony is to be paid.
We are told that that is of no importance because a certain committee of the other place, which must not be mentioned because of some legal rule, has considered these applications.


An hon. Member:: The rule of stare decisis.


George Alexander Cruickshank: "Subnormal" might be a good word. We are not allowed to mention it. I think any member is derelict in his duty if he has a family of his own and does not care a snap what happens to the children of his own or of somebody else's family. In my opinion it is no argument at all to bring a bill before this house and say that the matter has been judged in some other place by a certain committee. Let the sponsor of the measure come before the house and say what is the reason the divorce is being granted.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Is that a question?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: How could any member, unless he had a colossal memory, remember the evidence in all these cases and prepare himself to bring it before the house?


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is all the same.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am very glad to answer that. It gives me another couple of minutes. The hon. member should come before the house with a written statement on each case, or not sponsor these bills. How does the sponsor expect us to know what is happening to the children or to the wives if he does not know? How does he expect us to know anything about it?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: He expects you to read.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Maybe he expects us to read it. Like many other members, I receive this evidence from the other place. Some of the volumes are fat ones and some are thin ones. Like every other member, I believe I pick out the thick ones because I think there

might be something interesting in them. I wonder if the member who sponsors these bills would like me to quote in detail from one case that came from the other place last week. The evidence was disgusting. My friend asks why I should ask him to give me the details. I am asking him to give me the details because in that particular case there were eight children concerned. I wonder who is going to provide for the eight children.


An hon. Member:: Family allowances.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Family allowances, due to the great government we have, of which I am one of the firmest supporters and builders.
I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and I believe our divorce laws are not what they should be. I do not think one and only ground for divorce in Canada is sufficient. I think the Criminal Code ought to be amended to cover the situation. I am not a lawyer, but I believe it should be amended. I believe that no hon. member should advance some fifty bills at one time-you will have a chance over there when I am finished-and frankly admit that he knows nothing of the details, nothing of the parties concerned, and ask us to pass these bills without further information. More so-called important bills may come up before nine o'clock, but I do not think they are as important as these bills. In one case you are dealing in dollars and cents. Some company is going to make a lot of money, or it thinks it is. In this case we are dealing with-


Mr. Benidickson:: Westcoast Transmission.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is an interjection by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. It is a small district somewhere in the eastern part of Canada.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) allow me to raise a point of order?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: I think the whole discussion is out of order. We are not discussing the principle of divorce as such. We are discussing certain divorce cases. If the hon. member wishes to do so he can take each case in turn and discuss the principle of it, but I do not think it is in order to discuss the principle of divorce. That has been done before, but I think it has always been out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is an important one. I feel as he does that there has been too much latitude given in the discussion of these bills. As hon. members know, each bill refers to certain individuals, and the only question before-

the house is the principle in each bill. I do not think that should justify a wide discussion on the whole question of divorce and marriage. These are private bills, and they are strictly limited to the principle in each bill. I think that at this time hon. members should not discuss the general question of divorce, the grounds for divorce in Canada, and the law of divorce in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling brought about by the correction of my friend from my own province. I am particularly interested in order No. 27;
House in committee on Bill No. 18 (Letter J of the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Alton Charles Bray." (Without amendment.)
I should like to know just what that means.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would discuss one of the bills starting at No. 104.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I dislike to take up the time of the house. I am particularly interested in Bill No. 105-Bill No. 103.


An hon. Member:: That is passed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who is running the
house?


Some hon. Members:: 104.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill No. 105, not order No. 105.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Janey Beryl MacPhail Shuttleworth; that is the one.


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I will take order No. 108: second reading of Bill No. 106 (Letter 0-3 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Marian Latora Glendening Joncas." Surely that is all right. I am interested in knowing, as a good Canadian, just how many children are involved in this case, and I hope other hon. members will be interested for the same reason.


An hon. Member:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a moment; I may be called to order by the Speaker but not by anyone else in this chamber. How many children are concerned in this case? I am surprised that some of the junior members of this parliament are not interested in the welfare of the children of Canada, as they should be. I want to know what provision is being made for the welfare of the children and of the wife. I want to know the details of this case; and when 1 am told that we can be asked to pass a bill without being given any information whatever as to the details, that is not my conception of what parliament is supposed to do. I would like the sponsor of this bill to give me that information.
Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not in order for the hon. member to ask questions nor for the sponsor of the bill to answer them at this time. As I have stated before, after these bills are given second reading they will be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. Hon. members may attend the meetings of that committee and if they are on the committee they can ask questions there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry I did not understand your previous ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall not ask those questions now, but for the next ten or fifteen minutes I should like to tell the house why I object to divorce bills being brought here, with no explanation as to the details in each case. I have the greatest admiration for the province of Quebec; some of the finest cheese in the world is produced in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hardly think it is in order, while dealing with one of these private bills, to discuss the whole question of divorce in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a moment. I do not mind being called to order by the Speaker, because after all he presides over this house, but certainly I am not going to be called to order by a junior member from Windsor or anyone else.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am not calling anyone to order, if the hon. member is referring to me; and I am the member for Essex West.


An hon. Member:: The hon. gentleman asked his question and it was answered. Now he is going on to make a speech, and I suggest that he is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) concluded his remarks? Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On division.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, Mr. Speaker; not even on division. I am still speaking to the bill chosen by my hon. friend, No. 106, which has to do with the divorce of two people. I hope I shall not transgress your ruling when I say-because more people than you, sir, are listening to me this evening- that I believe people living in difficulty and trouble should have some way of separating from one another. That is just a silly thought that occurred to me, and I hope in expressing it I have not breached the ruling you just gave.

Private Bills-Divorce
The point I am so anxious to bring out is that I do not think our problem here is so much these individual cases, though in the strict interpretation of the rules I am very much inclined to agree with what you said. I do think perhaps you are being a little strict, as a result of your long association with this House of Commons and having so often seen what is going on here tonight. However, I am anxious to make my personal position plain. Someone like the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) may say that I am speaking to my constituents. He spoke to his constituents during his whole address the other evening and did not say a word to anyone else; but I hope I do not transgress even that rule.
It seems to me our problem is not so much the rights or wrongs of this bill. I have not read it, but if I were a betting man I would bet ten to one a match was put up against a door, and when the dicks came back in the morning they found the match still there, so there was a charge of adultery and an action for divorce. I will admit that many of these cases are faked, but you do not do that in our courts just by putting a match against a door. You must go a good deal further than that. Ninety per cent of it is fake, and nothing else. I know some suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this thing should be left to the exchequer court; and he got booed in the House of Commons. Of course he does not mind that; he has lived on boos all his life, and by that I mean he has been booing other people, not that people have been booing him.
So we have reached the position where we must admit that ninety per cent of the divorces in Canada are complete fakes. The old saying may be true, that the end justifies the means. My profession was the practice of law, though I had to quit that and go broke when I came down here to attend this House of Commons, with the huge fees we get here. Everybody gets rich once they are elected here; there is no question about that. We do not need a retirement allowance. We get $4,000 a year and we can live for the next forty years on what we save out of that.
The point I am trying to make is that today every man in this house is taking part in a farce. I have no doubt that in Bill No. 106 they had two matches leaning up against the door as proof, which is just sheer nonsense. When a fellow is in that game all he does is leave the place after he has been called on by the dicks, and he leans a match up against

the door. Then the dicks come back the next morning and say, "Nobody came out of that room, because our match is still there."
No one in this House of Commons who has any experience in legal matters will accept this story of the match.
May I state my position? I believe in divorce. I do not mean the Los Angeles or the Reno type or anything of that kind. I am one of those who believe that, as the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has said, children need a father and a mother. It is only under very difficult circumstances that the parents should be separated. May I do this bit of bragging? I am in the law business and I know there is money in divorce, but I have yet to take one case. I am so annoyed with the whole business. I have made many arrangements by which husband and wife have been able, for a while at least, to get along. I have told people who have no children, "Go ahead and divorce yourselves or shoot one another; do what you like, I don't care. If you have some children, however, they are entitled to a break, and that break is a father and a mother". To me, there is no question of religion attached to it or anything of that kind.


An hon. Member:: What about the ten commandments?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I suppose the hon. member means that commandment which speaks of coveting. I was not speaking about coveting. It says that thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his ox nor his ass. You thought you had me, but you did not. I am inclined to think that is the commandment the member is thinking about. I shall not enter into that.
I greatly respect the opinion of other people who have equally cogent reasons for a different view from my own. I come back again to this; it should not be a matter dealt with in the other place and confirmed by us so quickly. I have voted for divorce bills in the last six years. I confess I have done that because I think the committee in the other place has done a careful job. Instead of laughing at those men, I believe they have done an excellent and a tiresome job. Irrespective of the amusement we may get in reading the evidence in one of those cases, remember it has ceased to be amusing to those men who are giving their time every morning in the week and many afternoons in the week to listening to this evidence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not as much time as you are taking, though.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am dealing with a hundred, sir, and they deal with them one at a time. That is just an answer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because my remarks are confined to Bill No. 106. I do want to say that I think those men are doing a splendid job under difficult circumstances.
Turning to the subject of the bill introduced concerning the exchequer court, I believe that is too much to ask of the exchequer court.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might reserve his remarks on that bill for another occasion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: As always, I bow to your ruling. May I close by complimenting those hon. gentlemen who, at their age, may be assumed to have lost interest in that sort of thing, but I doubt it very much.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bills read the second time, and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.



ALBERTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. May-bank for the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company.
Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday during this debate I read the correspondence carried on between Hon. Gray Turgeon and Mr. Manning, the premier of Alberta. For a moment, I should like to review the contents of the reply Mr. Manning made. The first point he brought out was that no bona fide company should be refused incorporation, and that the province should have the right to deal with any of those companies. Second, that the Alberta government will allow the export of gas, but only after it is satisfied that the reserves are sufficient for its own domestic and industrial requirements, and that a surplus exists, over and above those requirements, sufficient to justify export under a sound conservation policy. Third, that no export out of Canada will be allowed until the Canadian requirements are met.
I should like to enlarge just a little bit on the conservation policy of the Alberta government and the reasons for it. The first oil well was discovered in Canada in the year 1861; the exact location of it I do not know. The product of that well was used entirely for the kerosene that could be obtained out of it. Everything else was wasted. Since that time advances have been made and
Alberta Natural Gas Company petroleum and petroleum products are now the base of over a thousand articles ranging from chewing gum to cosmetics. I trust the ladies will enjoy that because I can just see them smearing on crude oil for make-up.
After the discovery of the Turner valley oil field Imperial Oil spent $100 million in exploration before the discoveries of the Leduc and the Redwater fields. With such an outlay, it is quite readily understood why these fields have to be protected by a good solid conservation plan.
Any hon. members who have been down Calgary way, at least in the early years of the Turner valley field, will remember the glare of lights coming from Turner valley from the flares of natural gas that were burning night and day. As a matter of fact, I remember going to Calgary at one time- I think I was then about eleven years old- when I went to bed, and woke up in the middle of the night. I might add that the home in which I was staying was right below a cemetery which was situated on a hill. I woke up in the middle of the night, turned over, looked out the window, and all I could see were these tombstones sticking out of the red glare in the sky. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I thought my time had come. That gas was wasted during those years. I might say that that wastage was a direct result of incompetent legislation on the part of the dominion government. When the natural resources were turned back to the provinces, the Alberta government immediately put through conservation measures. Moreover, as a result of this lack of a conservation policy, many experts, in estimating the life of the Turner valley oil field, give it exactly ten years to go.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member name the experts?


Ray Thomas: If the hon. member would like to have a look at my notes at a later date, perhaps he could find them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is one of them Albert Hopkins, vice-president of Imperial Oil?


Ray Thomas: I believe so. Thank you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What was that name?


Ray Thomas: Albert Hopkins.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That takes another
minute. Who are the others?


Ray Thomas: If the hon. members have finished with their little chat, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.


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

Animal Contagious Diseases Act ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT



ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO OWNERS OF SLAUGHTERED CATTLE

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide changes in the limitation of value determined by the minister in respect to compensation that may be paid owners of slaughtered cattle; to provide additional compensation in respect to certain cattle slaughtered before the commencement of the amending act but after March 31. 1947, and for the repeal of the basis of compensation provisions.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide additional return to those stock owners whose cattle are slaughtered on account of tuberculosis and, when slaughtered, the carcasses are condemned outright as unfit for consumption and on which there is no salvage value. If the amendment were implemented, the return on an animal slaughtered would be approximately the same whether or not it had any salvage value. A higher rate of compensation has been provided for sheep and swine when slaughtered under the provisions of the act. The bill also provides for retroactive payments to stock owners who had carcasses condemned since April 1, 1947. Under all tuberculin test policies it is estimated that approximately 5,329 carcasses will be involved in the retroactive compensation. This number of condemned carcasses resulting from all tuberculin tests since April 1, 1947, originated from approximately 3,553 individual farmers' premises.
I may say that over a long period of years provision has been made for certain payments to be made on livestock that is slaughtered as a result of certain diseases. Certain diseases that affect horses have been covered by this act and certain diseases which affect hogs and sheep, and tuberculosis particularly with regard to cattle. The payments have been approximately the same over the greater part of the period; that is, the possible payments. The act has always stated that a certain limited value could be placed upon purebred stock and lower limited value on grade stock. But the act, as it has been over the years, has stated that the minister or someone on his behalf would set the value that was to be allowed for the stock, but not to exceed two-thirds of this certain valuation; that is, to illustrate, the value of a purebred cattle beast was limited to $150. But the total payment that could be made was only two-thirds
[Mr. Speaker.)
of that. The amendments are asking as the maximum amount the two-thirds of the $150 and two-thirds of the price for grade cattle, and saying that that is the highest amount which can be paid. In other words, the minister or someone acting in his behalf cannot exceed those amounts in setting what the figure is. We do not have to value the animal, then take two-thirds of that, and then take a certain proportion of that two-thirds.
But we do go on to say something which is not provided in the original act. We say that, when an animal is condemned outright and therefore goes into the tank, the payment that is to be made on that animal is the actual valuation based upon the market value of the animal at the time slaughtered.
In order to determine what that value is for the period from April 1, 1947, down to the time this act is declared, we indicate that the method by which the value is determined is the average of the market price over the period of time, rather than trying to determine what the price of an individual animal would have been during that period.
From now on individual animals are dealt with on the basis of the market price. But for the period between April 1, 1947, and the present time that valuation is the average of the prices prevailing on the market over a certain period.
Hon. members may be interested in knowing why we go back to April 1, 1947, or how that date was determined upon. The fact is that during the war we were not carrying on many of these investigations concerning conditions in municipalities, in order to make payments. But since the beginning of April, 1947, we have been expanding our activities in connection with it. We went back to the first month in the year in which, when the act was drafted, a municipality which had been started in that particular month was still being examined into. That month was April of 1947.
When the act was drafted last spring we were still examining into payments which ought to be made in areas where we had started investigations on April 1, 1947. We said there would be discrimination if we dealt with them on any other basis. We go back to April 1, 1947, and make payments right back to that date, which will take in all the counties in Ontario and the municipalities in western Canada where investigations had been started. We are still continuing in those counties or municipalities.
That, I think, pretty well covers the intention of the measure. I have some information with regard to the number of animals affected, and if the committee is interested I shall give that information later.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to say a few words in connection with this resolution, which states that it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to provide changes in the limitation of value determined by the minister. I am not going to elaborate upon the resolution; but, coming from an agricultural riding as I do, and knowing as I do about the tremendous loss to farmers, I am sure this bill will receive a welcome when it is put into effect.
When one part of a riding is within a T.B. test area, and the other part is not, the livestock in the area which does not have the T.B. test have only about half the value. I was informed by some people who had gone to a dairy sale in Winnipeg last fall that the animals they had at home were far superior to those offered at the sale, but that they would not bring the price of those at the sale because they were not in a T.B.-tested area.
When the bill is brought down and compensation is increased from two-thirds of the value to 100 per cent, I know it will go a long way toward helping T.B. areas, and to bring those which are not now in T.B. areas under the act. The reason is that compensation will be given according to the loss on cattle which occurs through condemnation by the doctor.
I am sure that throughout the whole of Canada the bill will receive wholehearted approval. However, there is something else I should like to mention, and that is Bang's disease, which in my opinion should be included in a bill of this kind. Bang's disease has not only destroyed thousands of beef and dairy animals but affected many human beings. Having had a dairy herd of my own some years back I know something of the terrific losses farmers throughout the whole of Canada have sustained from Bang's disease-and not too many people know about it.
This disease in a herd destroys the fertility of the whole herd and, as a result, in a few years one has nothing left with which to carry on. I had a herd of fifty head and, believe it or not, for three years, until the disease was stamped out, I had an increase of only ten or fifteen head. I should like to see the government in the coming year go a long way toward eradicating this terrible disease. It has taken a large toll of cattle and has curtailed the milk flow to all the cities of Canada.
I pass these points on to the government in the hope that they may take action in the future.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say, during his explanation of the resolution, that the department was not increasing the compensation for animals
Animal Contagious Diseases Act slaughtered. I remember very well statements made by the minister and his parliamentary assistant-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that we were not increasing payments for animals slaughtered. We did not pay anything before on animals slaughtered and sent to the tank, except an amount which was allowed. But on the animals which do not go into the tank, most of the beef is sold on the market. In addition to what is obtained from the government, the person who delivers the animal gets the value of it as well. Of those that go into the tank, there is nothing-except perhaps the hide and very little more. What we are doing now is to pay the full value of the animal which goes into the tank- which is a great increase over what was paid before.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that you are paying full compensation for animals which go into the tank; and on top of that you now say you are going to pay the beef price of that animal going into the tank. Heretofore the salvage value on a tanker has been nil; we realize that.
Previous to the election the minister and his parliamentary assistant made certain promises both inside and outside the house that the compensation paid to T.B. reactors would be increased. A reading of the resolution would seem to indicate that it is intended to change the compensation, but I understand that the valuation is to be lowered to what was paid before, that is, two-thirds of the value.
When this act was first enacted in 1903 the compensation paid was exactly the same as it is today. Under the act as assented to on August 13, 1903, the compensation paid was as follows:
Horses:
Grades, $150.
Purebreds, $300.
Cattle:
Grades, $60.
Purebreds, $150.
Sheep and swine:
Grades, $15.
Purebreds, $50.
Those are the valuations permitted by the present act before this amendment. A new amendment was assented to on June 6, 1913, under which the compensation for grade horses was raised to $200, and for purebreds to $500. The valuation for hogs and sheep remained the same. In 1918 the compensation for grade cattle was raised to $80 and for purebreds, to $250. In 1922 the compensation for purebred cattle was lowered to $200 and the compensation for grade horses was brought down to the old figure of $150, and $300 for purebreds. Then in 1923 the act was amended to its present form.

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
Is it reasonable that the compensation paid in 1949 should be the same as that paid in 1903? Too many times the farmers are expected apparently to bear more than their share of the burden for the benefit of the entire population. I am not suggesting for one moment that the farmers expect to get the total value of animals slaughtered because of T.B. It must be realized that back in 1903 the price of cattle was about one-third what it is today, yet the compensation is the same.
The government says that it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The fact is that it has been expedient for the last ten years, but nothing has been done about it. It was very necessary during that time because the price of cattle had increased considerably, and even in 1939 it was going up. The minister suggests that the farmers will be getting enough under this amendment when they receive the beef price for cattle going to the tank. I understand that taking into consideration all districts and all herds the average of cattle sent to the tank is nine per cent and that in very few cases will a farmer lose more than three or four animals to the tank. I have yet to hear of anyone who kicks about the loss of such animals; what the farmers are kicking about is the amount they get for compensation.
It has been only in the last few years, probably in the last three years, that beef prices have gone up to any appreciable extent. Previous to that time I do not suppose that the compensation paid for reactors would any more than cover half the cost of new animals. As I said before, statements have been made both in and outside the house by the minister and his assistant, to the electors of this country and to delegations that have come to Ottawa, that the farmers would get more than they were asking for. I do not think they will feel they are getting more than they are asking for when tley are to receive only the beef price for tankers.
The compensation for sheep and swine is being raised, but that is a different matter as there is generally no salvage value there. No one keeps a diseased animal knowingly because he realizes it is a danger, not only to himself and his family but to any people who might be using raw milk from his herd. These men are interested in the general welfare of the country and are willing to go along with the tests and to see that diseased animals are destroyed. It would be practically impossible to measure the loss to farmers in dollars and cents when animals must be destroyed. A man may have built up a purebred dairy herd over a period of 25 years


and may lose nearly the whole herd. No matter what compensation is paid, such a man suffers a terrific loss.
This is not only a problem for the farmer; it is a national problem. It is a case not only of getting rid of the diseased animal but of getting rid of animals which are disease carriers. The life of every human being in Canada may be affected and it thus becomes a national problem. I think the government should assume a little more of the burden and not place so much of it on the farmer himself. Certainly the compensation paid in the past few years has not come anywhere near covering the losses that have been sustained. I would have hoped that the minister could have seen fit to increase the amount of compensation as was promised prior to the election. As I said before, very few people have ever kicked about cattle that go to the tank. They are complaining about the amount of compensation. The bill is not before us yet, and I do not wish to discuss the matter further until we see the bill and know what its contents are. Therefore I am reserving judgment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may tell the hon. member that what is in the bill is exactly what the delegation was told would be in the bill last spring-just exactly what they were told would be in the bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: I may say then that the minister should have told his parliamentary assistant what was in the bill prior to the election.


James Garfield Gardiner: He made the same speeches I made, and they were correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: You think he did.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: In rising to take part in the debate on the resolution, one of the first things I should like to say is that farmers have been waiting a considerable time for such action. Therefore we welcome the introduction of the resolution regardless of how bitterly we are disappointed in its contents. Apparently there is a vast gap between promise and fulfilment. I can recall that the delegations which came to Ottawa were told that they would receive full compensation, and possibly more than they asked for. If I understand correctly what the farmers of my area are expecting, I must repeat that they are going to be terribly disappointed. My colleague says that the election is over now, but there is another one in the offing. As the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth has said, we want to see the bill before we comment too fully upon it.
Nevertheless I should like to point out three things to the minister and to the house. I think that all Canadians are in accord with

the broad principle of the elimination of bovine tuberculosis from Canadian herds. We welcome that as a health measure. It is a broad public health plan. We hear a lot about what the Department of National Health and Welfare is going to do, and this is only one of the steps that it is necessary to take for the prevention of disease in Canada. I also want to point out that a measure for public health should not be paid for by the farmers alone but by all citizens of Canada.
The minister has attempted to prove to the house that the farmers are not losing a great deal. I have before me a copy of the sales slips of the forty-four head of cattle I mentioned on a previous occasion in the house. They indicate the numbers of the animals, the weight, the price per hundredweight, and the amount the man received. It is only from the dairy herds, the milk cows, that a farmer is going to receive a continuous income through the sale of milk. Therefore I will take the sixteen cows out of the herd of forty-four cattle. Their sale at Canada Packers brought an average value of $91.76. In a previous discussion the minister told us that 10 per cent of the reactors went to the tank. This gentleman was lucky inasmuch as only one of the sixteen went to the tank. If he had been an average farmer, instead of receiving $91.76 he would have received $82.58. If you add to that the $38 that the government pays for these cows, the producer would have had a cash return from each cow of $120.58.
I think everyone knows that it is an impossibility today to buy even a fair grade cow for anywhere near that price. If I were to put the price at $200 I would be putting it conservatively. It would be nearer $240 or more.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask what was the date of that sale?


Harry Oliver White: These animals were slaughtered at Canada Packers on September 22, 1949. I can give the man's name if the minister so desires. We are reserving judgment, however, until we find out what is in the bill and hear more about it. I want to point out that 8,619 have already been sent to the abattoirs from the county of Middlesex, and if you put the loss on each one at $100 you have well over $750,000 lost in the county of Middlesex alone. I think that is too great a burden to ask the farmers to bear for the sake of public health in Canada. I want the minister to know that there is more to the question than the angle of whether or not the farmer is going to make a living.
Canadian National Railways
We think unemployment insurance is a good thing. We believe in it. Its purpose is to take care of the labourer when, through no fault of his own, his means of livelihood are taken away. I do not think the farmer is in a different position. We pay awaiting returns to veterans who are trying to establish themselves on farms until such time as their income is large enough for them to carry on. These men are going to be awaiting returns for quite some time. Some of them are in such a position that possibly they will never go back into the cattle business. Young men, and some of them veterans, have started farming on borrowed money, and are in a desperate situation. The man who has been established for twenty years can get by, but the others are in a different position. I must say that, so far as I can see, the resolution introducing the bill is a bitter disappointment.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 147, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $19,766,890 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1949; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $19,766,890 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if at any time before the first day of April, 1950, the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges: provided that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the minister from the recipients' annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient, any insufficiency to be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

Canadian National Railways


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, those who were members of the last parliament will recognize this as the usual resolution preceding the introduction of a bill providing funds for approved capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railway system. However, I should like to make a short explanation for the benefit of new members, an explanation which needs to be made since the C.N.R. report and budget on which this resolution is based were presented and adopted at the spring session of the last parliament, when the new members of course were not here.
Each year the Minister of Transport presents to parliament the report of the Canadian National Railway system and the auditors' statement on that report. The report for the fiscal year 1948 was presented to parliament by the Minister of Transport on March 18, 1949. The budget for the current year is also presented to parliament by the Minister of Transport, and this year that was done on March 22. Both the report and budget are then referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. This year the committee first met on March 21 and had six meetings, calling before it the president and other officers of both the Canadian National Railways and T.C.A., the auditors of the national railway and T.C.A., and other witnesses. The annual report and auditors' report for the year 1948 and the budget for the year 1949 were unanimously approved by this committee in its final report to parliament on April 26, 1949. The present resolution is a natural consequence of the approval of the 1949 C.N.R. budget by this committee. I cannot do better than read the ninth paragraph of the report of the committee which can be obtained, bound with the proceedings of this committee, from the parliamentary library:
The capital budget of the railway system for 1949 includes the following: additions and betterments, $24,500,000; new equipment, $8,700,000; Barraute branch line, $612,890; acquisition of securities and reitrement of capital obligations, $1,692,000; a total of $35,504,890. Against the latter amount there is available from reserves for depreciation and debt discount amortization a sum of $15,738,000, leaving the estimated net capital requirements at $19,766,890.
That is the amount mentioned in this resolution. Since the C.N.R. system is publicly owned, it must now turn to the parliament of Canada for approval to issue securities to obtain this amount of new capital. This is sought in the first part of this resolution, which I shall read. I appreciate that it is a very long resolution, in three main parts. The first part reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company

to issue securities not exceeding $19,766,890 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made for capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1949; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid;-
The next part of the resolution is as follows:
-to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $19,766,890 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness;
This part, then, authorizes the government to make temporary loans to the company secured by these securities, to enable the company to meet such expenditures, until the time is deemed suitable to float such an issue. For example, parliament authorized an amount not exceeding $85,882,200 on June 14, 1948, and it was not until September 15, 1949, that an issue of $70 million was floated of 2| per cent coupon bonds, realizing 98-58 to the company. In the interval between June 14, 1948, and September 15, 1949, the government made advances under a similar clause in the 1948 resolution for the approved capital expenditures, which advances were recovered from the proceeds of the loan.
The first two parts of the resolution relate to capital expenditure and capital indebtedness. The third part relates to operating and income charges. This provision may be likened to a revolving fund provided by the government. It is logical to have this provision in connection with a publicly owned corporation such as this, because surpluses in any year have to be turned into the consolidated revenue fund at the end of the year, so the company has no cushion to meet current obligations. Since the budget approved by the parliamentary committee this spring envisages a net deficit of $37,800,000, it is obvious that current revenues of the system will not be sufficient to meet the current operating and income charges throughout the year, so this authority is necessary.	*
The final clause provides that all such current advances shall be reimbursed to the government from the recipients' annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient, any insufficiency to be provided by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament. I want to make it very clear that this latter deficit appropriation is not covered by this resolution nor is it in the bill which will follow it. When the exact amount of the deficit is known at the end of the C.N.R. fiscal year 1949 a separate resolution and bill will be presented to parliament to make good this deficit; and of course matters relating to the deficit can be discussed at that time.

In summary, therefore, this resolution is presented by the Minister of Finance as a consequence of the unanimous approval given by the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to the 1949 budget of the Canadian National system. It authorized the issuance of securities by the company for the approved capital expenditures in the budget totalling some $19,766,890. It provides that the government may make advances to the company secured by such securities, until such time as those securities are issued. It further provides for temporary loans to the system to meet current operating and income charges, where available revenues are found insufficient, such loans to be recovered out of the annual revenues, or if these are insufficient by deficit appropriation at the next session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think it is usual when the Canadian National Railways comes before this house for financial provision, that an opportunity is given to the members of the house to make suggestions regarding situations prevailing on the railways which require improvement or change. First, may I be permitted with the utmost sincerity to congratulate my hon. friend on the manner in which he has presented this resolution this evening.
The matter I intend to bring to the notice of the Canadian National Railways is one that I have brought up on other occasions. It has to do with the employees of that railway, numbering about 102,000. I should like one thing to be done so as to raise the morale of the employees of the Canadian National Railways, and that is to make more adequate provision for basic retirement pensions.
On July 2, 1947, I pointed out that the basic pension provided for under the regulations applicable to the Canadian National Railways was $25 per month, a totally inadequate amount as a retirement allowance. I delt as well with the fund and the manner of setting up the fund. I am not going to say any more about that at the moment. After my representations, the minister-


James Sinclair: The Minister of Transport?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Transport. He said that he would be glad to bring the representations to the attention of the directors of the Canadian National Railways. Having regard to the low rate immediate consideration should be given to an increase in the amount of the basic pension and secondly, as the provisions respecting awarding of pensions are determined in a large measure upon the continuity of service, a change should be
Canadian National Railways made in those regulations to remove any injustices that may arise from too strict an interpretation of the regulations.
In due course, the minister did bring up the matter, and wrote me a letter stating in part-
We have had to take the position that the basic pension cannot be increased because of the very heavy additional cost which would be imposed upon the company. It must be remembered that this pension is at the sole cost of the company-the employee contributes nothing towards it.
Various questions have been asked by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) relating to Canadian National Railway pensions. An examination of the answers indicates that approximately 60,000 of the Canadian National Railways' employees have no contributory pension and must depend upon the basic pension payable to them at the age of 65, amounting to $25. I recall only one previous occasion upon which I have asked for expenditures to be made, except where such expenditures would be self-liquidating. I feel, however, that this matter of increasing the basic pension does require attention. The basic pension was fixed in 1934, and it represents the only pension a considerable number of the retired employees receive, and it is totally inadequate.
By comparison with the present cost of living, the $25 basic pension has a purchasing power of approximately one-third of what it had in 1934. When one realizes that there are only 40,700 of the employees who contribute anything to their pension, some 60,000 employees who are working in the lower paid positions in the railway company will receive when they retire only $25 per month with which to support themselves and their wives. Employees who have been superannuated and who are receiving a non-contributory basic pension of $25 per month, number 2,743. Those who are receiving from $25 to $30 per month number 841; those receiving between $30 and $40 per month, number 664. These are extremely minor pensions after twenty-five years of service, particularly when one considers that many of these employees are unable to provide for their own security.
There are some who are contributing a portion of their wages to provide a part of their retirement allowances. Yet, even among those who contribute a portion of their wages and are receiving a retirement allowance based in part on their basic pension and in part on their contributions, there are 476 whose pension ranges from $25 to $30 per month, and 2,095 whose monthly pension is from $30 to $40. The need for action has been brought to the attention of the Minister

Canadian National Railways of Transport by representatives of the railway trainmen who have contended that the rate of pension is too low and is a discouragement to that morale which those who serve on the railway should have.
Many men are being denied a pension to which they would be entitled in part because of the fact that they are unable to establish their proof of age, the census records not being accepted in proof of their age. The regulations should be amended to prevent injustices in this and other cases.
I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the matter be brought to the attention of the directors of the Canadian National Railways with a view to assuring that an adequate pension or at least an additional pension be provided for the many employees of Canadian National Railways who today are in the position, upon retirement, of receiving only $25 a month.
Mr. William Aspinall of Winnipeg, vicepresident, brotherhood of maintenance of way employees, communicated with the minister last year and, according to a report appearing in the newspaper Labour published in Washington, among other things said that:
The low paid man who has already been retired or will be retired within the next ten or twenty years is the worker who will receive a totally inadequate pension . . .
It was not until 1935 that he was able to make any contribution himself to his pension. Further on he wrote:
The low paid workers, of whom there are many thousands on the C.N.R., are unable to maintain a semblance of a decent standard of living, let alone make a five per cent contribution to a pension plan, particularly the thousands who have families to support.
Mr. Aspinall asked that consideration be given to the increase in the amount of pension. I think this is a matter which deserves the serious attention of the directors of the Canadian National Railways. The total amount of the entire earnings that is today devoted to the payment of pensions is approximately 2-3 per cent, as I have been informed. I realize that there are continuing deficits in the Canadian National Railways. Sometimes it is hard to understand why there should be the large deficit. In 1948, with operating revenues of $491,269,950, the railway had a deficit of $33,532,000, whereas during the years from 1941 to 1945, while operating revenues at no time equalled those of 1948, there was a surplus each year, the highest of which was $35 million. Possibly the solution to meet the problem is that contained in the brief filed by the Canadian National Railways with the royal commission to the effect that the time has come to remove the unfairness that has resulted from saddling the Canadian National
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

Railways with the overcapitalization resuming in an interest item that may account in considerable measure for the amount of the deficit.
I do not want to ask for expenditures that will increase the deficit, but I feel that this railway company, a national company, owes it to the employees who are unable to make a contribution to a pension for themselves- and I speak particularly on their behalf- that they be not required to retire on a basic pension of $25 a month at age sixty-five. It is unfair. I make this appeal to the parliamentary assistant, without labouring it; I ask that this matter should be reconsidered; and also that the regulations in connection with the administration of the pension should be submitted to the committee on railways and shipping owned by the government so that changes in the regulations may be made so as to remove many of the anomalies which cause discontent and annoyance among railway employees.
While I was looking this matter up I decided to look at the law in effect in the United States. In that country there is a railroad retirement act. The pensions provided for there are considerably larger than those prevailing in Canada. Within the last week or so at the eighth annual meeting of the legislative committee of the brotherhood of firemen and engineers, a recommendation was made that there should be establishment of a national pension plan for railway employees similar to that under the railroad retirement act of the United States. Whether that is so or not, I feel that this is a matter worthy of consideration by the standing committee of parliament. As a national employer, I feel that we should assure to the man that works the same fairness that is being shown by private enterprise, namely, the provision of a fair and reasonable retirement allowance so that when men who have worked over the years find themselves retired at age sixty-five, they should not have to look forward to only $25 a month.
While I am on my feet I should like to mention one other thing in that connection. I have in mind three or four railroad employees who are between forty-five and fifty years of age, who have become ill, are now unemployed and unable to work. I feel that consideration should be given to extending the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act to cover the unemployed period in the payment of benefits to those who by reason of illness or accident are out of work and unable thereby to provide for their families.
I have advanced these suggestions to the parliamentary assistant for the consideration of the board of directors, and also the consideration of the board that administers the

pension fund. I do not think there is any member in the house who would not be willing to serve on a standing committee of the house to consider the matter fully and to revamp the regulations, so that recommendation might be made for an increase in basic pensions to a reasonable figure, and for the removal of anomalies which have the result of causing some employees, who otherwise would be entitled to pension, to be denied it.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Lake Centre would expect me to answer the points he has raised. The Canadian National Railways are of course under the direct management of the board of directors, and are the parliamentary responsibility of the Minister of Transport. The only responsibility the Minister of Finance or his department has at this time is to bring in this legislation, which actually implements the budget approved by the sessional committee this spring.
I am not suggesting of course that the remarks of the hon. member are out of order, since this is a resolution asking parliament to approve capital grants for the Canadian National. It is perhaps perfectly proper for the hon. member to voice any grievance he may have in connection with the railways at this time. I take it he wishes to inform parliament of these grievances, and also to draw the attention of the C.N.R. board of directors to these matters. I would suggest that the most effective place to make those recommendations would be, as he suggested during the course of his speech, before the sessional committee when it is called next spring to consider the 1949 report of the Canadian National Railways, and the 1950 budget. At that time the president and directors would be in attendance before the committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I did not rise, as I had intended a moment ago, because I wished the parliamentary assistant to have an opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Lake Centre before I took the liberty of rising to speak about an entirely different question.
In the constituency from which I come we have had a tremendous increase in population over the last thirty years. Today there are four constituencies where there was only one at the time I first had the honour of attending in this chamber. During that period of time, because of the change in the grade of the railway, and the putting in of grade crossings in the eastern end of tne city of Toronto, it has been found necessary to close Riverdale station, one of the two stations which formerly served that area.
At the present time these 300,000 people are serviced by the main union station, which is many miles away from the suburban area.
Canadian National Railways Otherwise they are serviced only with the one station at Danforth, which is neither adequate nor sufficient to look after that population. Furthermore, the population is growing very fast both to the east and to the north of the old Danforth station, so that within a few years we will have there another 100,000 people who will have to be serviced by this old and very small and cramped station. It will be quite unable to give the service necessary for the people living in that area.
It will be only a matter of a few years when it will become a dire necessity to build a station east of Toronto, perhaps in the location of the present Danforth station. The Canadian National Railways now own all that property, which was formerly used as a sorting yard. They have many acres of property there, and at one time a roundhouse was located on it. Most of it is now vacant In due course a new station will have to be built at Danforth to service those people.
I make these remarks to place them on record now, so that consideration may be given as to what eventually should be done. At the same time I would emphasize that in the same very densely populated area there are four level crossings. One by one, as fast as it can be done, these will have to be eliminated of necessity. I speak particularly about the level crossing at Woodbine avenue concerning which an application now rests with the department from Toronto. Then there are the level crossings at Jones avenue and Greenwood avenue, and another one out in the township at Warden avenue.
In approaching this problem I was hopeful it might be treated in a broader sense than simply that of considering the railway and its difficulties and necessities. I thought another requirement in that same community might be hooked up, because for those 200,000 people we have no post office, so called. Of course we have some small postal stations, and some rented premises such as stores and that sort of thing. However there is no post office, as such, or as hon. members would understand post office facilities in a large community.
Further, we have no facilities in that area for the clearing of customs, for excise matters, or matters dealing with the various departments of government which have to be housed. In that western section of Toronto known in the earlier days as Toronto Junction or West Toronto there is a dominion public building which services the community. I know the Minister of Public Works is listening to me because he has heard this story before.
When consideration is given to the building of a new Danforth station, I suggest the

Canadian National Railways Department of Public Works might at the same time consider the proper housing of customs, excise, immigration and post office services, all of which might be housed in conjunction witih the new station, and in one substantial public building to serve this fastgrowing community.
I address my remarks to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, whom I commend for his concise statement of a few moments ago, and also put on record some suggestions to be considered bv the Department of Public Works. After all, the money comes from the treasury, and it would be unfortunate if these two problems were to be considered separately. The Canadian National Railways own the land, and that land would offer a logical location for the other services i have mentioned. I was anxious to place this position on the record and in due course, perhaps during the spring session, we may be told whether anything is going to be done. When the Minister of Public Works is dealing with his estimates perhaps he will indicate that he will give some consideration to the inadequacy of the services presently available in the eastern section of Toronto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all agree with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance in the statement he has made to the effect that inasmuch as this resolution calls for the advance of a considerable sum of money to cover the operations of the Canadian National Railways it would be in order to discuss almost anything related to that system. Also, I agree with him that we should not take advantage of that right to discuss the whole range of railroad matters, particularly matters with which the Department of Finance may not have any connection. However, I think the hon. member for Lake Centre was perfectly justified in taking a few minutes of the time of the committee-and that is all I intend to take- to speak about a very important matter in relation to the morale and efficiency of the Canadian National Railways. Indeed the hon. member was perfectly justified in basing his remarks upon the need for good morale and the highest efficiency in the national system.
It is hardly necessary fcr me to say how thoroughly I support the piea for the best possible deal for our railroad workers in the matter of pensions and pension rights; after all, I have raised such matter., times without number. Nevertheless the parliamentary assistant greeted this as though it were almost a new subject, which makes it evident that we must bring this problem to the attention of the government in every possible way.


I feel that strong support should be given, certainly on an interim basis, to the plea that the basic pension of $25 per month be increased, and indeed that there be improvements right across the board in the Canadian National pension regulations. I must say that they are a little better than some of the other railway pensions in effect in this country, but that does not mean that they are satisfactory. I hope it will not take too many pleas of this kind; T hope it will not be necessary to raise this matter year in and yea- >.ut Defore there is any improvement in me pension position of Canadian National employees.
I was glad the hon. member for Lake Centre had got hold of the United States railroad retirement act, and has looked into it and found what a good piece of legislation it is. I am glad that the hon. member now joins with me in suggesting that something of this nature should be brought into being in this country. It seems to me that here we get a little beyond a matter which the parliamentary assistant will say should be brought to the attention of the management of the railroad; here we get to something that is a matter of government policy. This is not something to be passed on to the railway management; it is something for the parliamentary assistant to pass on, not only to the Minister of Transport who is here tonight but to the Minister of Finance as well, and through them to the whole government.
I shall not take time tonight, partly because I have done it before and partly because I shall do it again on another occasion, to go into the details of the United States railroad retirement act. As has been pointed out tonight, that act is infinitely better than any railroad pension legislation we have in this country. Its administration by an independent board is much more satisfactory to the men and its benefits go far beyond the question of pension rights.
One of the things that appeal to me about this proposal of a railroad retirement act in this country is that it is something that the federal government could initiate without having to go through this dominion-provincial squabble. So far as labour relations are concerned, railroad workers come under federal jurisdiction. We hear talk all over the country and all over this house about everyone wanting to move in the direction of over-all social security, and I shall speak about that again on another occasion, but when it gets down to the question of doing something, the old problem of the constitution is always trotted out. That is not necessary so far as workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction are concerned.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member has no doubt noted that applications for workmen's compensation by railroad workers are contingent upon the province in which the injury takes place. It is not just a simple matter because they are under dominion labour legislation. They cannot interfere with the workmen's compensation in the various provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I grant that it may not be a completely simple matter, but one of the contributions that lawyers make at times is to confuse anything that is clear before they get at it.


Mr. Smith (Calgary Wesi):: Do not abuse me because you are dumb and I tell you something. I have given you the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not denying the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary West with respect to compensation, but-


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member said that lawyers confuse things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the hon. member interjects workmen's compensation matters into a question of adequate pension rights for railway workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction, he is confusing the situation. I continue to make my plea to the government that they look upon this as being one field in which they could get started in respect to an over-all social security plan. I hope that is not going to take too long. If it is going to take any time I certainly feel that the Canadian National could, in the meantime, give a lead to the other railroads in this country by making a substantial increase in the amount of their basic pension.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of this first opportunity I have had to congratulate the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance upon his presentation of this resolution. I should like to deal with one or two phases of the financial aspects of the resolution. I think it is obvious to all hon members that the resolution is divided into two parts. One part has to do with the estimated capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways and the other part has to do with unspecified advances to the Canadian National Railways and affiliated railway and steamship companies for operating deficits, and similar advances to Trans-Canada Air Lines to cover operating deficits in this year.
I have before me the reports of the committee on railways and shipping which sat this year to review the annual reports of the Canadian National and the Trans-Canada Air Lines, together with the budgets of the two
Canadian National Railways systems. There are certain features in the resolution now before the committee which do not necessarily follow from the annual report adopted by that committee and recommended to the house last year. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant some questions arising out of those discrepancies. In the first place, what capital expenditures are to be incurred calling for the advancing by the government to the C.N.R. of nearly $20 million? If they are not capital expenditures, then what capital indebtedness is expected to be incurred? If it is capital indebtedness for replacement of equipment, will the parliamentary assistant give us some indication as to what extent it is not covered by depreciation in the ordinary way? That covers the first part of the resolution.
Coming to the second part dealing with the anticipated operating deficit of the Canadian National Railways, the budget of the railways indicated an estimated net deficit for the current calendar year of $37,800,000. I beg your pardon-


James Sinclair: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: $37,800,000. The budgets of the various affiliated companies such as Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and so on, contain similar anticipated net deficits or surpluses. I wonder why it is not possible for us to insert a definite sum in the resolution now before the committee. It may well be that the actual deficit will be somewhat greater or less than the anticipated deficit in the budget of the company. With deference, I suggest it is not a sound principle to ask us to authorize the payment of an unspecified sum to the company by what is commonly called blank cheque legislation. I would much rather see the company confined, as it were, to the anticipated net deficit shown in their budget; or, if the parliamentary assistant has reason to believe that the net deficit will be less than shown in the budget, to ask in the resolution for authority to grant a specific sum in accordance with such lesser anticipated net deficit.
I do not think it is a sound principle to ask us to authorize a blank cheque, so to speak, to the railways so that they can run up a deficit of any amount, when they have given us a definite statement in their budget of what they anticipate their net deficit will be. If it were the case that we authorized a specific sum, and the net deficit in fact was slightly larger, it seems to me that the company could carry on in the normal way by normal borrowings. After all they have the credit of the government of Canada and of the Canadian nation behind them. Therefore
1480	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways they could borrow in the normal way of business if they had a slight excess in their deficit over what was anticipated and what was authorized by the advance to them from parliament. That borrowing could be financed until such time as a subsequent session of parliament authorized the making good of the difference.
I should like the parliamentary assistant to answer the question why we are not given a specific sum in the second part of the resolution so far as the C.N.R. and subsidiary or connecting companies are concerned. I would ask the same series of questions with respect to T.C.A., because the procedure in the committee was the same. We had the budget for 1949 and the anticipated surplus or deficit was shown. Finally, I think one might well ask why the second part of the resolution is not divided into two parts, because the Canadian National Railways and its affiliated companies are entirely separate, and are under the authority of a separate minister. As the bill to be founded on this resolution will deal in some detail with the various companies, and as discussion is bound to enter into some detail concerning them, it seems to me it would make for greater clarity if, instead of having one resolution, the second part of the resolution were separated, and instead of one bill we had two bills, one dealing with the anticipated deficit of the C.N.R. and affiliated companies, and another bill dealing with the anticipated deficit of T.C.A.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make an extended statement on this matter, but I want to throw a different light on the question of industrial pensions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I get an answer to my questions?


James Sinclair: It does not matter to me when I answer.


Clarence Gillis: I shall only be a few minutes. As one who was employed in industry for twenty-six years, I have done a lot of thinking, talking and reading on the subject during that time. Pension schemes are inadequate throughout industry as a whole. In most industries there are no pension schemes. If we intend to find a solution to the problem it is not going to be done in the way suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. These palliatives must be retained until something better replaces them. We will be talking in the same way about industrial pensions one hundred years from now if we follow the course of action we have been. For example, in industry across Canada you have differentials in wages. You


have large companies which make profits and can afford to pay adequate pensions. You have smaller companies which cannot afford to pay a decent pension. They can show you that by their balance sheets. Then there are essential industries that are uneconomic and have to be subsidized by the government. They cannot pay anything.
If you take all the basic industries of Canada, that is the position you find yourself in. If you maintain the practice of trying to provide for workers in industry on the basis of the workers and the corporations getting together to solve the problem, there is no solution for it. The Canadian National Railways must come before parliament every year for the purpose of having the taxpayers of Canada wipe out a deficit. I think it is rather nonsensical to ask them to increase their pensions, wage rates, and so forth. That is the problem that has to be solved. Every worker has one fear, the fear of insecurity. Where do I go from here after I reach the end of my years of productivity? If you can solve that problem you will have solved one of the major problems affecting all workers of Canada, farmers, fishermen and industrial workers. It is not going to be solved by trying to place the responsibility on industry and the workers themselves.
There are good examples right now in the United States. The coal industry has been practically paralysed for several months. They are wrangling in the steel industry. They are coming out of it in some kind of way at the present time, but they will repeat the performance next year. There is only one answer to the problem. If you intend to provide some kind of pension, and nothing under $100 a month is worth while, there is only one way it can be done fairly so as to equalize both the payment and the contribution, and that is by taxation. If the government of this country think that when workers reach a certain age, and have been in a given industry for a certain period of time, they should have a retiring allowance, then they should work out a social security tax for that purpose.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a contributory basis.


Clarence Gillis: You will be contributing when you pay your taxes. Everyone would pay an equal amount into that fund, and everyone would share equally in it when they reached the retiring age. Then you would have one national administration handling the fund. As it is now, with these piecemeal arrangements as between industry and industry, you have overlapping and millions of dollars wasted in administration, which a government department would offset. Unless we

get down to thinking in those terms, in my opinion we are wasting time; there is no solution. On the basis of their balance sheets the Canadian National Railways are not in a position to pay any more, as far as I can see; and in the final analysis it is the taxpayers who have to bear the cost of wiping out this deficit year after year. I believe we have to get down to business and think more or less along these lines. It is simple enough; tax everyone, so that everyone contributes and everyone shares. You will have one administration, which will simplify bookkeeping and be more efficient.
I have lost interest in these business and industrial pensions. I know where the mine worker winds up. I know where the steel worker winds up-on the scrap heap, with a broken back. That is the thing that worries him all his life. He carries about $500 insurance, enough to bury him. He tries to pay for that, but there is no hope for anything at the end of the trail except a worn-out, broken body. Thousands of workers are in that position today. I merely make these observations in order that hon. members may come to think of these matters along these lines. The pulp and paper industry of this country has established a decent pension of $100 a month. That industry can afford to do so. If a man passes away and his wife is left behind she receives a death benefit of $2,500, and all the contributions her husband made are paid back plus interest.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is at age sixty-five.


Clarence Gillis: That is the retirement age. If we want to equalize the load and have everybody bear an equal share on a contributory basis, the only way to do it is by taxation.


James Sinclair: Perhaps I might answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Kamloops. His first request was for a list of the capital expenditures and capital indebtedness; but the hon. member sent me a note saying that he has now obtained that information. I listed those figures in my opening explanatory remarks, and they will be found also at page 336 of the report of the sessional committee. They will also appear in the bill which will be introduced after the resolution is adopted.
The hon. member's second question was why there was no limit in the second part of the resolution, that part which I described as providing a revolving fund. The C.N.R. deficit, of course, is only estimated at the amount mentioned, $37,800,000. It is quite true that this amount could be specifically mentioned in the resolution and in the bill, but I repeat that it is only an estimate. The hon. member mentioned that if by any chance
45781-94J
Canadian National Railways this estimate was exceeded, the C.N.R. could follow the ordinary practice of borrowing. However, the C.N.R. cannot borrow from banks in the way other railways can; it is limited to borrowing from the government, as a check on its borrowings. That is why it was necessary to more or less give them an open revolving fund, but parliament has a further control when the deficit bill is presented in the spring.
Then the hon. member asked why it was necessary to have two separate parts of the bill, an authorization for this extra capital expenditure in the first part and in the second, part the authority to draw on the government if need be in order to meet current expenses. In the resolution last year there was no specific limiting date on the second part of the resolution, as we have in this resolution. Here, toward the end of the second last line, we have the specific date, "before the first day of April, 1950." This was not in the resolution last year, as it was hoped to obtain authority for a perpetual revolving fund. At that time it was the opposition who objected, and asked the Minister of Finance to have a specific limitation of one year each year. For that reason we find it necessary to incorporate the authority for the revolving fund, which was granted last year only for one year, again in this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood my question with regard to the second part of the resolution. My question was not why there should be a second part. I quite appreciate that it is necessary because the advances are made only for one year, as we asked last session and as is being done again. My question was why the second part of the resolution was not divided into two parts, one dealing with the C.N.R. and the other with T.C.A. for the reason, as I pointed out, that the two systems are under the authority of different ministers. While this is admittedly purely a financial matter, nevertheless the bill founded on this resolution is bound to enter into some detail, and in the same way the discussion is bound to involve some details respecting the C.N.R. on the one hand and T.C.A. on the other. So I should have thought it would be more convenient, and would make for greater clarity in dealing with the matter, if we had two separate bills with respect to the two separate systems.


James Sinclair: The obvious answer is that the annual reports and budgets of these two companies are considered by the one committee, and this resolution and the bill are founded upon the final report of that committee. It is quite true, as the hon. member says, that as far as the operation of these two companies
1482	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways is concerned they come under different ministers; but since the budget is examined by, and the recommendations come from, the one committee, and since this resolution seeks to implement those recommendations, it was considered advisable to have just the one resolution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Matters like trade agreements are considered by the banking and commerce committee. So are all sorts of other matters -which you would not dream of incorporating in the same bill, though they are considered by the same committee.


James Sinclair: The difference is, as I pointed out, that the two reports are sent to the committee at the same time; they are discussed by the committee at the same time and are dealt with together in the final report of the committee. Therefore it seemed to the Department of Finance that the convenient way would be to include them in the one resolution and the one bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has changed his seat, and I have difficulty in locating him. It is going to come as quite a shock to him when he hears me say that I am largely in agreement with his remarks this evening. But while I say that, in the interests of those who control the capital in industry I think perhaps one should mention the tremendous steps that have been taken to provide security for their employees. I am glad the hon. member mentioned the pulp and paper industry; he gave very accurate figures in regard to what they have done. I agree with him in regard to the small chap who is not able to provide anything like this; that is understandable. I want to say that the steel company in Hamilton, Imperial Oil and various pulp and paper companies have made great contributions, unasked, without the use of force and without strikes, in an endeavour to provide security for the people who work for them.
I appreciate, and I agree with the hon. member, that this is not good enough. We must make it more general. I was going to refer to those who sit around me. I used to be able to mention those who sit opposite me, but now I am reminded of the charge of the light brigade, who had cannon to the right of them, cannon to the left of them and cannon behind them which volleyed and thundered. These fellows who shoot from my back I know do not intend to shoot me in the back, but they cannot speak from any other position than that which they have been assigned because of this tremendous majority of Grits in this House of Commons. So I say once more that I think this is the
IMr. Sinclair.]

point the hon. member had in mind: we must devise some contributory scheme, be it by taxation or otherwise, by means of which we shall solve this whole problem of old age. Perhaps it is not altogether a problem of old age, but through injury or something of that sort there are those who have not the energy or the ability to keep themselves and their families. I had in mind some monthly or quarterly contributions.
I turn now to this resolution directly, and I think of something I said this afternoon, but I shall not quote that, Mr. Chairman, because I know there is a rule forbidding one from quoting anything said in a previous debate. I think the principle is the same, however. What we are doing is not so much considering these few dollars, although they are in the millions. I have been here long enough to know that a million does not amount to much, I mean broadly speaking; I do not understand it myself. At some time, we must come to the point of fixing this stupid capital structure of the Canadian National Railways.
This afternoon we did the same thing as we did in the past when we took over a bunch of broken railways. The man who put that through was Arthur Meighen who, in my judgment, is one of the greatest statesmen that ever lived. Putting that measure through killed him politically, but he was the man who did it. We found a lot of individual railways who could not look after themselves and we had Mr. Hanna, since gone, take them over. I was his personal solicitor, and if any of you knew him you can imagine some of the difficulties I had.
Later, in the history of this railway, we got Sir Henry Thornton. He bought a hotel in Paris for a million dollars. We needed that hotel as much as I need a third leg. Perhaps I need a third leg more because I have one bad knee, but we needed the hotel about as much as you normal fellows need a third leg. He did a great service, though. For the first time, he made a railway. Sir Henry Thornton put spirit into that company. He was expensive, but he put spirit into the Canadian National Railways, for which I think he will be long revered and long remembered. I am going to say this to the parliamentary assistant to the minister and to the Minister of Transport who, happily, is in his seat. I do not want any wrong inference drawn from that statement-I think he is more in his seat than any other minister, so I am complimenting him on that. What we have to do is solve this problem. Do we want to sit here year after year-


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There is something in that statement. Incidentally, I think

that is the brightest remark ever made in the House of Commons by the minister who just made it. Do we v/ant (to sit here year after year voting deficits?
Supposing any member of this house knew he had an overburdened capital structure which he could not overcome. What courage have you, what spirit have you to carry on, knowing that all you are doing is gnawing away at a great mountain of debt? Remember, this debt is owed to the Dominion of Canada. Why we do not take the bull by its horns or cut the Gordian knot-or whatever those fancy expressions are

and reduce that capital structure to what it should be, is something I do not understand. We should give these men a chance to operate the railway. Is there anyone on the ministerial benches who could tell me that his morale would not be affected by the tremendous mountain of debt in front of him, so that no matter how well he ran the railway he would have to come back to the House of Commons for millions of dollars more? Those millions are going to pay interest on a capital debt which is ours.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member tell me whether or not his party would support a revision of the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways by way of amendment to the capital revision act?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, but I will
say this; I am not in a position to speak for my party, but I will support it. That is the largest undertaking I am prepared to give.


Mr. Thatcher:: Some of the other parties, too.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You may be able to speak for your party, but I never knew you to be in that position before. I think I have given the largest undertaking of which I am capable.
My real point is that it does not mean a dollar to us. We vote these deficits by way of paying interest owing to ourselves. Let us give this outfit a chance to operate. Let us give them a bit of courage to do a better job. Now, they are operating under a wet blanket all the time. I believe I have made myself clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the question the Minister of Transport asked the hon. member for Calgary West-


Lionel Chevrier: I did not ask the hon. member, I asked the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith).
Canadian National Railways


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking the Minister of Transport why, with the huge majority at his command, he does not bring in such a bill.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall only take one minute. I have listened with some interest to the last few speeches. They have been clamouring for some solution to a problem which needs a little more money. They are asking. How on earth can we do it? They turn a deaf ear to the only proposals that are able to accomplish it, and those are the proposals that have been made during the past fourteen or fifteen years by the group that sits in this corner of the house. Social Credit is the answer. Let some jackasses laugh if they so wish, but they have not the answer and that is all there is to it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier (Hull) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 148, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railway system during the calendar year 1949, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOLD MINING


Colin William George Gibson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in respect to the manner of calculating the amount of assistance that may be paid operators of gold mines, as prescribed by the act; also to empower the governor in council to prescribe by regulation, in the case of a mine producing gold in concentrates during one period and not producing bullion from such concentrates until a later period, the time when the gold shall be deemed to have been produced and the manner in which the cost of production thereof shall apply.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is the minister going to make a statement on this measure?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, in committee.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Alphonse Fournier: The question has now been put. The hon. member can say the same thing in committee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, I do not think so; not on the resolution that is before us.

Gold Mining


Alphonse Fournier: The question has been put. I think the hon. member can say the same thing in committee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right; but I do not think we should adjourn without a statement tonight.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Colin William George Gibson: I hope it may be possible to have this resolution passed tonight so that the bill may be distributed and discussion may take place on the second reading and in committee.
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was passed to provide assistance to the mines in defraying part of the post-war increase in the cost of production during the years 1948, 1949, and 1950, during the time that the product they were producing was selling at a fixed price. It has been of great assistance to the mines and has enabled some of them to continue in operation where they would otherwise have been forced to cease production, with resulting hardships to mining areas.
Experience has shown that some amendments to that act are desirable, and the amendments that are proposed come under three headings. The original act provided assistance on gold produced in excess of two-thirds of the production in the base year; that is, in the year ended June 30, 1947. The first amendment provides that assistance will be payable to mines when, through no fault of their own, production has decreased below production of the base year. Assistance will be payable on one-third of total production in such cases. I may say that several mines have continued in operation in expectation that this legislation will be passed.
The second amendment in this bill is necessary because of the difficulty that occurs when gold is produced in concentrates. In some cases mines produce gold in concentrates during one year, but do not reduce the concentrates into bullion until a later year. As a result, costs of production of an ounce of gold have been considerably lowered in the year the bullion is produced, while the heavy costs of production take place in years when the ore is taken from the mine. This amendment provides that the governor in council may regulate the manner in which
the costs of production shall be calculated, so that the assistance payment will be truly related to the actual cost of producing the gold.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you mean that, on gold produced several years ago and kept, you are going to go back?


Colin William George Gibson: No; gold which has been mined in one year and is in concentrate form and has not been reduced from the concentrate to bullion until a later year. It is much cheaper to produce gold bullion from the concentrate than it is to mine the ore. Consequently, the gold bullion will be related back to the year in which the ore was produced.
The third amendment recognizes the adjustment in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar and provides for the reduction in the amount of assistance payable to any mine during the year 1950, by an amount equal to $3.50 for each ounce of gold to which the rate of assistance applies. This amending act is to be retroactive to June 15, 1948, when the original bill came into force.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to move adjournment of this debate. It is two minutes to eleven by the clock that I am looking at.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we shall move to go into supply, call one item of External Affairs, and allow it to stand. Then we shall take up Bills Nos. 64, 65, 120, 133, and the bill based on the resolution passed this evening concerning the amendment to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. If we conclude this business, we shall return to supply and take up Veterans Affairs or Labour or some other department; I am not too sure yet which one it will be.
I should have mentioned that, at the request of many hon. members on account of events that will take place on Monday and Tuesday, we shall not discuss the budget on either of those days.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 7, 1949