1949-04-04

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move at this time a motion which stands in my name at page 20 of the order paper, in these words:
That on Monday, April 4th instant-
Which is today.
-government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.
The purpose of the motion is to enable the committee of the whole to consider the supplementary estimates for the financial year which ended on March 31, and which I think it is important to have dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If the house were to dispose of that matter today, it would be possible to have royal assent at the end of the day. Thereafter we would revert to the ordinary proceedings for Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many houses (family units) were built in Canada in the year 1948?
2.	How many houses (family units) were constructed with financial assistance under the provisions of the National Housing Act, during the same year?
3.	What was the total amount of financial assistance?
4.	How many houses (family units) were built for rental?
5.	What was the (a) lowest; (b) highest, monthly rental: (c) average rental?
6.	How many houses (family units), by provinces, were built by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the year 1948?
7.	How many of such houses, by provinces, were built for rental?
8.	What was the (a) lowest: (b) highest, monthly rental; (c) average rental?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Housing units built in Canada in 1943 number 81,243, including 5,146 housing units added by conversion (housing bulletin No. 12, dominion bureau of statistics, table 1, page 4, and table 6, page 8).
2.	The number of housing units completed in 1948 with financial assistance under the provisions of the National Housing Act was 11,939.
3.	The total amount of financial assistance through loans approved under the National Housing Act in 1948 was $101,642,194.
4.	It is estimated that 25 per cent of all housing units completed in 1948 were built for rental (housing bulletin No. 12, dominion bureau of statistics, page 3). Those built in 1948 with financial assistance under the National Housing Act numbered 1,599.
5.	Information is not available for rents charged for all rental housing units constructed. However, information submitted with application for loans under section 8 of the National Housing Act, 1944, indicates that estimated rentals ranged from (a) $35 per month for a 4-room semi-detached unit in Burnaby, British Columbia, to (b) $125 per month for a 7-room duplex unit in Montreal, with (c) average monthly rental for all units approved, $63.23.
6.	During 1948 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation built 6,934 housing units: 184 in New Brunswick, 712 in Quebec, 2,874 in Ontario, 638 in Manitoba, 810 in Saskatchewan, 678 in Alberta, and 1,038 in British Columbia.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	With respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a) lowest monthly rental on houses, $22.00, lowest monthly rental on serviced apartments, $43.50; (b) highest monthly rental on houses, $47.50, highest monthly rental on serviced apartments, $54.00; (c) average monthly rental on houses, $28.88, average monthly rental on serviced apartments, $48.59.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Moore:: 1.	Does the federal government issue fishing licences in the Northwest Territories?
2.	If so, for what lakes are such licences issued?
2284

Questions


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Great Slave lake.


DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Were proceedings taken in the year 1943 under the defence of Canada regulations against any person or persons in connection with a strike at Shawinigan Falls?
2.	If so, against whom were proceedings taken and what was the nature of the charge in each case?
3.	What penalty was imposed in each case?
4.	If imprisonment was imposed was the term of imprisonment served in each case?
5.	If not, in respect of what persons was a release from jail granted before expiration of the term of imprisonment?
6.	Under what authority were such releases, if any, made?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Philip Cutler and Jean Jodoin, offences against regulation 51B, defence of Canada regulations.
3.	Six months in each case.
4.	No, not in full.
5.	In respect of the two persons above named.
6.	Under authority of the Ticket of Leave Act.


WARTIME HOUSING
Mr. McKay:: How many houses (a) have been constructed; (b) are under construction in (i) Canada; (ii) Saskatchewan, by Wartime Housing corporation as at December 31, 1948?


Mr. Winters:: The number of housing units (a) constructed in Canada by Wartime Housing Limited and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as at December 31, 1948, was 38,126, of which 2,265 housing units had been constructed in Saskatchewan.
The number of housing units (b) under construction by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as at December 31, 1948, was 6,721, of which 547 are under construction in Saskatchewan.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  CHOICE OF ROUTE
Mr. Johnston:: 1.	What provinces have been consulted concerning a possible route for the trans-Canada highway?
2.	What was the nature of the reply, if any, from each province?
3.	What is the dominion government's financial share to each province for the construction of such a road?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	All the provinces have been invited to submit proposed routes.
[Mr. Moored
2.	All the provinces discussed their related problems at a conference in Ottawa on December 14 and 15, 1948. Subsequently, to date, eight of the ten provinces have submitted statistics on mileages, standards, costs, possible routes, and other technical data.
3.	Not yet determined.


UNITED STATES FIRMS IN CANADA
Mr. Campbell:: What profits made in Canada by American firms have (a) been converted into U.S. dollars and (b) reinvested in Canada in 1946, 1947 and 1948?


Mr. Belzile:: (a) 1946, $106,267,982; 1947, $124,126,951; 1948, $118,335,158.
Note: These figures relate to profits paid to United States companies by their branches in Canada and by Canadian subsidiaries to United States parent companies owning or controlling them to the extent of 50 per cent or more.
(b) The records of the foreign exchange control board are not maintained in such a manner as to make it possible to obtain the answer to this question.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many applications were received in the calendar year 1948 from Canadian citizens of Chinese origin to bring wives and children to Canada?
2.	How many (a) wives; (b) children, entered Canada as a result of such applications?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	244.
2.	Up to February 28, 1949: wives, 17; children, 49.


INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Who are the members of the income tax appeal board and what is the salary of each of them?
2.	How many appeals, by provinces, have been taken to the income tax appeal board?
3.	Must an applicant on launching an appeal against assessment file security for costs and if so, in what amount?
4.	If an appellant is unsuccessful what is the approximate amount of costs (outside of witness fees) to which he will become liable?


Mr. McCann:: 1. The members of the income tax appeal board are Mr. Justice R. T. Graham, chairman; Mr. Fabio Monet, C.R., Mr. W. S. Fisher, K.C.
The salaries are fixed by statute (Income Tax Act, chapter 52, statutes of 1948, section 77(6)), and are as follows:	chairman,
$13,333.33 a year, and every other member, $10,000 a year.

Questions
2.	The following is the number of appeals by provinces taken to the income tax appeal board as at March 31, 1949: Nova Scotia, Nil; Prince Edward Island, Nil; New Brunswick, Nil; Quebec, 2; Ontario, 4; Manitoba, 2; Saskatchewan, 1; Alberta, 2; British Columbia, 2; Total, 13.
3.	Yes; $15 (Income Tax Act, chapter 52, statutes of 1948).
4.	$15.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Thatcher:: What loans have been made in Saskatchewan by the Industrial Development bank, annually, since its inception?


Gleason Belzile: Fiscal Year	Gross Amount
Ended September 30	Authorized*
1945**	$ 30,000
1946	37,819
1947	133,481
1948	67,500
* Gross amount authorized less cancellations and reductions in amounts authorized. ** Eleven months.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dorion:: Since Janauary 1, 1946, how many immigrants were admitted to Canada from (a) Bohemia; (b) Moravia; (c) Slovakia?


Mr. Maybank:: (By racial
origin) Bohemian Moravian Slovakian Calendar year
1946	31	1	191947	27	7	921948	24	12	455Total	82	20	566


RECONDITIONING OF BUILDING IN HALIFAX, N.S., FOR VETERANS' HOME
Mr. McLure:: 1.	Is the building, situated near the old Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, to be reconditioned for a veterans' home?
2.	Was this building used for a contagious disease hospital and as an officers' rehabilitation quarters?
3.	Have tenders been called for this work?
4.	If so (a) when; (b) from whom were tenders received and what were the respective prices?
5.	Could this work be done under the supervision of the engineers of the Department of Public Works?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	The first floor of the building is being so reconditioned.
2.	Used for a contagious disease hospital from April 1941 until July 1944; used partly
29087-145i
as offices for rehabilitation services from February 1945 until September 1946; used entirely by rehabilitation services from October 1947 until January 1949.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) December 28, 1948.
(b) Standard Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, $11,554; Fundy Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, $12,230; the Brookfield Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, and the Nova Scotia Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, were invited to quote but did not submit tenders; tenders for the supplying and laying of linoleum were called separately and the following were received: Ralph H. Connor, Halifax, $3,791; Gordon & Keith Furniture Co. Ltd., Halifax, $3,999; Robert Simpson Eastern Ltd., Halifax, $4,614.26.
5.	The Department of Public Works has been requested to collaborate in the supervision of this work.


DISTRICT OF MACKENZIE, N.W.T.  REPRESENTA- TION IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Black (Yukon):: Will the government at this session of parliament take proceedings necessary to create the district of Mackenzie in Northwest Territories of Canada an electoral district, entitled to elect a member to represent it in the House of Commons of Canada, separate and apart from Yukon Territory, formerly the electoral district of Yukon?


Mr. McCann:: It is not intended at the present time to introduce legislation to amend the Representation Act, chapter 71 of 1947.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stephenson:: 1.	What has been the operating cost of the wheat board each year since 1945?
2.	How much of the farmers' money still remained in the pool to be distributed each year since 1945?
3.	How much money has been taken from the national revenue fund each year towards the operation of the wheat board since 1944?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Return tabled.



PRINTING BUREAU


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the hourly scale of wages now being paid to printers employed at the government printing bureau, Ottawa; for how many hours per week does the straight time rate apply, and what rates are paid for overtime?
2.	What is the scale for (a) day work; (b) night work, and how is the said night scale determined In relation to the day scale?
3.	What are the hourly scales of wages now being paid to printers in the cities of Montreal and Toronto for (a) day work; (b) night work, in both (i) job; (ii) newspaper offices; for how many hours per week does the straight time rate apply in each case, and what rates are paid for overtime?

Orders for Returns
4.	What was the date of the last increase in the hourly scale of wages paid to printers employed at the government printing bureau?
5.	Is a further increase under consideration?
6.	If so, to what date will such increase be made retroactive?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.



WATER POLLUTION


Mr. Brown:: 1.	Does the Wyandotte Chemical Corporation pump refuse from the United States to Fighting Island on the Canadian side of the Detroit river?
2.	Has an application been made by the Wyandotte Chemical Corporation or anyone else to construct pipe lines for the purpose of pumping chemical or other refuse to the said Fighting Island on the Canadian side of the Detroit river?
3.	Has consideration been given by the government to the damage to fish and wild life resulting from such practices?



SALARIED POSTMASTERS-RENTAL OF SPACE

Mr. Shaw:: 1.	As of March 31, 1949, how many salaried postmasters were there in Canada within the following age groups: (a) 60 to 65; (b) 66 to 70; (c) 71 to 75; (d) 76 to 80; (e) over 80?
2.	In how many cases do salaried postmasters own the buildings in which post offices are located?
3.	Is rent paid to the postmasters in cases where the building owned by the postmaster houses the post office?
4.	What method is used in determining the amount of rent which is paid?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Benidickson:: For a copy of all contracts and agreements entered into during the past ten years between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian National Railway Company and/or the Canadian Pacific Railway company and/or subsidiary companies of the said railway companies, respecting rental of wire lines.



RED RIVER, MAN., ROCKY BARRIERS

Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of any charts or diagrams in the possession of the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works, or any other branch or department of the government, showing the full cross-sections of the rocky barriers at Lister's rapids and at Grand rapids in the Red river, between Winnipeg and Lockport.
Also a copy of any reports, dated since 1867, or correspondence, dated since January 1, 1945, with reference to the removal of the said rocky barriers.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



RADIO BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I think that most hon. members thought that
	.
before government orders were called there would be an opportunity for questions on the orders of the day. I should like to take advantage of the motion to go into committee of supply to ask the Minister of National Revenue when it is intended to proceed with the resolution standing in his name for the appointment of a select committee on radio broadcasting.


James Joseph McCann: It was indicated on Thursday evening that it would be taken up tomorrow, Tuesday.



STRIKE OF ASBESTOS MINERS IN QUEBEC

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair there is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house which I consider to be serious and important, otherwise I would not discuss it at this time. I refer to the strike that has been in progress in Asbestos, Quebec, for some two months. According to reports in French language newspapers-which by the way are not carried in the English-speaking section of our press-it would appear that it is about time the federal government was made aware of what is taking place.
The strike was merely to establish elementary rights which have been granted by law in practically every province to workers who have organized under the law and have established bargaining agencies. The basis of the strike was, first, a request for increases in wages to meet the increased cost of living, and second, the question of union security.
According to press dispatches which I have had translated from the French, during the first week of the work stoppage everything was orderly and peaceful. Then, without solicitation, as I understand it, by the municipality, the Duplessis government sent the provincial police into the town. Prior to the invasion by the provincial police the workers had been maintaining the fires in the plant, the electrical equipment, and so on, in a proper manner, pending the settlement of the matters in dispute.
According to press dispatches, when the provincial police came in they drove the maintenance men off the plant, thus causing disruption and unnecessary upheaval. The actions of the provincial police in relation to the public in the town leave much to be desired. In case hon. members may think that I am drawing on my imagination I should like to quote English translations of newspaper dispatches.

I have a press dispatch of March 22 by Gerald Pelletier, which appeared in Le Devoir of that day. The translation reads:
Asbestos council protests drunkenness and indecency
Asbestos, February 21-The council of the town of Asbestos protested provincial police conduct in a special assembly of the municipal council held here today.
The protest reads:
Whereas on the 14th of February, 1949, a strike was called in Asbestos in the asbestos industry:
Whereas during the week February 14 to 19 all that occurred was in a peaceful manner in Asbestos:
Whereas during the week of February 14 to 19, on a demand made by the Canadian Johns-Manville Company, a detachment of some 150 provincial policemen were sent to Asbestos, allegedly to protect its properties and salaried employees;
Whereas on their arrival a great number of these policemen were under the influence of alcohol;
Whereas a certain number even rendered themselves guilty of indecent acts in the streets of the town, and also were the cause of disorder in public places;
Whereas in certain cases the provincial policemen used violence against the employees working at caretaking during the strike, and also against the constables of the Canadian Johns-Manville;
Whereas these acts were accomplished without warning and with evident thought of provoking trouble;
It is unanimously resolved by members present to protest to Mr. Hilaire Beauregard, provincial police director, about the conduct of his men; and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the different radio stations and newspapers for publication.
This supports the observation I made that the municipal council did not request the provincial police; that they were in a position to maintain law and order in the community. From my experience of strikes, and I have gone through quite a number, outside interference is permissible only when the municipal government informs either the federal authorities or the provincial government that outside assistance is necessary to maintain law and order. As I understand it, the fact of the matter is that law and order were being maintained until there was outside interference by the provincial police.
In further support of that particular contention, there is another story here confirming the assertion that the provincial police are paid a bonus by the Johns-Manville Company of $50 a week each in addition to the regular wages paid them by the provincial government. This story is from the same newspaper, of the same date, and is by the same reporter. It reads:
About that time other facts, no less disturbing, came to the ears of your reporter. We have learned from a very reliable source that Inspector Nobard L'Abbe, of the provincial police, admitted to a meeting of the municipal council that each of his officers received from Johns-Manville a weekly payment of about $50. One guesses that this revelation did not fail to astonish the witnesses. It was objected to Mr. L'Abbe that the police were paid by the taxpayers and they were not considered to be for sale or for rent; otherwise the unions would hire them for their own contingent. But Mr. L'Abbe
Strike of Asbestos Miners was not troubled by the objection. "These are the expenses of the stay which the company is defraying,'' the inspector explained, "and this is a very common procedure employed in many strikes."
The asbestos strike has taught us many things about the provincial police.
I should like to say here, Mr. Speaker- and I am sure the Minister of Labour will agree with me-that this kind of thing in labour relations is at least thirty years behind the times. I do not think that type of action is possible today in any other province. These workers belong to a legitimate union, the Catholic syndicate. I do not think anyone can say that that organization is communistic, socialistic, or has any of the wild-eyed notions that might be attributed to some other sections of the legitimate union movement. They are a part of the legitimate trade union movement of this country. They function in the province of Quebec, and are certified for that purpose.
I think it is time that the federal Minister of Labour and his department began to check to find out exactly what is taking place in that province. The time has long since passed in Canada or elsewhere on the north American continent when a company may deny elementary rights granted by law for the protection of workers who wish to organize and can legitimately do so under the law. In my opinion this action places the provincial police of the province of Quebec in the category of hired thugs. It is time we got rid of that kind of thing and brought home to Mr. Duplessis the fact that he is living in Canada and not in some totalitarian country where he can kick people around the way he is doing now.
I should like to say a few words on the question of union security, because it is one of the main issues in the Johns-Manville strike.
This union was certified as the legitimate bargaining agency, but when the strike began the provincial government, through their provincial labour board, immediately cancelled the certification of the union. When they did so, it meant that according to the laws of Quebec they are not the legitimate bargaining agency, and are denied the right, even under the laws of that province, to seek redress of their grievances. On the question of union security I am not going to express my own opinion. I am going to read an article on union security by Andre Laurendeau in Le Devoir of March 8, 1949. The reason I want to put this article on the record is that it is written by someone living in that community. It represents the viewpoint of a Frenchman in Quebec who is progressive. He writes this article on union security in the light of the

Strike of Asbestos Miners strike that is taking place there at the present time. The union is not asking for anything that has not been granted to practically every other union in Canada, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. It is asking for the Rand formula, and there is nothing unreasonable about that, because it has been adopted in Ontario. A Conservative government is in power there, and they do not go too far in these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can say that again.


Clarence Gillis: I want to quote from the newspaper article of March 8 of this year, to which I have referred:
Experience proves that without special clauses for union security it is impossible for groups of workers to live in order and security. It is necessary therefore to find ways which will assure the permanency of the union. There are many kinds of them, from union preference and maintenance of membership to the closed shop.
The first reaction of management is to say: But what! I am no longer master of my own enterprise. Then some employers have found that even the closed shop can bring advantages to them, when they treat with a union of good faith; it assures them in effect the stability of labour, gives a sense of responsibility to the union, and suppresses that anarchic condition where a labour organization believes it is forced to resort to demagoguery and agitation to justify its existence and assure its permanence. Are these clauses legitimate? The commission states categorically: "These clauses are all morally legitimate in themselves ..."
It is clear that we are passing through a social crisis in French Canada. It cannot be regulated by boasting of the quiet of the past, by sabotaging necessary reforms, or by lifting your arms to heaven. We live in a time when nothing is more imprudent than to procrastinate.
The greater part of Europe passed through similar crises long ago. Opportunities often missed and reforms long delayed have become triumphant and disastrous revolutions. The opportunity now presents itself to us. It never has exactly the appearance we would like. Are we going to take refuge behind judicial pretexts and condemn with beautiful serenity people who defend their unions, their health and their life?
It is a good thing that more courageous forces have made themselves heard; a good thing that at this moment a religious commission speaks loud and [DOT]clear; a good thing that the diocesan journal of Bis Excellency the Archbishop of Sherbrooke declared, in comment on the asbestos strike where the certification of the Catholic union has been revoked by the labour relations board;
"As with the disappearance of slavery and serfdom, Catholic workers in their struggle to emerge from the proletariat can expect to meet, from top to bottom of the social scale, incomprehension, opposition, persecution.
"It remains for them to carry off the victory. Truth, justice and right are with them, even if the powerful, the very rich, armed with narrow legal formulas, are against them."
This is the price of social peace.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. I think I have said enough to indicate to the

Minister of Labour that all is not well in the province of Quebec in that particular strike. The province is at least thirty years behind the times in its labour relations. The minister may get up and say that labour relations are the responsibility of the provinces. That is true, but on the other hand there is a motion to go into supply, and we shall be voting money which will affect the whole Dominion of Canada. I feel that it is the responsibility of the minister, in the interests of peace, order and good government, to investigate what has taken place in connection with this dispute, and to use his good offices to settle it in the interests of all concerned.
(Translation):


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words this afternoon on this matter. However, since my remarks apply especially to Canadians of French origin, I shall speak in French. I deeply regret we have not a French-Canadian C.C.F. member to do so.
I quite understand it was surprising to see that English-speaking Canadians did not attach more importance to the asbestos strike, in view of the incredible tactics resorted to in order to break the strike with the assistance of the Quebec government.
The asbestos industry is important in itself but particularly so because of the fact that the major part of the product is exported. The industry thus helps provide Canada with millions of United States dollars.
The strike affecting 5,000 workers and now seven weeks old does not involve salaries only but also union security and especially such vital matters as the health and security of the workers.
When the strike broke out, Premier Dup-lessis hastened to declare it illegal, while in Quebec the provincial department of labour deprived the Catholic asbestos syndicate of its status as official negotiating agent.
The Hon. Mr. Barrette, minister of labour of the province of Quebec, did not declare himself opposed to that formula. In fact, he repeatedly advised the workers to return to their jobs, insisting that negotiations could not be resumed until workers complied with the law.
The executive of the Confederation of Catholic Workers of Canada have always held that the Johns-Manville Company, which they have always considered especially

as the asbestos cartel, had, in these negotiations, shown an utter lack of good faith, a view which developments since the outbreak of the strike seem to justify.
The asbestos workers have received the support of many groups throughout the province of Quebec. The consensus of opinion is that their strike is just, even if it is not legal, and so those workers have obtained the support not only of their own trade union, the Confederation of Catholic Workers, but also that of two others: the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour. In all labour centres of the province, subscriptions were organized in order to allow those workmen to hold their own and get a square deal. They obtained support not only from union members, but also from the Corporation des Instituteurs of the province of Quebec, as you can see.
The French language newspapers have been fairly sympathetic to their cause. Le Devoir of Montreal took a definite stand in favour of the strikers. Among the clergy itself, many authorities voiced the opinion that the strikers' cause was just and deserved the support of public opinion. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote an article written by Roger Mathieu, in La Presse. Referring to Rev. Camirand, a parish priest, he quotes:
"As a priest it is my duty to preach the practice of all virtues, and I have no right to make an exception in the case of justice. Likewise I consider it my bounden duty not only to forbid my parishioners to act unfairly, but to defend them when they are the victims of unfairness, as in this instance," parish priest Camirand stated to us straightforwardly.
"The Asbestos miners, whom I know well because I am their union chaplain, have been and still are extremely patient and docile. They have not temporarily deprived themselves and their children of their livelihood for the mere pleasure of doing so, but they were forced to take that action by unspeakably provocative tactics. Were I a miner, I would myself be on strike and under the circumstances I would have a perfectly clear conscience. Moreover, although not a miner, I am with them to the very end and they know it," said the priest.


Mr. Knight:: Hear, hear.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: As regards the strikers' behaviour, the parish priest considers it exemplary.
"A few incidents which have been magnified and distorted by interested people, have occurred, but they were only the consequence of exasperating provocations against which the labour leaders and myself cannot, despite our efforts, immunize the strikers," he asserted.
Under the circumstances it is surprising that English-language newspapers have not attached more importance to that conflict
Strike of Asbestos Miners which seriously jeopardizes the interests of workers not only in the province of Quebec but in every other part of this country. It is no less astonishing to note that no voice was raised in the House of Commons to depict the situation and point out the employers' neglect of their workers' welfare, when they feel they have the support of politicians. Mr. Speaker, to understand fully the situation of the asbestos workers, one must know in what frightful conditions, comparable in certain respects to those that obtain in some coal mines, those men have been working for years, when asbestosis and tuberculosis make every year numerous victims among them.
However, Canadian subsidiaries of the American companies which are operating our asbestos industry are doing nothing to remove the causes of so much illness among our workers.
Those companies put profits before workers' health and life, and provincial authorities do not seem anxious to compel those employers to take the elementary safety precautions required for the protection of our workmen. The Workmen's Compensation Act does not provide sufficiently for the very special disease known as asbestosis even though its effects are so nefarious that victims of this dreadful occupational disease end up in dire poverty because they cannot obtain the least compensation from the government.
An investigation on asbestosis was published by Mr. Leduc in Le Devoir. The conclusions of this investigation are quite definite and explicit, but so far no one has referred to them. He proved, by official statistics, that the rate of mortality due to tuberculosis was 60 to 85 per 100,000 while in the aforesaid industries, in the province of Quebec, it would be 300 per 100,000.
Having put up with such conditions for years, the strikers had good reasons to make representations to their employers, and it would have been no wonder if the strike had given rise to disorders and acts of violence. Nothing of the sort has taken place and the strikers have remained disciplined despite the provocations of the provincial police, who on the very first days were brought to the scene with the distinct object of forcing the workers to return to their jobs. A newspaperman has even been able to write that the provincial police were powerless against the workers. The strike

Strike of Asbestos Miners goes on and the asbestos workers remain perfectly disciplined.
There is ample evidence of the provincial police's provocations. The Asbestos city council has asked for the recall of that police body, saying that those constables had been guilty of disgraceful scenes of drunkenness. The council also blamed the constables for having used their bludgeons in the dead of night to drag strikers out of their homes. However unlikely that may appear, it seems that Mr. Duplessis has placed the provincial police at the service of the Johns-Manville Company. Thus the asbestos cartel has received not only sympathy from Mr. Duplessis' government but also its efficient aid at the expense of the taxpayers of the province of Quebec, of union strikers and of all workers.
The events that took place in the asbestos district clearly show to the organized Canadian workers what they can expect if Mr. George Drew's Conservative party accedes to power, with the help of Mr. Duplessis.
Mr. Yvan Sabourin, Mr. George Drew's first lieutenant in the province of Quebec, is, as a matter of fact, the counsel of the cartel of the asbestos companies and the first lieutenant of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. In view of the stand thus taken by provincial authorities, the Canadian labour unions cannot remain indifferent to what is happening today in Thetford Mines and Asbestos. The Canadian people at large, who believe that order must be founded on justice, cannot ignore the strike in the asbestos industry.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Wednesday, March 23 issue of Le Devoir, under the signature of Mr. Gerard Filion:
But what is more serious is the fact that members of the provincial police are put in the service of the Johns-Manville Company, that they receive from the latter a bonus of about fifty dollars a week, in addition to their salary which is paid by the province, and that they have established their headquarters in the Johns-Manville Company's club. It is, as it were, the lend-lease of the provincial police to the Johns-Manville Company.
There are few instances, in the whole history of the province of Quebec, of political power having become to such a degree the servant of economic dictatorship. It was known, since the scandalous airplane trip of Mr. Duplessis to Ungava, that the Prime Minister is in league with high finance. But no one had the idea that he could go so far toward submissiveness.
(Text):


Mr. LaCroix:: Let the Tories listen to that! (Translation):


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: However, all this is explained by the fact that the legal and political adviser of the Johns-Manville, and more generally of the asbestos combine is none 
other than Mr. Yvan Sabourin, provincial leader of the Conservative party. Ever since the Conservative party, going under the pompous title of Union Nationale, has definitely committed itself to campaign for Mr. Drew in the province of Quebec, Mr. Yvan Sabourin, "Doctor" Sabourin as the experts in silicosis and asbestosis say with a grin, can rely on the good offices of the provincial police for the tasks he has to perform.
If Mr. Drew thinks he can win Quebec with an Yvan Sabourin as gauleiter he has a very bitter disappointment coming. The man is too dull and too deeply involved.
Mr. Speaker, I beg all French Canadians to support a political party bent on working for their interests, and one such party is the C.C.F.
(Text):


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wish to say a few words on this matter discussed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
The hon. member introduced the matter in such a reasonable and factual way that there is very little I need to say. We know that the strike at Asbestos does not come within the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour, but I am sure that the Minister of Labour, as in the past, will be glad to offer the good offices of his department if there is anything that department can do and if the provincial government is willing to make use of it.
At the moment, sir, we are considering a motion that you leave the chair in order that the house may grant supply to His Majesty in the name of the government of Canada. Thus this matter can properly be debated at this time.
As the member for Cape Breton South said a few moments ago, anyone who thinks he can get away with a refusal to recognize trade unions today is just fooling himself. If he did get away with it he would be doing a bad thing for the province of which he may be the head or the province in which the industry may be, and a bad thing for Canada as a whole. Canada is becoming a great industrial nation, and as a great industrial nation we cannot have peace or prosperity, we cannot have order in our affairs unless labour has a voice not only in determining the conditions under which it works, but in the management of the industry which its work makes possible. This can be accomplished only if industrialists and governments recognize labour's proper place in society. I am satisfied that labour will recognize its place and also the place of the other partners in the operation.
Some years ago we had another provincial premier who set out to destroy a labour organization. In 1937, about twelve years ago, Mitchell Hepburn staked his political

life on the fact that he was going to destroy the C.I.O. Today does anyone hear of Mitchell Hepburn? The C.I.O. is strong and growing in strength daily, and is in the vanguard in support of our democratic institutions. If the premier of the province of Quebec, if the industrialists of the province of Quebec, do not wish to recognize the right of the Catholic syndicates to take their proper place in our economy ajid in the government of the country-well, they are surely blind.


Mr. Brooks:: Premier Jones of Prince
Edward Island tried the same thing.


Angus MacInnis: Yes; the member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) says the premier of Prince Edward Island tried the same thing. It is well that these matters should be brought up in this house. Because the question of the Prince Edward Island bill was brought up in this house and labour was united in protesting it, a new bill was passed in Prince Edward Island at the recent session of the legislature. So far as I know, the bill is satisfactory to organized labour. If the authorities in the province of Quebec are wise, they will heed the criticism made here today and mend their ways.
I should like to put on the record further statements along the line of what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has already put on the record in French. It is a statement that appeared in La Presse of March 21, 1949, under the heading "Support from Church Authorities"-that is, support from church authorities for the strike at Asbestos. The statement is that of Father Camirand, local priest in Asbestos, and I quote from a translation:
As pastor it is my duty to teach the practice of all the virtues, and I have no right to make an exception for justice. Also I consider it my urgent duty not only to defend my parishioners from being unjust, but to defend them when they are the victims of injustice, as is the case at the moment.
The miners of Asbestos, whom I know well because I am their union chaplain, have been and are still patient and docile in the extreme. They have not deprived themselves of their livelihood and that of their children just for the pleasure of the thing; but they have been forced to it by extremely provocative tactics. If I were a miner I would myself be on strike, and in these circumstances I would have a perfectly clear conscience. Moreover, without being a miner, I am with them to the end, and they know it.
The miners of Asbestos and their chaplain refuse to consider the encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadregisimo Anno simply as worthless old historical documents, good only for the museums. Also, according to these pontifical teachings, our miners should have enjoyed for a long time advantages which they now claim and which are obstinately refused them without even an offer of compromise.
The really unfortunate thing about this dispute is that the company and the government of Quebec insist on their point of view
Strike of Asbestos Miners being accepted without any regard whatsoever to the employees. To continue:
"I consider the strikers like the pontifical zouaves. In 1870 the pontifical zouaves defended the holy see which was under direct attack. Today I am proud that the miners at Asbestos share personally in the defence not only of the Pope but his social teachings."
As for the conduct of the strikers the pastor considered it exemplary: "Some incidents, which interested parties exaggerated and distorted, have taken place, but they were only the consequence of exasperating provocation against which the union leaders and I were not capable of immunizing the strikers."
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this strike is beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. But if there is anything he can do, or anything his department can do, I should be glad if he would offer his own services and that of his department to the government of the province of Quebec and to the trade unions concerned.
(Translation):


Mr. Joseph Lafontaine (Megantic-Front-enac):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this matter pass without saying a few words.
First, I want to congratulate the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) for speaking in French about this matter. I notice that he has not read all articles published on this important subject. There are many others. If he wishes to come to my office I will gladly let him read them, particularly those written by Mr. Eugene L'Heureux and Mr. Gerard Brady.
Nothing is more deplorable than the strike which is going on in the eastern townships, at Asbestos, Thetford Mines, Black Lake and Vimy Ridge. It is ruinous, not only for the workers and dealers, but for everyone.
The workers believe that the strike is fair and I am of the same opinion. Those who have spoken before me have blamed the provincial authorities for the strike. I think they are right. In my opinion, if the strike has not been settled yet, the provincial government and the Quebec minister of labour are the only ones to blame. Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that this strike will be settled as early as possible. I also hope that provincial members will soon open their eyes, go to the dictator of the province of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, and force him to secure satisfactory settlement for all our workers.
(Text):


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: I think I should make one or two comments on what has already been said on this subject. Frankly I cannot disagree with any of the basic principles of trade union
2292	HOUSE OF
Strike of Asbestos Miners organization and employees organization that have been stated this afternoon by the hon. members for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), and Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and also the hon. member for Megantic-Frontenac (Mr. Lafontaine) who comes from the riding in which this dispute has occurred.
I do not need to quote from any document or from any person on the right of a trade union organization to function in this or any other country. I think I have expressed myself in this way before: you might as well try to push back the ocean as try to prevent the legitimate functioning of a trade union because it cannot be done.
We are not all either saints or sinners. When a grave issue such as the one we are discussing at the moment is under consideration, I think a tribute can be paid to both sides-that is, to employers and to good employees. During the war this industry came under my jurisdiction under the War Measures Act. I have some knowledge of the officers of the Catholic syndicate. I have seen that organization grow from what I might say was an infant to a lusty adult. Its officers played a great part during the war in the organizations under my jurisdiction. They were members of the national war labour board and of the wartime labour relations board. At the moment Mr. Gerald Picard, president of the organization, is a member of the Canada labour relations board. They also played their part in other sections of the dominion where their organization flourished.
I think this should be said about labour disputes. You do not get into trouble over the things you have to say; it is the silly things you do not have to say and do say that get you into trouble. If hon. members will forgive a personal reference, I think I have had as much experience as any other man in North America in the adjudication of labour disputes. I know I have been criticized. The portfolio of labour is not one of those in which you can win a popularity contest. No man ever went down in history after being a minister of labour in this country, or in any other one, for that matter. But I believe that, given a measure of good will, much can be done. After all is said and done, it is the simple things that govern the life of a nation or the destiny of a civilization. There is nothing complicated about industrial relations. The yardstick of common sense should be the one employed by all of us. I do not think one gets anywhere by calling a man a communist when one knows he is not a communist. I would rather be governed by the gavel than by the gun. In some of the countries in which our 

communist friends find their spiritual home, it is the gun and not the gavel that governs.
I would rather have an assembly such as this with Mr. Speaker in the chair; I would rather have him say once in a while, "The hon. member is out of order," when the hon. member to whom he refers, knowing he is out of order, insists that he is not. I would rather have trade union organizations in which chairmen or presidents may sit with gavels in their hands and rule over what takes place in those meetings. I have seen-and I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South has seen the same thing-the chairman of a meeting with a boilermaker's hammer in his hand.


Clarence Gillis: And a baseball bat, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: It may be truthfully said that in the last ten years we have made tremendous strides in the stabilization of conditions in the industrial, commercial and transportation system of this country. I do not think any one person can take all the credit for that. Today, with the exception of the one province which has been mentioned, one which is predominantly agricultural, we have seen the development of departments of labour and conciliation services on a plane which compares favourably with that found anywhere else. I believe I have said on many occasions in the house that I am a great believer in conciliation. So many people seem to want to pass a law to put the other fellow-not themselves-in jail. They think that is the way to settle an industrial dispute. I have never shared that opinion. That is why I can say that I agree with many of the statements made this afternoon by my hon. friends from Cape Breton South, Vancouver East, and Megantic-Frontenac.
When we turn our minds to the subject of partnership in industry we must realize at once that in the last five years we have made tremendous strides in the development of labour-management committees under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour. Those committees across Canada run into the hundreds.
Let it be clearly understood that I am taking no sides in the present dispute. There is an old saying: stay in your own back yard.


Mr. Coldwell:: This a front yard, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right; stay in your own front yard, then. The hon. member is an Englishman, like myself; he comes from a country where they have fences even around their front yards. He will remember the old brick fences, I have no doubt.
The Englishman's home is his castle.


Clarence Gillis: There is such a thing as justice, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course there is such a thing as justice. I believe in the rule of law, and without equivocation I can say that this present dispute is completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Let there be no misunderstanding about it. This is not a question of taking sides; it is not a question of saying who is right or who is wrong. We have all expressed our views about the rights of working men and women to organize the unions of their choice. I have been long enough in politics to know that it is far better not to quarrel about the other fellow's jurisdiction.
My department has never refused justice to any organization whether it be one of employers or one of employees. They do not always take our advice, but it is given to them free of charge. They might go to other people to whom they would pay a good deal of money and would not get such good advice.
All I can say is that I do hope this dispute will be settled to the satisfaction of the employees organization, and with due regard to the common sense of the other people concerned. The hon. member who brought this matter to the attention of the house has rendered a service to the people of Canada. We hear it said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and freedom, but we have to keep on restating that fact.
Let me repeat that there is no substitute for decency and fair dealing. You can pass all the laws that could be contained under the canopy of heaven, but it will not always get you anywhere. You can pass a law to say that men shall not go on strike; but when you have 20,000 or 30,000 men on the street, what can you do about it? One has to be sensible about these things.
I hope nothing I have said-and I am sure nothing anybody else has said-will impair the possibility of settlement of this dispute, keeping in mind always the fact that it is best to use character as a yardstick, and not the exact legal expressions written into a statute.



CONDITION OF SUSSEX STREET BRIDGE IN OTTAWA

Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply I should like to discuss one further matter, and in doing so I shall be brief.
My observations-and I have no desire to be critical-are directed to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), and to such other government officials as may have jurisdiction over the subject matter I shall place before the house. Let me draw to their attention a very dangerous condition which exists at the Sussex street bridge in this city of
Condition of Ottawa Bridge Ottawa. I shall not raise any question as to the division of jurisdiction between municipal authorities and the federal government. I am not sufficiently familiar with the question of jurisdiction to express any valuable opinion on it, and whatever I shall say is therefore directed to the proper authority.
The minister is no doubt aware that a serious accident took place recently near the end of that bridge, in which a prominent citizen of this city lost his life. I think most hon. members who have traveled in that area will agree with me that the condition there, under certain weather conditions, is practically that of a death trap. I draw the matter to the minister's attention to see if the federal authorities have jurisdiction, and to see if perhaps-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that he has already spoken on this motion. I did not understand when he rose on this occasion that he was about to make another speech.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member could proceed with unanimous consent.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps Your Honour will permit me to finish, in a sentence or two. I have no desire to transgress the rules.
I would ask the minister to look into this matter. If he does I am sure he will realize just what a death trap this bridge is. This dangerous condition should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.



AIR REGULATIONS


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, there is a grievance in my riding that I should like to air in case I do not get a chance again. This is something in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will be interested. I refer to the issuance of flying licences to private pilots.
I do not want to take up the time of the house by indicating what the present regulations are, but I am sure hon. members who are familiar with them will agree that a man would have to be a Rhodes scholar to pass examinations. I admit that it is no credit to anyone to be a Rhodes scholar, but that is the kind of qualification required under the new regulations.
These regulations might be necessary as applied to one who was going to fly a jet plane or a bomber for the R.C.A.F., but they are not necessary for a private pilot's licence. We have had many outstanding pilots in Canada. The president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited is one of the greatest northern fliers we have ever known in Canada, but I doubt very much if he could pass the examinations at present prescribed. In my

Air Regulations
district we built an airport, by municipal and voluntary effort, without the assistance of any government, and without any subsidy. We have the second largest training school in the province of British Columbia, and there are now some fifteen planes at that airport. But the airport will have to be closed this month unless there are some changes in these regulations, which were prepared by those who have been described by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) as "some of these bureaucrats." I appreciate the fact that many of those who prepared the regulations have flown planes, and some of them gallantly, but that was thirty years ago, and they know nothing about present-day flying.
This is an emergency so far as my riding is concerned. We believe that regulations must be made to see to it that those in charge of planes and entrusted with the lives of others should have every necessary qualification, but we believe also that men who have had thousands of hours of flying time should not be barred simply because they have not had a university education. I am informed by pilots of great experience, of wide knowledge, and with fine records, that these qualifications are not necessary. I think I would be within my rights in reading extracts from the examination that must be passed by one who wants to get a licence as a private pilot, even if he had flown on mercy missions to the Arctic or the Antarctic. Unless I quoted from the examinations themselves I doubt whether any hon. member would believe that such a thing had been set up by bureaucrats who have not been in a plane for the last thirty years. Yet men with records such as these, men with great knowledge of flying, will be required to pass these examinations.
The airport at Chilliwack will have to be closed after $100,000 has been spent. That was our own money; we built the airport without assistance from any government.
Before the last war we fell down badly because we had been too cautious about spending money on national defence. If there is anything that Canada should spend money on, it is the training of fliers. We have young men with ability and initiative not surpassed by those of any other country in the world. That has been demonstrated by the record of the Royal Canadian Air Force. This cadet school in my riding will have to be closed because these examinations require that a man be a former professor of Moscow or somewhere else. Unless action is taken within the next thirty days this important training school will have to go.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Alphonse Fournier: Before taking up the supplementary estimates I would ask permission to call three items to open up three more departments. These will be allowed to stand.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
307. Departmental administration, $1,441,235.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
413. Departmental administration, $468,107.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
453. Departmental administration, $836,737.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
584. Departmental administration-further amount required, $5,000.
Mr. Hazen:: Supply-Fisheries
Well, evidently the situation was watched more or less closely, among others by Colonel A. L. Barry, who at a meeting of the North Shore Salmon Fishermen's Association on November 13, 1946, said that in spite of restrictions and better protection the salmon fisheries had been on the downgrade for some time, and that there had been a big downgrade since 1936, just at the time Mr. Calderwood said it would be noticed. In view of Mr. Calderwood's report and what has been actually observed, therefore, to say that there is no relation between the lowness of the stocks and the number of fish taken by the drift net fishermen is, I believe, absolute nonsense.
The North Shore Salmon Fishermen's Association of New Brunswick have been calling the attention of the Department of Fisheries to the situation for several years, and asking for action. I propose to read part of a resolution passed on April 27, 1948, and sent to the minister:
Our seashore fishermen, being greatly alarmed at the very rapid decrease in the number of salmon they are catching, believe and allege that this destructive net fishery is causing their greatest loss, and a rapid destruction of the whole salmon fishery, and respectfully urge the honourable minister to order the discontinuance of this destructive drift net fishery at the mouth of the Miramichi river as quickly as possible, as otherwise the members of the association believe that the whole salmon fishery of eastern Canada will be utterly destroyed.
The chairman of the council of the association, Mr. George Gilbert, K.C., of Bathurst, has presented the views of the association to the minister on a number of occasions, but so far as I know no action has been taken. On May 19, 1948, the then Minister of Fisheries wrote a letter to Mr. Gilbert in which he said that the department could not accept the statement of the association that drift net fishing was the cause of the declining run. It will be noted, if that letter from the minister is read, that he does not even admit the drift net fishing is or may be one of the causes of the decline in the run. If drift net fishing is not the cause or one of the causes, I call upon the minister to tell us what is the cause of the decline. Surely he and his advisers should be in a position to tell us, particularly if they say that drift netting is not the cause.
I put these questions to the minister, and I believe I am entitled to an answer: First, what is the cause of the decline in our Atlantic salmon fisheries? Second, why have our Atlantic salmon stocks become so low?
In his study of the salmon fisheries of the gulf of St. Lawrence, to which I have referred, Professor Nobbs evidently agrees with the opinion of the North Shore Salmon
fMr. Hazen.]
Fishermen's Association, for at page 6 of his essay he says:
If your salmon fisheries are to be restored, drift net fishing has to be brought to an end, presumably with appropriate compensation to the owners.
I am not unmindful of the fact that the views of the anglers, the shore fishermen and the drifters are influenced by self-interest. It is only human nature that this should be so. I hold no brief for any of them; I am interested in the conservation and improvement of our salmon fisheries as a national asset. I believe the primary interest of the government in this matter is or should be the maintenance and improvement of the numbers of these fish, which give our fishermen a living and provide the best of food for the public. I believe immediate action is necessary, for the catch is exceeding the present natural increase. As Mr. Calderwood has said, and it cannot be denied, if the catch by nets and anglers exceeds the maximum breeding capacity of the rivers, the utter destruction of the fishery may come with a suddenness that will be tragic.
Matters should not be allowed to drift further. The scientists connected with the department and interested in this matter, it seems to me, are so engrossed in minor details that they have failed to see or appreciate the obvious steps that should be taken to improve conditions. They are like men who cannot see the forest for the trees. There must be some driving force to do what is necessary to improve conditions, and I suggest that the minister should be that force.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, I had not anticipated a general debate on the subject of fisheries when these further supplementary estimates were under consideration. I do not intend to give a complete answer to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, but to tell him we do recognize that on the Atlantic as well as on the Pacific the salmon is a very important fish, one that everybody wants. We are keenly interested in its propagation and conservation, and at the present time the necessary steps are being taken to see that something is done about it. I assure the hon. gentleman that when the estimates are under consideration there will be a further opportunity, both for him and for myself, to make a more complete statement on the subject.


Mr. Pearkes:: On June 25 of last year, when we were discussing a further supplementary estimate of the Department of Fisheries, I brought to the attention of the minister the matter of the small salaries being received by grade 1 fishery officers. At that time I pointed out that the increases given to the grade 2 officers, the more senior class, were far more

generous and more flexible than those allotted to the grade 1 officers, and asked if he would look into the question to see whether it would be possible to increase those salaries or allowances. I pointed out that a large number of young ex-service men were entering the service of his department with great enthusiasm, but that they were finding it quite difficult to make ends meet on salaries of less than $2,000 a year. I said they had to keep up a certain standard of living; they had to buy a good deal of equipment because of the fact that they might be out in all kinds of weather attending to their duties, and that in some cases they had small families to maintain. I felt that an increase should have been given. Further questions were asked at that time, and as appears at page 5580 of Hansard of June 25, 1948, the minister replied that there were 143 temporaries and 62 permanent officers. I presume, first of all, that this sum of money which we are now asked to vote is to take care of increases for these junior officers, increases which I suggested to the minister last June. How many of these 143 temporary officers have now been made permanent?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, generally when such questions are answered we have the officials and the records in front of us. On this occasion, the officials are not here. I can assure the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that generally speaking the wardens, guardians and inspectors for this year have had some increases. A very much clearer statement of their duties and wages than that given on previous occasions has been prepared and will be ready for presentation when the estimates are before the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister say what this $5,000 is for? I presume that this money has been expended and was required to meet commitments.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am quite ready to explain that the $5,000 was for traveling expenses incurred which could not be foreseen. These traveling expenses related to negotiations with Newfoundland and also to a national convention called by the United States to consider fisheries matters. These matters covered some two or three weeks and were unforeseen when the estimates were being prepared.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then there is no increase in salaries in this item?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think hon. members are badly mistaken. This is a supplementary for last year, not for the year 1949-50.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Since there will be an opportunity of discussing fisheries matters when the fisheries estimates come before the house,
Supply-Fisheries
I shall not delay the item to any great extent.
I agree entirely with the member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) in the statement he made about the salmon in the waters of the province of New Brunswick. Conservation, not only of the salmon but of other fish in and around the province of New Brunswick, is a very necessary measure.
This matter was brought to my attention as I listened to the member for Saint John-Albert and I should like to ask the minister whether he has had any representations about the herring fishing in the bay of Fundy. Perhaps he could take that more or less as notice and answer at a later time. My information has been that not only are the salmon fisheries being depleted in the bay of Fundy but also the herring fisheries, one of the main fisheries of that section of the dominion. The fishermen are becoming very much concerned about it.
During the war, for instance, for twelve months of the year these fish were caught day in and day out, twenty-four hours of the day. I think that situation still continues and the herring are becoming very scarce. As I say, the fishermen are becoming alarmed. Have any representations been made to the minister by the fishermen of the maritime provinces with reference to this situation and has an investigation been made in connection with it? It is a very serious matter to the fishermen of the bay of Fundy.
I should like to call the minister's attention to a matter that was first mentioned by the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) the other day. It concerns United States draggers. They are employed in the bay of Fundy and other waters around the maritimes and my understanding is that they are fishing within three to four miles of our coast, while Canadian fishermen have to remain outside the twelve-mile limit. These draggers are tearing up the bottom of the ocean around the different islands and destroying the feeding grounds of these herring I mentioned. This is having a very harmful effect upon the fisheries of the bay of Fundy. As I said, I do not intend to hold up these estimates but these matters are very serious to the people in that section of the country, and I believe the Department of Fisheries should give them very serious consideration.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I quite agree with all the members who have spoken about this matter, and some work has been done in connection with it. We have two boats busy exploring the herring situation and we believe we know pretty well what has happened to them. I think we can give a good report.

Supply-Fisheries


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Representations have been made, then?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Representations have been made and the work of studying the problem is continuing. An outline of that could quite easily be given on item 586.
The second item, item 585, $50,000, is for work on the Nanaimo research station. The work progressed more rapidly than was estimated and this item is to take care of that increase. It will also mean a decrease in the estimates for 1949-50. Have these items carried, Mr. Chairman?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall item 584 carry?


Mr. Green:: No. I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries to make a statement about the situation with regard to the marketing of canned salmon from the Pacific coast. As he knows, that is the main fisheries product of the west coast. To illustrate that point I produce a half-page advertisement under the signature of the minister which appeared in one of the Vancouver newspapers last Tuesday. It contains a large drawing of a salmon and reads:
In honour of a fish that helped build a prosperous province!
Probably no statue will ever be erected to honour the B.C. salmon.
Yet monuments in bronze and marble have been raised in tribute to generals, statesmen, industrialists and others whose contributions to public welfare and progress were no greater than the achievements of the humble salmon.
Generals win wars? The salmon served with distinction on all fighting fronts through two great wars, as a nourishing, easily transported food.
Statesmen build nations? The salmon serves Canada in two ways: As a dependable domestic source of tasty, economical meals . . . and as a major export bringing in valuable foreign exchange.
It would appear that the humble salmon has become a casualty in recent months, so far as the west coast variety is concerned. This question is of very great importance to the whole economy of British Columbia. Our main market for canned salmon has been the United Kingdom. Other very important markets were Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. I have here a copy of a speech made by Mr. J. M. Buchanan who until recently was, I believe, the president of the Fisheries Council of Canada. Speaking last summer he gave the figures for the pre-war distribution of the British Columbia pack as approximately: Canada, 35 per cent; the United Kingdom, 23 per cent; Australia and New Zealand, 20 per cent; Africa, 3 per cent; other British empire countries, 3 per cent; other export markets, 16 per cent. Those were the pre-war figures, and the minister can correct me if Mr. Buchanan's figures are out of line. The fact is that the British market has

been our main export market for canned salmon. It is notable that during the war canned salmon could not be obtained at all by civilians in Canada.


Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: It was all requisitioned and shipped to England.


Howard Charles Green: The whole pack was either shipped to England or supplied to the Canadian forces. Mr. Buchanan gives those figures too. He says:
Of the 1941 to 1946 packs, 7,600,000 cases (or 80 per cent) were used for the forces or shipped to the order of Great Britain for overseas needs.
Then he goes on to say:
Probably no other similar food industry made the same sacrifice in its domestic market.
A year or so ago it became obvious that the overseas market for canned salmon was falling off. We on the coast hoped that the Marshall plan would enable European countries to buy our canned salmon. I have here a dispatch of April 8, 1948. The heading is "Marshall Plan may aid Province's Industries". With regard to salmon its says:
Canned salmon, one of the province's big natural crops, was being faced with declining dollar holdings in the United Kingdom and other markets, and looked as if it might become a surplus at home.
Both the salmon and the herring catches, which are much more than can be used in Canada, will probably be needed to supply foodstuffs to Europe.
The belief was that the Marshall plan would mean that our market in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe would be continued. But the situation became steadily worse, and I find here a clipping of January 21, 1949, again in the Vancouver press. The heading is "Salmon Gets Last Chance" and the first paragraph reads as follows:
Fisheries Minister R. W. Mayhew has begun last-chance negotiations toward agreement for sale of British Columbia canned salmon to the United Kingdom, and upon his success or failure will depend to great extent the prosperity of this province's fishermen in 1949.
The next day we had a press dispatch to the effect that Ottawa might agree to accept sterling currency for British Columbia salmon. But on January 27 a further dispatch appeared reporting an interview with William F. Bull, who apparently is director under the Export and Import Permits Act. Mr. Bull said in Vancouver that one of his headaches was what to do about a market for British Columbia's tinned salmon. The dispatch reads in part as follows:
"Talks are now under way in London, but we don't know the answer," he told members of the shipping and foreign trade bureaux of the Board of Trade Wednesday. British commonwealth countries took from 50 to 60 per cent of British Columbia's tinned salmon prior to the war. But this year it was feared they might take none.
Then the next development was a statement by Sir Stafford Cripps reported in the

Canadian press of February 22 of this year. He had this to say with regard to canned salmon being purchased from Canada by Great Britain:
"Normally we buy canned salmon from Russia or timber from Scandinavia or bacon from Poland because we can pay for it in sterling, whereas similar Canadian supplies would cost us dollars."
The canned salmon market has now been cut off completely. I have here a further dispatch of March 23, just ten days ago, which again appeared in the British Columbia press, and which reads in part as follows:
Fishing, among B.C.'s top four industries, faces a threat of disaster this year due to failure of last-minute negotiations for sale of canned salmon to the United Kingdom.
A surplus of 250,000 cases is now backed up in warehouses and a pack of 1,500,000 cases was expected this year. This may be sharply cut by lack of markets.
B.C. Packers'-
That is the largest fish company in British Columbia.
-vice-president R. E. Walker says "if we don't get rid of present stocks, fish prices will drop this season -enough to put many small fishermen out of business."
I am afraid that is an accurate description of the situation. We have this difficulty with regard to selling the salmon in the United States: there is a tariff of 25 per cent against our canned salmon. It is so high that I believe it is practically impossible to get the canned salmon into that market. So unless the Minister of Fisheries has some hopeful news for us today, it looks as though the fishing industry in British Columbia will be hard hit during the present year. You will have noted, Mr. Chairman, that there is quite a large carryover from last year and a large pack is expected again this year!
I have no doubt that the minister has given deep consideration to the problem. Different solutions have been suggested. One is that Canada accept payment in sterling. Another is that some arrangement be made for exchanging our goods for goods produced by Great Britain; for example, exchanging canned salmon for steel produced in the old country. The suggestion has also been made that the government should take steps to underwrite the 1949 pack. Those are various remedies that have appeared in the press from time to time. I am not at the moment advocating any one of them, but I suggest to the minister and to the committee that it is absolutely imperative that a market be found for this canned salmon. It looks as though the situation may be disastrous; I hope it will not be. I am afraid, however, that the situation is bad. Certainly there is a serious problem to be met in this particular industry.
Supply-Fisheries


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The situation with regard to canned salmon, Mr. Chairman, is not as hopeless as the hon. member for Vancouver South would indicate in his remarks. About 200,000 cases of chum salmon are left with the industry. What they are concerned about now is the 1949 pack. Negotiations have been going on with the British ever since last fall. Two delegations have been over there to see what could be done. Up to the present time the British have pretty well refused to buy the salmon because they want other goods in preference to the salmon, on the same basis as they do their apples. But I have every reason to hope that something will be done that will enable the British Columbia people to sell a good portion of their salmon in England for this next year.
I do not wish to say anything more about it than that at the present time. We know the situation and we are keeping closely in touch with it; when I say "we", I mean this department, the Department of Trade and Commerce, and also my friends in the Department of Finance. This part of the industry will not be overlooked, and the fishermen are not going to be ruined at all.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been given to taking sterling for the 1949 pack?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I could answer that. As I said before in the house, taking sterling for part of the 1949 pack is nothing more or less than extending further credit to the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Plus saving our industry.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Plus taking an exchange risk. If we extend further credit I can see no purpose in extending credit in sterling, which involves not only lending money but taking an exchange risk as well. It may be that salmon could be sold on credit; that is a matter of policy. But there is nothing to be gained by taking sterling. If individual packers are prepared to sell their salmon, take sterling for it and hold the sterling, they would be permitted to do so. But I do not believe they would want to do that.


Mr. Merritt:: The reason would be that the individual packers do not consider sterling is worth $4.03; is that not correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is for the individual
packer to answer, not for me.


Mr. Blackmore:: I have become interested in this discussion, although I live in the interior of Canada. Would the minister tell us what measures he has adopted to arrest the deterioration of the salmon situation of the Atlantic, which was discussed by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert.

Supply-Fisheries


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If we are going to get into a full-dress debate on the administration of fisheries, then we will certainly not get through these few estimates this year-or today, I should say.


An hon. Member:: Right the first time.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I suggest that they be referred to at the proper time, upon which occasion all answers can be given. The problem in the east is entirely different from that in the west. In the east it is a lack of salmon, and in the west it is too much salmon. We cannot resolve all those points here.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Chairman, the confusion in which I find myself is not entirely due to certain hospitality extended to us last week. I find that these are called the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949. Perhaps the Minister of Finance would enlighten me on a point which is causing me some concern. While I speak only from memory, I think this is an unusual procedure. Here in this fiscal year 1949-1950 we find ourselves asked to pass estimates for the preceding year. I know this matter was discussed on another item called a few days ago.
May we not assume that these moneys as set out in this little booklet-and I notice it runs into substantial figures; one item alone accounts for many millions of dollars-have been spent; or have the commitments been made in these amounts? Then, if that is so- and it must be; there cannot be any other answer for it-does it not sound sort of foolish that this committee of the whole of the House of Commons, after the ending of the financial year, should be passing estimates for the year which died only a few days ago. Am I correct in my assumption that that is exactly what we are doing at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I am sure the hon. member knows, the answer is that for many years, perhaps since confederation, so far as the payment of accounts is concerned we have operated on a thirteen-month basis. Throughout the month of April payments are made for accounts relating to the preceding fiscal year. Government books are kept open, and have always been kept open until the end of April, and payments made in April are made with respect to obligations incurred in the preceding year.
I am told that this procedure is not unusual. The final supplementary estimates for the year are brought down almost invariably before the end of the fiscal year, and would not be passed until the early part of the following fiscal year. In the case of these estimates, it is clear that with the month of April being the month in which

payment is to be made, they would have to be passed before the end of April. In the present instance it is hoped they will be passed this week, before parliament adjourns for the Easter recess. That is in conformity with the usual procedure.
Turning to the second question, it is true that a large part of these estimates relates to what might be described as commitments which have been made. The first of the large items is that of the Canadian National Railways. This item is invariably voted in the final supplementary estimates-if there is a deficit.
The other major item is that concerning the wheat board. It represents the cost of a subsidy on feed which went into domestic use. In order to enable the wheat board to pay the farmers for whom it has acted as agent the full price of $2 a bushel, or whatever the amount may be, this vote is offered. Those are the two major items.
None of these payments has been made, unless items are being specifically voted to reimburse payments made out of contingency votes, or votes for unforeseen expenditures. Very frequently we will make urgent payments out of one or other of the votes set up for unforeseen contingencies. Then, as a matter of correct procedure, we bring in a specific item in the final supplementary estimates, and obtain a specific vote from parliament to cover those items.
With those reservations, these supplementary estimates represent the final toting up at the end of the year of what is needed to cover the services of the government during that year; and I am informed it is quite usual that the formal vote should be put through in the early days of the new fiscal year.


Mr. Fraser:: Do I understand there is no commercial fishing in the Hudson bay area? I ask that question, because I notice in the press that a commercial organization is going to that section to kill white whales for their oil. I suppose this product would be used in the manufacture of margarine. When I visited that section last the white whales were an attraction for tourists. I understand this commercial organization goes out in canoes with Indian guides or Eskimos to shoot and harpoon the whales. I wonder if we are paying out money to attract tourists, and then throwing away one of our attractions. My understanding is that these whales are first shot and then harpooned. I wonder if the minister would answer that question?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There are no commercial fishermen going to Hudson bay, so far as I know. Last year we did send up a boat to

do some fishing so that the Eskimos in there might have food. However, there is no commercial fishing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then, has the minister's department issued a permit for commercial fishing up there, or does it have to issue a permit?


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to address the Chair when he speaks.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did at first.


William Henry Golding: It is difficult to give each member an opportunity to speak if hon. members, upon rising, do not address the Chair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I apologize; but I should like to follow up my question.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Skeena.


Mr. Archibald:: I have sat back listening, and had accepted the minister's explanation that actually this is not the time for a general discussion. However, there seems to be a general nervousness in the air that we might not have an opportunity for this discussion at a later date.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Events might develop as a result of which discussions of a more vital nature would ensue. I believe the Department of Fisheries should have played a stronger hand in connection with what might be called the decentralization of the halibut fishing season on the Pacific coast, or breaking it down to cover a greater portion of the year. At the present time the process of going halibut fishing is like taking part in a stampede or a gold rush. The season extends for only thirty days. Men have to work all hours, and any breakdown of equipment is vital, so far as making the season pay is concerned. I realize there are certain international features in connection with this matter, but I believe the department should give more consideration to the halibut fishermen on the coast than they have in the past. In the main the present situation is due to the difficulties in marketing, but I shall not go into that any further.
One of these days we will have a marketing crisis in connection with our fish generally and things may reach the point where the prices support board will have to take on the task of the handling and marketing of fish just as the wheat board does with wheat. If there is another glut in this industry, such as was caused last year when there was a washout on the main lines of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, a serious situation will arise.
Supply-Fisheries
If the government is interested in staving off a general crisis in the halibut fishing industry it should step into the picture now. I realize that the government is opposed to the principle of the state-handling of products, but if this crisis develops any further that is the position they will be driven into.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The halibut on the west coast is handled by the international halibut commission and we have not a great deal to say about it. I find that many of the functions of this department have been transferred to boards and commissions and many times we get blamed for things that we have very little to do with. There is nothing that I can say at the present time about halibut except that negotiations are going on and recommendations will be made in due course. Unless we make a sudden call on the country there will be further opportunities before this house to discuss this matter. I hope that the house will take a greater interest in fishing this year because that lack of interest in the past has made it difficult to get things really going. If hon. members on all sides of the house and people throughout the country generally would take an interest in fishing, if they would realize that this industry brings in $200 million a year, much more could be done.


Mr. Moore:: A short time ago the Fisheries Prices Support Act was used to purchase fish in Manitoba and I should like to know if a loss has been suffered in that connection and, if so, how much7


Robert Wellington Mayhew: April 9 is the last day on which we take delivery and up to Saturday morning no fish had been delivered. Any fish that come in will have to come in this week and until after the ninth of this month I could not give a satisfactory answer as to what volume will be handled.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to assist the minister not only by taking an interest in his department but in many other ways. The question I should like to ask now is closely related to the one asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South. In view of the situation with regard to canned salmon there is much uncertainty among fishermen on the Pacific coast as to the policy of the government with regard to the export of fresh and frozen salmon. I am sure that if the minister could indicate what the policy will be this year and whether there will be any changes from last year, he will help to stimulate interest in his department.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Last year there was an embargo on certain species of fish caught on the Pacific coast. The matter has not yet been submitted to my colleagues and when

Supply-Fisheries
the time comes to make a decision it will be made known.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Eskimos and Indians in the Hudson bay district live on white whales-it is one of their main sources of food-while the blubber is used to feed their huskies. I think the minister should check to see that these whales are not cleaned out altogether by commercial fishermen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
586. To provide for assistance in meeting transportation costs of frozen herring that may be purchased in British Columbia by persons, associations or companies for bait in the 1948-49 winter fishery off Nova Scotia, $66,000.
Mr. McLure:: I wanted to say a few words on 585, but perhaps I can work them in under this item. In connection with these supplementary estimates the department seems to be imitating the lobster. As most hon. members know, the lobster always moves backwards, and the department seems to be moving backward in connection with these estimates. We have not yet had the main estimates and here we are dealing with supplementary estimates. We are told that they are last year's estimates, but there is $100 million to be voted. I suppose $100 million is nothing when there is a surplus of $500 million or $600 million.
It is a good thing they mention winter fishery off Nova Scotia in the details of this item. I was wondering what kind of bait this was, whether it was election bait or fishing bait. We will require considerable information on this item. Where was this bought? What fishing associations demanded the purchase of frozen herring in British Columbia to be shipped to the east? Was the herring paid for out of this $66,000, or is this amount just for the freight? How many carloads were shipped and to whom were they consigned? How much freight was paid on a minimum car of 30,000 pounds? If we knew that we would know how many cars had been shipped. To whom was this fish shipped and how was it distributed? Was it shipped to Halifax or to other ports? I may have some further questions to ask, but I should like to have these answered now.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This item is to cover freight on frozen herring from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast. When I visited the eastern coast last fall, and Prince Edward Island, there were a number of people making complaints about the shortage of bait. They claimed that they were about two million pounds short at least, and that unless the catch of herring was pretty substantial in the fall they would be entirely without bait.

When I left the maritime provinces I went to British Columbia and inquired of the fishermen there at what price they could land frozen herring if it became necessary to send it to the east. In Prince Edward Island they told me they were paying as high as 11 cents a pound for herring. In Nova Scotia they were paying between six and seven cents, and in some cases as high as nine cents a pound. The packers on the west coast said that they would be able to load on cars frozen herring of the quality desired by the fishing industry on the east coast for $60 a ton. That is as far as I went with them. We advised the trade that if, through their own trade channels, they placed orders in British Columbia for the fish it could be procured at the price of $60 a ton. The fishermen of the east coast then said to the department that $60 a ton plus 3J cents a pound for freight would still make the cost of the bait too high for commercial fishermen, and they asked the government to pay a subsidy for the freight. The government saw fit to agree to that, and paid the subsidy that is set out here.
The amount of fish that went forward from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast was approximately 1,800,000 pounds. The item here is for the freight only. The method of distribution was that we simply advised those wanting these fish that they could place their orders with certain companies in British Columbia. They looked after their own buying and their own distribution just as they would if the fish had been caught in the Atlantic ocean.


Mr. Nowlan:: Over what period of time have these deliveries been made? Can the minister tell us when the deliveries started, and whether they are completed now?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The deliveries are concluded. They started fishing on the 4th of January, and they fished until they had caught the two million pounds originally provided for. The area in which these fish were caught was on the east side of Vancouver island. If they had tried to fish on the west side the herring would have cost about $10 a ton more. Deliveries were completed some time ago.


George Clyde Nowlan: Have all deliveries been made where contracts were arranged for this year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: So far as I know. The government made no contracts. Individuals made their own contracts and made their own purchases. As far as I know all deliveries have been made.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is one comment I wish to make on this matter. I draw the minister's attention to something which we have already discussed in connection with this situation.

I am sure that no one on this side of the house would think of criticizing the department-and in fact would commend them-for any assistance which has been given, but it is a most serious situation when fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard, with the tremendous development of that industry throughout past years, are now compelled to purchase their bait on the Pacific seaboard and transport it all the way across Canada. Certainly it would suggest that there is something radically wrong with the fishing industry that such a situation should exist. It is not for a layman to suggest what the reasons may be.
I referred earlier to a matter which the member for Royal mentioned this afternoon, the operation of trawlers, which I think is undoubtedly contributing markedly to the difficulties of our fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard. We do not wish to hold up these estimates, but at a later time, when the minister's main estimates are before the house, I will refer to that again.
There is one particular matter to which I wish to draw his attention, a matter to which I have referred in discussions and correspondence with him, and on which I think there is a marked difference of opinion between us. As I said, I am not attempting to hold up these estimates now, but I am suggesting to the minister that, unless some satisfactory arrangement can be made with respect to it, when his main estimates are before the house later on, notwithstanding the fears which someone has suggested, I will have to spend much more time on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is nothing to fear.


George Clyde Nowlan: In short, the situation, as far as the inshore fishermen are concerned, is that their bait has disappeared, and it is a strange circumstance. The bait has disappeared apparently at the same time that seiners or trawlers operating from New Brunswick across the bay have been coming into the Annapolis basin and seining up hundreds and thousands of hogsheads of small herring which ultimately are prepared for use as food. I understand from communications I have had from the minister, and undoubtedly he believes this, that his experts have advised him that seining has no effect upon the bait situation. That may be. I quite realize that what may appear reasonable to a layman may not be proven satisfactorily to an expert, but I suggest that it is a strange thing that this has happened.
In December of 1948 and January of 1949 one weir operating in the Annapolis basin caught 400 barrels of bait which was distributed to the fishermen of that district. The seiners appeared from across the bay,
Supply-Fisheries
and immediately the fish disappeared from the weir. I am reliably informed by fishermen, whose names I can give to the minister, that from that time on they have not caught any bait in the weir. Five seiners have been operating in the basin catching these small herring, and three carriers have been transporting them across the bay of Fundy to the canning plant in New Brunswick.
As I said, I am not going to quarrel with the experts, but I suggest to the minister that to the layman there seems to be some cause and effect in this matter. I am not so sure whether the cause and effect may not have some relation to the fact that the man who owns the seiners occupies a position not too many hundred feet away from where we sit at the present time, and is very prominent in the councils of the party opposite. That may not have anything to do with it, but it is a very strange thing that these seiners are permitted to operate when trawlers, as I pointed out before, are forbidden to fish within twelve miles of our coast.
It may be that the fishermen do not know what they are talking about. I can quite believe that they may be honestly mistaken, that there is some scientific explanation, but I suggest to the minister that the easiest way to clean it up is to forbid seiners from operating within the basin. He has the power to do it. The licence can be endorsed as licences are now endorsed to the effect that trawlers are prohibited from fishing within twelve miles of the coast line. Certainly seiners could be prohibited from fishing within a quarter of a mile of a weir operated by inshore fishermen. If that is done for a period of two or three years, and the bait situation remains serious, then the fishermen will have to admit that they are wrong, and they will have to bow to the judgment of the experts. Until that is done they are not going to be satisfied. When you have a situation where the bait has fallen off to less than two per cent of what it was before the seiners arrived, I suggest from a practical standpoint that there is something there which warrants the attention of the minister. I will not take any further time now, but I am telling him seriously that, when this matter is before us again on his other estimates, unless some action is promised probably we shall have to spend much more time on the question than we are taking now.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: If you go back through the history of the sardine and herring industry I think you will find that ever since it has been established we have had years when these fish were in very short supply. The past six or eight months has been one of these seasons of scarcity. I know in my

Supply-Fisheries
own county this winter we have been unable to get a supply sufficient to keep the canneries going tor more than one-third of the time. That condition has prevailed on many occasions in years gone by, and I am afraid it will prevail again in future.
I should like to clarify the hon. member's statement in connection with seiners. There are many of these people in my own county. Nine out of ten own their own boats and gear, and you will not find a more rugged bunch of fishermen anywhere in the maritime provinces. If sardines are to be caught at Digby or Grand Manan or anywhere else in the maritime provinces, you will find these boats on the job winter and summer. The hon. gentleman mentioned the sardines taken at Digby. I guarantee that more sardines are taken at Charlottetown in one day than would be caught at Digby in one year; and that happens year after year. I am not saying that purse seining may not be harmful to some extent, in the sardine industry; I am not in a position to argue that point; but this type of fishing has been carried on in my county for about ten years. In 1947 we had one of the biggest years in our history followed by another big year in 1948, but since last December sardines have been very scarce. Just in passing I might say that I remember seeing records which showed that 1890 was a year of great scarcity in the sardine industry on the east coast. At that time there would be no danger of purse seining interfering because then the fish were all caught in sardine weirs.
I wanted to clarify the position of the seiners, most of whom own their own boats and purse seines, and whose equipment is second to none. They are not looking for charity. They are men who are out working winter and summer, doing a very fine job.


George Randolph Pearkes: I appreciate the fact that the fishermen on the Atlantic coast need bait, and if there is a surplus of herring on the Pacific coast it would be very good practice to send that surplus to the Atlantic. We want to be quite certain, however, that in so doing we are not depriving industries on the Pacific coast, and that we are getting a fair price for the herring shipped to Nova Scotia for use as bait. The price mentioned by the minister of $60 a ton is only about half the normal price paid on the Pacific coast for frozen herring, since 5 cents a pound is regarded as about normal.
The sale of herring for use as bait is by no means the only use made of that catch. After receiving various letters from feed merchants on Vancouver island, both in my own constituency and the constituency repre-

sented by the minister, in regard to the difficulty of getting fish meal, a few days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question about the supplies of that commodity. On March 31, after having consulted the officials of his department, he stated that in comparison with the last two or three seasons, comparatively few herring had been canned, the catch being used mainly for oil and meal. He said almost 31,000 tons of fish meal were produced, the highest on record, and that supplies for the market served by the Pacific coast fisheries were good. Prices remained firm, indicating that the demand is also good.
I would like to call attention to the fact that only small quantities have been canned, and that comparatively few herring have been used for the production of fish meal. I said I had received letters from feed merchants on the Pacific coast pointing out that they were short of fish meal for use in poultry laying mash. In a letter I received only a few days ago I am told that they now have to pay $200 a ton for fish meal, which is about twice what had to be paid for this product only a couple of years ago. I have another letter telling me of the prices now asked for laying mash of which fish meal is an essential ingredient. In 1947 such mash was sold at the feed stores for $49 a ton. This year it is $85 a ton; in other words it has almost doubled in price in two years. I know there are many reasons for this, and certainly one of those reasons is the shortage of fish meal and the increase in price. That results from the fact that only a small share of the herring caught on the Pacific coast is being used to produce a commodity which is urgently needed in that area.
Then again, the fish salteries on the gulf islands in my constituency, where herring were dried, salted, cured and shipped to China, are all idle. They have been closed for many years. Inquiries were made as to whether or not it would be possible to revive that industry, which might open up a better market for the fishermen than having the herring shipped to the Atlantic coast for use as bait, which would also entail the payment of transportation charges by the government. That might be well worth investigating. Then I feel that we must take very seriously the warning given by the previous speaker with respect to the use of various types of trawlers in the waters around Vancouver island. I know the officials of the minister's department have been con-. sidering for a number of years whether or not limitations should be placed on the auto trawlers and beam trawlers which operate between Vancouver island and the mainland. Not only the fishermen but also many scientists claim that these trawlers are doing con-

siderable damage to young herring spawn in these waters. Certain prohibitions have been imposed upon the use of the auto trawler in these particular waters off the east coast of Vancouver island, from which these herring are shipped. I do think we should take very seriously the warning which has been given from the Atlantic coast where, owing to the use of certain types of fishing equipment, they have lost their catch of bait. We have to take what must be considered an uneconomical step by shipping bait from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast. If we are not careful we shall find we are in exactly the same position on the Pacific coast. If steps are not taken to conserve the catch of herring and prevent that type of fish from being destroyed when they are immature, that is what will happen.
I would therefore ask the minister to give very careful consideration to the various points I have raised, namely, that this is not the most economical or the most profitable means of handling our herring on the Pacific coast; secondly, that the fact that we are exporting such great quantities of herring from the Pacific coast has created a shortage of poultry food which is urgently needed by the poultry producers on the Pacific coast; thirdly, the question of conserving our herring by prohibiting the use of destructive equipment in those waters in which the herring remain.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think I should answer the hon. member's question, although I do not want to delay my own estimates. He is quite wrong in most of what he has had to say, but probably that is due to Easter coming or lent being over. The fishermen did not catch less fish because of these 1,800,000 pounds of herring that went to the east coast. They had their full quota. Our boats explored the situation on both the east and the west coasts and it was our belief that we could reasonably let this quantity of herring go to the Atlantic coast for bait. In addition to that, the season was lengthened and some 40,000 tons extra were caught on the west coast, so that they got more than their ordinary quota. Most of that went into bait and into cans. I was not aware that any of it went into oil cans. They had a carryover from last year and that is the reason there was none put up this year.
I believe this was a proper act. When there was a shortage of bait on the Atlantic coast it was proper for us to ship this bait to them at the prices that were obtained and I would be very glad to do it again. I only hope that the time never arrives when we shall have to request something from the Atlantic coast. I remember quite well that there were years when the herring on the
Supply-Fisheries
Pacific coast were in short supply. This year there was a phenomenal run of herring on the Pacific coast but there were few on the Atlantic coast.


George Black: Perhaps the minister would inform the committee whether any arrangements are being made for the repayment of this vote. Is this money being made available to the fishermen of Nova Scotia to go fishing with British Columbia bait or is it an outright gift? Is the government now supplying bait so that fishermen can go fishing?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they have not sufficient bait with which to go fishing, I would be glad to supply it. I would recommend once more that something be done so that the industry on the Atlantic coast could be maintained just the same as the industry on the Pacific coast.


George Black: It is public money with which the minister is being so generous. I think he ought to make arrangements to have it returned.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It would be a greater disaster if the people on the Atlantic coast could not fish for want of bait.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is my understanding that, unfortunately, the maritimers did not have the necessary bait. I can quite appreciate the fact that these fishermen would not have as good a catch with maritime bait as they would have with bait from British Columbia. I want to point out that my understanding of this is that through some misunderstanding or some mistake, not on the part of the government or of the federal department of fisheries, these fishermen did not have bait reserved. Of course we appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that with British Columbia bait you could catch more fish than you could with bait from any other place in the world. I believe the government of Canada paid a subsidy of so much a pound to provide the necessary bait so that the maritime fishermen would be able to carry on and support their families for the rest of the year.


Mr. Baker:: May I just say a few words on this question. The circumstances this year were unusual and there was a great shortage of bait. Next year there might be an overage. The minister certainly did the right thing in rendering this assistance, just as the dominion government rendered assistance at the time of the disastrous floods in the Fraser valley or for prairie farm rehabilitation or anything else that might be needed from time to time to provide assistance which cannot be provided by the individual.
I might also say that 1,800,000 pounds of herring is not a tremendous quantity. The

Supply-Labour
supplies on the west coast have not been materially decreased. I congratulate the minister on the forethought he has shown, which has enabled our fishermen to continue their work until such time as they too have large quantities of herring. Perhaps some day the maritimes will be able to supply the west coast with herring. I can tell you we will be very glad to sell them to you if we have any.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is this subsidy going to be continued? I just answered a telephone call a few moments ago from the fishermen's union and they desired to know whether they could still take advantage of this and continue to get bait for the next month?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I understand there is plenty of bait in Newfoundland. No herring are running on the west coast now and what herring we have would not be suitable for bait. It will therefore have to be discontinued.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
587. Departmental administration-further amount required, $17,500.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question on this item. Early in the session, during the speech from the throne and in questions on the orders of the day, the unemployment situation which develops in Vancouver each winter was brought to the attention of the minister. On the 14th of March he made a statement in which he indicated that that situation was clearing up because logging camps were opening, and so on. He indicated everything would be well. In that statement he did say that 6,000 of the 25,000 unemployed in Vancouver early in March had come from outside the city and that two-thirds of those came from outside the province.
Other members of the house as well as I have called the minister's attention to the fact that the burden of the unemployed who do not qualify for unemployment insurance and who are in distress falls entirely upon the city or upon private agencies in the city who raise their money for other social service work. On March 14 the minister gave us no comfort at all in our suggestion that the dominion government should carry out its proposals put forward in the green book and should supply unemployment assistance to take care of the class of employable unemployed who, for one reason or another, are not in receipt of unemployment insurance. The minister made some sensible statements about people being responsible for themselves, and said that he had not taken

a cent in all his years in the country. I congratulate him on his statements and on his own condition. But the point that I am bringing to his attention is that when men get into distress somebody must look after them; and the city of Vancouver, year after year, is finding it too great a strain upon its private social service agencies to meet the situation.
Once more I want to refer the minister to the green book, where the dominion government offered to the provinces that they would take over responsibility for the employable unemployed by way of unemployment assistance up to eighty-five per cent of the unemployment insurance rates; and I want to ask him if he will assure the house that before the next seasonal unemployment sets in in Vancouver we shall have that offer implemented and shall have the dominion government, not the city of Vancouver, taking care of the people who do not normally live in Vancouver.


Humphrey Mitchell: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend knows, I cannot give him any assurance. Any government policy will be announced at the proper time. The hon. member mentioned the green book, which I understand was predicated on an agreement with the respective provinces right across the dominion, and that may be argued one way or the other. I think that what I predicted a month or six weeks ago has more or less come to pass. My hon. friend knows as well as I do, as do all hon. members from British Columbia, that there is a difficult situation there through the movement of people from the other provinces, particularly in the winter. The same problem is met with in Florida and California. I think one must have due regard to that fact, because it is only a matter of degree how you get to a place. But when you get there, and when you go on your own responsibility, I again repeat that you should not ask somebody else to take care of you. This is my view. I do not know how you can change it. I cannot stop the sun from shining. You cannot pass legislation to prevent the weather being warmer in British Columbia than it is in the rest of Canada during the winter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is the best part of Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true. That is a matter of opinion. As for myself, I would rather live in Ontario.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It was pretty rainy out in the west.


Humphrey Mitchell: You can have the baldheaded prairies. I prefer Ontario.
It is a difficult situation. I was going to make this suggestion in a humorous kind of way, and I hope it will not be taken seriously. We do not need to go far before somebody will suggest that we pass a law to control the elements. That is about the only thing some people have not done. But that is not possible.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: The C.C.F. does not follow that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister takes credit for good weather when it comes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't we all? Even when you walk in at the main door of the parliament buildings you say, "Well, it is a nice morning." That is the natural thing to do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If you do not
ride down on the street car, that is all right.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is true. Speaking personally, I should like to see uniform legislation right across the dominion in this regard. Of course it was predicted in the green book. My hon. friend can rest assured that the situation will be watched closely by the government, but I cannot guarantee to him that there will not be recurring conditions such as those experienced this year in British Columbia. I think that is too much to expect.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister always gives this answer. Of course, that is not my point. I know he cannot guarantee that people will not come into British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hope not.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It would take a much bigger man than he to do that. I know he cannot control weather conditions. But the minister can deal with the results of that influx of men. If next year we have a seasonal unemployment situation in Vancouver on the same scale as we had this year, and no unemployment assistance is provided to take care of those who do not qualify for unemployment insurance, then-apart from the fact that the government is going to change-I should think the minister would be in a difficult position indeed in this house. He knows perfectly well that I am not suggesting to him that he try to deal with the influx of people. I am suggesting to him that he care for them after they are there, or at least for those who do not have their permanent residence in the city. It is entirely wrong that the municipal government should be required to look after a large-scale influx of unemployed persons, and I think that point must be perfectly clear to the country.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Labour AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock we had just completed listening to a dissertation from the Minister of Labour. When I came to this House of Commons last June I listened to the minister with a good deal of delight. I was astonished to find that the minister, whom I had always considered as being something of an ogre, was a very kindly gentleman whose speeches were delightfully humorous.
However, this afternoon the Minister of Labour cracked two jokes which I had heard him crack before. What appears to be humorous when one first hears it has a tendency to become inane when one hears it a second or third time. The humorous relationship between the weather and [DOT] the law, the impossibility of passing laws to prevent winter, or to prevent winter weather conditions, has been heard before; and I do not think it is relevant any longer, even as a humorous anecdote.
When the Minister of Labour says that people who pull up stakes when the first cold winds of winter blow in Saskatooon or Toronto, and head for Vancouver, have no reason to expect federal authorities to be responsible for their upkeep and their welfare, the impression is left in my mind that he has a vision of people who hold very good jobs in Saskatoon or in Toronto quitting those jobs every fall and coming out to Vancouver, with the intention of living on the federal government.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never said that.


Rodney Young: I did not say the minister did say that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say I never said that.


Rodney Young: But it could be taken from his remarks.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know the twist you are trying to put on it.


Rodney Young: I am not twisting anything.


Humphrey Mitchell: You twisted everything during the session. Do not say that again.


Rodney Young: I am drawing the only possible inference from the minister's remarks. If people become unemployed in Saskatoon and they feel as Canadians that they have the right to live in the best possible climate where they can be unemployed, if they have to be unemployed at all, they only show good sense if they go out to Vancouver. The fact
2308

Supply-Labour
is that we have a sensible population. They do come out to Vancouver, and the Minister of Labour realizes that.
When the minister says that the splendid program outlined in the green book was passed upon the supposition that a certain agreement would be reached between federal rnd provincial authorities, that again is not
reasonable excuse. When those promises were made in the green book they were made because they fulfilled the needs of this country. They were not made simply by way of a bribe to get the provinces to co-operate with the federal government. They still offer the filling of a need in this country. There is no way I can see whereby the minister can talk this committee into believing that the responsibility for unemployed people who have no resources such as unemployment insurance is not that of the federal government. More especially is that so when these people are not drawn from the province in which they happen to be stranded, but are drawn from all other provinces right across the country.
I know the minister wishes to have his estimates passed, and I do not wish to deliver a lengthy speech which would hold up the passage of those estimates. I am not making any attempt to enter upon a filibuster; on the contrary, I should like to see the business of this country done as rapidly as efficiency will permit. At this juncture however I believe that, as the representative of the people of Vancouver Centre, a part of British Columbia in which the headquarters of the principal industries in the province are located, and also the headquarters of the principal trade unions in the province, it is my duty to draw to the minister's attention at this time four requests in resolution form forwarded to me by the Vancouver labour council.
These requests deal with the minister's department. May I read them rapidly, so that the minister may see them in the record tomorrow and, I hope, ponder them with a view to expediting compliance with these requests.
The first deals with the nine-day waiting period which is practically obligatory on the recipient of unemployment insurance. The resolution says:
The nine-day waiting period is too long and is an unnecessary hardship to the applicants.
It is resolved that they ask the commission to reduce the waiting period to five days. Let me say to the minister that many of the people who draw unemployment insurance on occasions when, perhaps through no fault of their own they are subjected to the misfortune of temporary unemployment, are
TMr. Young.]
people whose wages or salaries are of a standard which keeps them only from pay day to pay day. When they become unemployed they have not the resources which would permit them to live nine days until their unemployment insurance is payable. TJiis means that under those conditions they have to go into debt. If a man whose only source of income is unemployment insurance must go into debt, he is in no position to honour that debt. When he does go back on the job the saddle of the debt will keep him from having a decent standard of living until it has been honoured. I would appeal to the minister on behalf of the people who draw on unemployment insurance that he reduce this period not, as this resolution says, to five days, but, if at all possible, by making a provision whereby payments would be retroactive to the day of application. If the waiting period were cut down to five days it would leave ample time for the minister's department to go over the records and assure themselves that the applicant is indeed a paid-up member in their society, and capable of drawing insurance.
The second resolution states-
Whereas the present practice of deducting noncompensable days from the total number of days for which the claimant is eligible works a hardship,
Be it resolved that non-compensable days be eliminated from the act.
That is self-explanatory; the minister will see exactly what it means.
Tnen, there is one other point I would draw to the minister's attention. That is the case of hospital employees in Vancouver General hospital, and other hospitals in British Columbia. I know that this may not interest the minister, but it may interest some members in the house to know that one time, during the great depression of which we have unholy memories, I myself was an employee in the Vancouver General hospital. We were not permitted to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act because when the act was passed hospital employees were counted to be employed in a non-profit organization. Hospitals had to be sustained by grants from provincial governments, and from time to time by public appeal. Recently however the government of British Columbia passed a hospital insurance act, which has placed the hospitals in a position where they are able to budget within their income. No longer are they non-profit organizations, in the strict sense of the term.
Employees who constitute a considerable number of citizens of Vancouver feel they are now working for an organization which should come under the act. I would ask the

minister to take that request into consideration on behalf of the workers in my constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
589. Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, further amount required, $25,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether any further consideration has been given to one particular point in connection with unemployment insurance, which I shall indicate immediately? As the minister knows, there are a number of points in which some of us are interested, but in order to make myself crystal clear I am going to direct my remarks to just one point.
The case I have in mind is that of an employee who loses his job, who qualifies for unemployment insurance and starts to draw benefits. While unemployed and while on benefits he becomes ill. As the minister knows, in such a case even though there may be no job for that man, if he is ill and unable to report to the office for his benefits, he is disqualified. I notice the minister nods his head and I think he has caught my point; he realizes that I am not now raising the question of broadening the act into a health insurance act. This matter has been up before and the minister has indicated that he would give it consideration. Can he report any progress?


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend knows, this is the Unemployment Insurance Act, not an act dealing with health insurance. Speaking as an individual I take second place to no one in my belief that we should have a national health insurance act. But there are complications with regard to jurisdiction and the responsibilities of various governments. I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance, this being an Unemployment Insurance Act, that the case he refers to could be brought within the orbit of the act.
There is an advisory committee, made up of employers and employees, to the unemployment insurance commission, and the commission itself is made up of representatives of employers and employees with an impartial chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have I made my position clear? I am not now talking, at this moment at any rate, of benefits that would be paid to an employee who had become ill and for whom there was a job waiting. I am referring only to the man who has started drawing benefits and who subsequently becomes ill.
Supply-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: That is an elementary principle in the legislation. This is an unemployment insurance act, not a health insurance act. I see my hon. friend's point of view, and may I say to him that I sympathize with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good; that is progress.


Humphrey Mitchell: I held that opinion long before my hon. friend was a member of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is a lot older than I.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has often said so himself.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was advocating this long before my hon. friend ever thought of running for parliament.


Gordon Graydon: He just looks older than you.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are two things here, unemployment insurance and health insurance. This is an unemployment insurance measure which does not take into consideration the question of health insurance as it is understood in Great Britain with all its implications-and contributions, do not forget that.. When you go out to your people you should not be promising them pie in the sky; you should tell them frankly and honestly what it is going to cost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister should listen to my speeches.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is not the only one who knows anything about this kind of thing.


Rodney Young: If they can do it in Britain, why not here.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friend was born in Britain.


Rodney Young: And so was the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: And I am proud of it. May I say that in Britain they have to pay for the services that are rendered. I know something about the basic health insurance act in Great Britain and I know something about the contributions that are made. My hon. friend is getting health insurance mixed up with unemployment insurance. You cannot shuffle the cards. The cost must come out of the productive resources of the nation.


Rodney Young: Does the minister not think that they got low wages in Britain before they had unemployment insurance?


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my young and hon. friend just wait a minute. I did not interrupt him. I think he will find during the

Supply-Labour
course of his life that he has many things to learn.


Rodney Young: The minister will find that I am willing to learn them.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend has learned already because he made some statements which he had to retract.


Rodney Young: Stick to unemployment insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right; my hon. friend says to stick to unemployment insurnce. The hon. member must not forget what he will be asked at the next election.


Rodney Young: I know what I will be asked and I will be able to answer.


William Henry Golding: I would ask hon. members to deal specifically with this item, which is the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Chairman says to stick to unemployment insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member raised the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is unemployment insurance that I was talking about.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is talking about health insurance while this item deals with unemployment insurance. As I say, we have an advisory committee composed of trade unionists and employers to advise the commission, which in turn advises the minister. This is predicated upon contributions, and I think that is a sound system. I hope that I shall live to see the day when all the provinces get together and decide to have a national system of health insurance.


Clarence Gillis: I know that the time and place to discuss these things is when the regular estimates are before the committee, but I want to take this opportunity of provoking the minister's thoughts. When he brings down his regular estimates he may have further supplementaries to take care of the matters we are now referring to. There is one problem affecting seamen about which I have written to the department quite often.
During the war a number of Canadian seamen went to Britain to join the merchant marine there. When the war ended they carried on in the British merchant service, some of them for three or four years. During that time they paid into the British unemployment insurance fund. Then the British government decided to repatriate them to Canada. These men came here with paid-up unemployment insurance books from the old country. They assumed that they could draw unemployment insurance in Canada. But

when they found themselves unemployed in Canada their contributions to the British unemployment fund were not recognized.
When presenting individual cases to the department I have suggested that they might consider making unemployment insurance reciprocal within the commonwealth. There is an exchange of men, particularly in the merchant service, between New Zealand, Australia and Britain. These men contribute to the different funds. I think all of our social legislation should be reciprocal. In order to protect our own people here and abroad I think consideration should be given to this aspect of the matter. I have had no indication that the department has done what I suggested should be done.


Humphrey Mitchell: As a matter of fact, a ranking officer of the commission was recently in Great Britain discussing the matter my hon. friend speaks of. There are complications in regard to rates of exchange and that sort of thing when we consider making arrangements with other countries, but my hon. friend may rest assured that the matter is being followed up.


Mr. MacNicol:: I shall not be more than a moment or two. I am not going to ask the minister to answer now what I am going to say because I appreciate that perhaps a word or two of it may not be in order. In the part of the city of Toronto where I live, and which I represent in this house, there are a large number of old country workingmen who have come out here, and in due course have come under unemployment insurance. As the minister has well said, in the old country they are not only under unemployment insurance but they are also under health insurance. These old country workers cannot understand a case such as that represented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have come across quite a number of them myself. Inasmuch as the whole problem is under the labour department in England, I am going to ask the minister if he will not consider some program that would cover a case such as that presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I can also present quite a number of such cases of men who, while on unemployment insurance, became sick and were thrown off unemployment insurance, which manifestly is not fair. I am not going to blame anyone for it. I am going to ask the minister to consider the problem and try to bring in a program whereby such workers can continue to have relief.


Humphrey Mitchell: The trouble there is the whole question of jurisdiction. Frankly I think that there are three grave fears in the life of the average person. I do not know whether I have expressed this opinion in the house

before, but I believe that there is the fear of destitution in old age; there is the fear of destitution through unemployment; and there is the fear of destitution through sickness. On a contributory basis I think it is only a question of organization; that is all. If you can get agreement amongst the respective governments, I do not think it would be too difficult to eliminate those three great fears in the life of the average person, irrespective of their station in life in the Dominion of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us do it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe that sincerely. I believe that the welfare of the average man and woman in Canada takes precedence over everything.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is paramount.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is just a matter of agreement.
Item carried.



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
594. Departmental administration-further amount required, $9,200.
Mr. Probe:: I have a question which I might have asked equally well under departmental administration of the Department of Labour. It has to do with the item for telephones, telegrams and postage. Every representative of a constituency from time to time has to send urgent communications from his home riding to the administrative officials in Ottawa. Sometimes he telephones, and sometimes he wires, depending on the nature of the information he may require. I have a question to ask about telegrams. On occasion I have sent telegrams to both the Department of Labour and the Department of Mines and Resources for which I have paid myself. Needless to say, when I wire Ottawa I do not want to know the hockey scores. I am wiring about something that is important to my constituents. I have received collect telegrams in reply from the departments concerned. I do not think that when we are doing the nation's business, and when there are estimates of this type for deficiencies in that particular item, we should have a bill from the government of Canada for assisting it in doing its business. I should like to have an explanation of the need for sending collect telegrams to members in reply to questions directed to the government of Canada by way of prepaid telegram.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister is not here. I must say I cannot speak from personal knowledge. It sounds like a very unusual course. I get collect telegrams from members of parliament.


John Oliver Probe: I am glad to hear that.
Supply-Mines and Resources


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some members of parliament, not all.


Mr. Jackman:: It must be Liberals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. We make no distinction between the parties as far as telegrams are concerned. I suggest, however, that perhaps there is some advantage in not making it too easy to send telegrams because some people will send telegrams when an airmail letter will do perfectly well. It is a little easier to send a telegram, and perhaps a little more impressive, but very often the matter is not so urgent that an airmail letter would not do the trick. In the interests of economy and keeping down expenses, I do not think one should encourage the sending of telegrams from members of parliament or anyone else. There is a very real deterrent if a man has to pay for his own telegrams. I must say, however, that if a department sends a telegram to a member of parliament I would think, speaking generally, that it should be prepaid. If they feel that a telegram is not required and send a letter, that is all right; but I think as a general rule telegrams from departments should not be sent collect to members of parliament unless the member of parliament has so requested.


John Oliver Probe: The Minister of Labour was partly concerned in my question, although I asked it under the estimates of the Department of Mines and Resources. Since the Minister of Finance has stated that he thought it was normal policy in replying to urgent messages sent by prepaid telegram by members of parliament, perhaps the Minister of Labour could indicate whether or not his colleague has put the matter correctly. A telegram which I received recently in Regina from the deputy minister of labour was sent collect, and I have known the same thing to happen before.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not catch what you said. Did you say that the deputy minister of labour sent a telegram collect?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines, forests and scientific services branch- dominion forest service-
596.	Forest products research-further amount required. $20,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The new Minister of Mines and Resources and the former minister are not present, and if the acting minister cannot answer my question it will not matter particularly. I want to refer to the next two items, 596 and 597. According to the list on page 16 they are for buildings and equipment. Does the minister know where the buildings are being erected?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. This is the construction of two temporary buildings. In the supple-

Supply-Mines and Resources mentary estimates for 1948-1949 an amount of $35,000 was included for construction of two temporary buildings to relieve congestion at the forest products laboratories in Ottawa. After plans and specifications were prepared, and tenders were called, the Department of Public Works advised that $55,000 would be required for this construction. The matter was considered by treasury board, and treasury board authorized the department to proceed with the construction immediately, and stated that favourable consideration would be given to including in these final supplementaries an item of $20,000 to cover the rest of the construction, and that is the item under consideration, item 596.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and mapping bureau-
597.	Map compilation and reproduction-further amount required, $26,271.
Douglas Charles Abbott: A somewhat similar explanation applies to item 597. The original estimate for the topographical surveys branch was a little bit too close, and this is the additional amount we require to cover this service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion water and power bureau-
598.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada-further amount required, $30,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This item pertains to the Columbia river upon which works are being constructed both in Canada and in the United States for the purpose of increasing power on the Grand Coulee dam. Are the works being planned and carried out on the Canadian side under the sole direction of Canadian engineers, or do United States engineers assist?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question. This additional amount is required in order to continue during April, 1949, certain important work being done in these topographical surveys, required for a meeting of the international joint commission to be held in April of this year, which would not be available unless this work were continued. The amount of the original vote apparently was not quite sufficient to enable the work to be completed. Treasury board indicated that it should be carried on and that this supplementary vote would be requested; but this not being my own department I am not in a position to answer the specific question asked by my hon. friend.


Eric Bowness McKay: If I might revert to 597 for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet when you called it carried, but I do not think

you saw me. I would like to ask the minister if this has to do with aerial survey work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think so. The additional amount is required in connection with the purchase of what is known as a Mann offset press at a cost of some $24,325. It is required, apparently, in connection with the printing of maps having to do with the topographical surveys. Again in this particular the primary amount required was underestimated. This press, it appears, is necessary in order to complete the work, and treasury board authorized entering into the contract and agreed to approve a recommendation to include an item in the supplementary estimates to cover it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs branch-welfare-
601. Welfare of Indians-further amount required, $100,000.
Mr. Harkness:: I should like to ask what is the intention of the government in regard to the proposed revision of the Indian Act. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that a joint committee of both houses sat during the past three sessions and spent a great deal of time carrying out a revision of the Indian Act. At great expense the committee heard evidence from Indians coming from all across Canada, as well as a good deal of evidence by government officials and other interested parties. We were given to understand that this session the draft revision of the Indian Act would be introduced in the house, after having been submitted once more to the joint committee, and that this legislation would be put through during the life of the present parliament. So far this session, however, nothing has been done. Several questions have been directed to the government asking whether they were going to set up this special joint committee again, but no conclusive answer has been given. The government has been asked also if it is going to introduce the draft bill prepared last year. I wonder if the minister who is looking after the estimates of this department can give us any assurance that something definite will be done, in connection with setting up this joint committee or otherwise, with respect to introducing the draft bill into the house and getting the legislation through.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend a very definite answer. My recollection is that in answer to a question in the house not very long ago the former Minister of Mines and Resources did make a statement. I have not the reference offhand, but I believe it was within the last week or ten

days. At that time, I believe, he indicated it was his thought that when the bill now being considered by the Department of Justice was received he would ask that the committee be set up again and requested to study the bill. I am only speaking from memory, of course.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what he said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In any case the answer is on Hansard. The new Minister of Mines and Resources has not been able to return from Newfoundland yet. I think he will be here tomorrow, so I wonder if my hon. friend would be prepared to allow his question tc stand for the moment. Possibly he would put it to the minister on the orders of the day, before we adjourn at the end of the week.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The last answer by the Minister of Mines and Resources was that this draft bill was still in the hands of the Department of Justice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That bill was supposed to be submitted to Justice at the time parliament prorogued, last June. Certainly during the intervening months they have had plenty of time to complete work on it. If anything is going to be done this year the bill should have been back long ago before this house or before a committee of this house. Personally I am not satisfied to let the item pass unless the minister can give us some assurance that a definite statement will be made within the course of the next three or four days, we will say.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no doubt the Minister of Mines and Resources will be quite prepared to make a statement on this question. I am not. As far as the bill is concerned, up to the present time the house has been pretty fully occupied with other matters, and I do not think it would have been able to give consideration to such a bill even if it had been ready. However, all I can say to my hon. friend is that before the house adjourns for the Easter recess, at the end of this week, I am sure the Minister of Mines and Resources will be quite prepared to answer this question. Whether my hon. friend will be prepared to accept the answer, I do not know. This item under consideration is an additional amount required to provide for the welfare of the Indians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
603.	To reimburse the Blackfoot band of Indians for an expenditure in 1930 out of band funds for the reconstruction of the Old Sun residential school, with interest at 5 per cent per annum, $156,669.
Mr. Casileden:: Apparently this has to do with a certain claim by this tribe in Alberta
Supply-Mines and Resources against the government. I should like to know whether the recommendation regarding claims of Indians, passed by this house, has been brought before the cabinet for consideration. The minister will remember that the joint committee recommended, and the house approved the recommendation, that the government should set up without delay-and that was last July-a claims commission similar to that which had been set up in the United States. I should like to know whether or not the cabinet has come to a decision on this matter. I would not expect the Minister of Finance to be familiar with the situation among the Indians, but after four years of discussion it became quite evident that hundreds of claims were being advanced by Indians all across Canada. There is scarcely a reservation in this country that has not some kind of dispute over land, or over the trust fund, or over the rights of the Indians on these reserves. The Indians have based all their faith and their claim for just treatment on the treaties, which have been spread over hundreds of years, so the joint committee recommended that the only solution would be to set up a claims commission. So my question is, has the cabinet been asked to make a decision as to whether or not such a commission should be set up?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer that question definitely. I do not know whether the cabinet has been asked to make that decision. This particular item is to provide funds to reimburse the Blackfoot band of Indians for an expenditure in 1930 out of band funds for the reconstruction of the Old Sun residential school. It covers an advance of $80,000 made at that time with interest at 5 per cent per annum, which now amounts to $76,669, or almost as much as the capital sum originally advanced. That makes a total of $156,669, which is here provided. I am not sufficiently familiar with the claims situation to know whether this relates directly to the question my hon. friend has raised. This is merely asking for parliamentary authorization to put into the fund of the Blackfoot band of Indians an amount of $80,000 to repay an amount borrowed in 1930 in order to construct a school, together with interest at 5 per cent, which is a very high rate of interest.


George Hugh Castleden: Almost anyone could understand that. No doubt this band had a claim which is being recognized by the government, but I was wondering what was happening to the hundreds of other claims which were similarly presented to the committee. That is a natural question, I should think. What is happening to these claims? When are they going to be settled, and when is the matter of a claims commission going to be dealt with'

Supply-National Defence


Douglas Charles Abbott: All I can say is that I will bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the minister, but I think probably it will have to be canvassed when we have the main estimates before the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: Before this item is passed I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) concerning this matter. I know that since I have been in this house, whenever we come to a matter dealing with the Indian problem we slide by it somehow. We always intend to do great things by and by, but we never get beyond the intention of doing those things. I believe it is time we changed that policy. The Indians throughout this country need attention. They are not receiving the treatment which their treaties led them to believe they would receive. I hope that without further delay this matter will be investigated and something will be done about it.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter I wish to mention in connection with the Indians. There is no conceivable reason why the Indians are not receiving old age pensions. The Indians' need for the old age pension is just as great, perhaps greater than the need of the white man. Nothing has been done about giving these citizens old age pensions. I believe this matter should be attended to before this year is out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
Militia Pension Act-
604.	Government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund-further amount required, $3,894,493.
George Randolph Pearkes: This item concerns an amount of $3,894,000 which is the government's contribution to the militia pension fund. When the main estimates were being considered in connection with this item, the minister's attention was directed to the condition of many ex-soldiers who were existing on very small pensions. I asked the minister to take those cases into consideration at the same time he was considering the possibility of increasing the pensions of the superannuated civil servants. We have not had very much luck in securing any increase for the superannuated civil servants and I do not think we are going to have very much luck at the present time when we ask for an increase in the pension of ex-soldiers.
I did throw out the suggestion to the Minister of National Defence, and he expressed some interest in it, that those men who were superannuated from the service

be treated in the same way as the recipients of the war veterans' allowance. I should like to ask the minister whether consideration has been given to that proposal and whether this sum is intended to include that treatment for these old pensioners from the regular forces of the crown. If that is not the case, I should like to ask what this sum of almost $4 million is for. Presumably it is for pensions which were not foreseen at the time. Has there been any large retirement amongst the personnel of the active army which was not foreseen last summer? If so, could the minister indicate how many personnel have been discharged on pension since last June when we dealt with these estimates?


Loran Ellis Baker: Mr. Chairman, this amount in item 604 is explained by the fact that the government used to pay one for one and it is now paying one and two-thirds as against one. The reason is that retirements are permitted at an earlier age than formerly. This amount does not work out exactly to one and two-thirds. It is larger because certain back payments have been made by some of the pensioners, so the government had to contribute the additional one and two-thirds for those amounts. I believe that answers the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes).


George Randolph Pearkes: May I have an answer to the other question? Has consideration been given to granting hospitalization to the pensioners of the forces in the same way as hospitalization is granted to the recipients of the war veterans' allowance?


Loran Ellis Baker: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the hon. member for Nanaimo a definite answer to that question at this time. I will see to it that his question is answered, if he would care to let it stand until the main estimates come before the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I could have an answer before we come to the main estimates?


Loran Ellis Baker: Or before.


John Oliver Probe: There is one question which was touched upon by the member for Nanaimo and which interests me as well. What is the current annual payment into this fund on behalf of the government and how many personnel are covered by that payment?


Loran Ellis Baker: I regret that I cannot provide the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) with that information at this time. I thought that such items would be dealt with on the main estimates and I have not come prepared to give that information, but it will be forthcoming.


John Oliver Probe: While I do not wish to labour the point, we are passing money for the administration and I think that they should come armed with some facts when asking us to grant this money. Otherwise, this is just a farce. I do not want to stress this unduly, but we should have some further information.


Loran Ellis Baker: Mr. Chairman, these amounts were allowed and commitment authority for them has already been passed. We are merely authorizing the actual cash expenditure. These are further supplementary estimates. When the main estimates are before us we will be ready to answer all these questions.


John Oliver Probe: 1 am willing to grant that, Mr. Chairman, but the fact remains that we are passing large sums of money and a modicum of explanation should be given when we are asked to concur. The Prime Minister wants to rush these items through and I am prepared to assist him. I am prepared to assist him, however, on a quid pro quo basis; some information, some concurrence.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the parliamentary
assistant give me an answer to the other question I asked, as to the number of men who have been discharged since July 1 when these estimates were discussed?


Loran Ellis Baker: Mr. Chairman, these are not the main estimates but are really supplementary estimates for 1948-49. We intended to bring that information to the house at the time the main estimates were discussed.


Mr. Cockeram:: I should like to see this item stand. I have many figures here in connection with increased pay and allowances to the ai'med forces as well as increases for civil servants in the three service departments. I think we should get some correct answers to the questions that are being asked. If the parliamentary assistant will not agree to let this item stand, I should like to go into the question of the expenditures of these departments to ascertain whether or not the taxpayer is getting value for his money.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alan Cockeram: It is not carried.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Alan Cockeram: With regard to this item in looking over the estimates for the coming year, I see there has been an increase in the expenditure for civilian employees in the navy-


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to deal with the estimates for the coming year because that is not what is before the committee.


Alan Cockeram: I am using that as an example of the expenditures of the depart-29087-147
Supply-National Defence ment, Mr. Chairman. There is an increase in the expenditures of the naval department for civilian salaries of $4,600,000. In the pay and allowances, the total increase for the same department amounts to $4,187,847. That is what these pensions are based on-the pay and allowances for the armed forces. In other words, the total cost of civilian employees of the naval department has been increased $500,000 more than the increase paid to the naval personnel during the year. When we come to the army, the increase in service pay is $16,451,514 as against an increase in civilian pay of $9,672,345.


William Henry Golding: Order. For the information of the committee I should like to point out that what is before the committee now is item 604-under national defence, pensions and other benefits-Militia Pension Act, government contribution to the permanent forces pension fund, further amount required. That is all we can deal with.


Alan Cockeram: I am pointing out the large
increases in the civilian pay as compared with service pay. I am doing this because I believe it is time that members of the house and the Canadian taxpayers as a whole realized whether or not we are getting value for the money we are spending.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to be good enough just to deal with this item, and that is with regard to "government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund-further amount required". I would ask him not to deal with something outside of that.


Alan Cockeram: All right, Mr. Chairman. The pay and allowances for the naval branch of the services have been increased by $4,187,000 in the past year. We are voting money to bring the pensions up to date. The army has been increased by $16,451,514 and the air force by $8,459,663. I am just wondering whether the parliamentary assistant can tell us the increase in the number of personnel from January 1 last year to December 31 to warrant this increase at this time.


Loran Ellis Baker: This is merely computed on the actual amount of pension contribution payable at one and two-thirds as against one. It is really not a difficult item, but I have not come prepared to answer all the questions that will arise on the main estimates.


Alan Cockeram: If the parliamentary assistant has not come prepared to answer these questions, I suggest that this matter should be allowed to stand; because I say that we as members of this house and the people of Canada are entitled to know what increase

Supply-National Defence there was in the three services as from January 1 for the years concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alan Cockeram: No, it is not carried. I must insist on getting these figures.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alan Cockeram: I am entitled to an answer to my question.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is entitled to ask any question in regard to this item; that is, in connection with the permanent forces pension fund.


Alan Cockeram: That is what I am doing.


William Henry Golding: I suggest that he should not go beyond that.


Alan Cockeram: I have said that I want to know the increase in the personnel of the three services as from the beginning of the financial year to the end of it. I think I am entitled to that information.


Mr. Lesage:: It is out of order.


Alan Cockeram: It is not out of order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Certainly it is not out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, it is not
carried.


Ernest Bertrand: Stand.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member wishes to have information about this item, he should get the information.


Mr. Bentley:: Let the item stand until we get the information.


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


Mr. Drew:: In view of the fact that this item deals with the organization of the national defence forces, and extension of that organization, I think that this is the most appropriate time to place before this committee certain considerations which I believe to be in the minds of hon. members at this particular time.
Today in Washington an historic document was signed which carries with it the recognition of the importance of the subject which we are now discussing. The whole intent of that document which was signed in Washing-


ton this afternoon was that the combined strength-economic, military and other-of the free countries should be brought together for the purpose of preserving peace. That is the purpose of the pact which was signed today. In this and the other free countries the purpose of expending large sums of money upon national defence is that of protecting the country in the event of any emergency, and also of taking our joint part in making it clear to any possible aggressor that peace is his wisest course.
I am particularly impressed with the desirability of raising certain points in connection with this item which is now before us in view of an answer given to the house by the Minister of National Defence on March 17. The following question had been asked:
As of February 15, 1949, how many Canadian army personnel have been qualified as parachutists (a) of the P.P.C.L.I.; (b) of other units?
To that the minister replied that it was not the practice to give information which could be helpful to those who might have other than a friendly interest in the state of our national defence; and then in the latter part of his answer he said, as reported at page 1552 of Hansard:
Changes in the strength or locations of individual units might have the utmost significance. It may be interesting to observe that in the soviet union the giving of such information as is sought here is a crime punishable by ten to twenty years in prison.
I do not know just what the purpose of that ominous reference was, because this is not the soviet union. However, to continue with the words of the Minister of National Defence:
Few figures could be given which would be of greater interest to the only possible aggressor than the information sought in answer to these two questions.
Accordingly it is not in the public interest to give this or similar information in reply to this and the next question.
One of the reasons that the free nations of the world went through years of agony and were very nearly enslaved after the beginning of the last war was that too often within the free nations members of free parliaments had been prepared to accept the specious explanation that something was not in the public interest.
As a result of that, and as a result of the extent to which the public had been deceived as to the state of their defence preparations, the free nations faced the most powerful military organization ever built up in the history of man at that time, with inadequate equipment, in many cases with inferior equipment and in some cases with superior equipment- but in sadly small quantities. And all because, in the name of secrecy, parliaments

and the public had not been informed of essential facts to which they were entitled. One of the reasons the democracies finally won perhaps the most decisive and crushing victory in all history, after those first perilous years of preparation, was that they were subject to the checks and to the examination that only a democracy provides. And it was only when the war had ended, and it was possible to go into the books of the German general staff that it became apparent that one of the reasons for many weaknesses in the German army lay in the circumstance that, not having been subject to any of those challenges which are imposed upon the democratic system, there were many fundamental weaknesses in their organization, in their supply and in the quality of their equipment, which ultimately had much to do with their defeat.
It is well for every member of the House of Commons to bear in mind, that outside of the Department of Finance, which is the department through which all the money flows, considerably the largest amount of money to be spent will be spent by the Department of National Defence. Consequently, if for no other reason than an appropriate check on the expenditure of public funds, there is no department which should be subject to such searching, accurate and detailed examination as the Department of National Defence.
Our system depends upon the accuracy of the information given to the House of Commons. Throughout long years the whole strength of our system has rested upon the obligation of every minister of the crown to give to the House of Commons accurate information upon which members of the house may pass judgment in reaching their conclusions. Without the obligation on every minister of the crown to tell, in exact detail and in accurate detail, the story that is required, our system would completely break down.
There may be cases where something of very great secrecy should be kept from the public eye; there may be cases where something of very great importance should be kept secretly even from members of the house in open debate. But those cases must be very few. And under no circumstances can secrecy of that kind be invoked, except in those cases where it is apparent that this is not something which would be of general knowledge, and that the disclosure of the information might be helpful to those whose interests are contrary to ours, and that it is in fact giving a secret of importance to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I do not see how any hon. member of this House of Commons can accept the statement of the Minister of National Defence as to the reason why that question '19087-147i
Supply-National Defence was not answered. One paratroop battalion; an hon. member of this house asks how many parachutists have been trained. To read the answer of the minister, we can almost see the walls of the Kremlin tremble, lest they should learn the vast numbers of parachutists trained in Canada who would be carried as airborne troops to the soviet empire. And yet, unless this thing be information of great military importance, there can be no reason for withholding it; because members of the House of Commons and the public of Canada have a right to know how far we have gone in training a parachute battalion.
In this case the information given to the public, if it were given in accurate detail, would be much more of a surprise to the Canadian people than it would be to any of those who might have a sinister influence in our affairs.


Ernest Bertrand: How do you know
that?


George Alexander Drew: And the minister knows full well that the surprise would not be one which would bring any gratification to the Canadian public.
Going back over the debates in this house, over the debates in the British House of Commons, and over the debates in the houses of other nations of the commonwealth, over and over again before the war you will find the answer to similar questions, that it was not in the public interest-when the only interest that was being served was the interest of a department which was hiding its failure at that time.
These facts are all a matter of record today. It is now history. But let us not disregard that history; let us not permit the same device to be employed for the purpose of holding back the preparations which should be made.
I said before, and I repeat, that the frankness and accuracy of the answers given by ministers is fundamental to our system. It used to be an accepted proposition that if a minister knowingly misled the house the house was entitled to his resignation.


An hon. Member:: What about the leader of the opposition?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does not the hon. member agree with that principle? Does he know anything about it?


George Alexander Drew: Unless that principle is
accepted, this house can never be really sure whether it is dealing with the facts. That principle should be recognized now and adhered to. Under our system the opposition has a right to full knowledge of all essential information so that debate may

Supply-National Defence take place on both sides of the house with all essential facts being in the minds of hon. members when they are reaching their conclusions. I hope that no hon. member will suggest that there is any other principle which is the basis of our system, because our history is too clear in that respect to be challenged now.
Let me give an example of how difficult it is for hon. members to be certain of the facts in regard to some important things related to these matters. Let me give as an example the Berlin airlift. It is not necessary at this point to debate the importance or otherwise of participation in the Berlin airlift, but let me recall to hon. members the statements that have been made in regard to the Berlin airlift by responsible ministers of the crown. This goes back to June of last year when the Berlin airlift became related to the blockade of Berlin on land by the Russian forces there. The first statement on this subject was given on June 30, 1948 by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as reported on page 6143 of Hansard. After having been asked a question in regard to the possible participation of Canada in the airlift which had just been started, the then Prime Minister answered in these words:
I do not think it is advisable tor me to attempt to answer that question at the moment. I would have to consult with other departments o 1 the government, and I should not like to make a statement with regard to a matter so far-reaching as to the inferences that might be drawn from any reply without first having the opportunity to consult with my colleagues.
Those words of the then Prime Minister made it clear that any answer given in regard to a matter of this kind was of the utmost importance and should be accurately and carefully given. But time went on. On June 30 the statement was made that the reason was that apparently it would not be necessary to do this as the airlift would not be necessary much longer. As I say, time went on. There was a great deal of discussion on this subject. On June 30 the explanation was not that Canada should not participate-may I remind hon. members of that. The then Prime Minister expressed the opinion that it was not likely to continue much longer.
On October 29 it was still continuing and on a greatly accelerated scale. At that time the acting Prime Minister, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), made the statement that since Canada was not one of the four occupying powers it would be considered a violation of Potsdam if she acquiesced and sent planes into the airlift. That was another explanation.
Then time went on, and on this occasion the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner),


one of the senior members of government, expressed quite a different point of view. He said that Canada was not participating in the Berlin airlift because such action would cause more international complications than would be offset by the actual aid given. He added that Britain, the United States and France had larger air forces which could carry out the plan without Canadian assistance.
The Berlin airlift kept continuing and expanding with the tonnage carried mounting every day. Then on January 12 the minister of external affairs said that there was a possibility of the Berlin airlift coming to an end, and he left the suggestion that consequently that would dispose of any need to consider that question. During the present session the minister of external affairs had another comment to make. On February 25, as recorded on page 906 of Hansard, the minister said in reply to a question that was asked:
Efforts are being made by the security council to arrive at a solution of the problem by way of raising the blockade of Berlin. This would make the airlift unnecessary.
The Berlin airlift is still going on and has now passed 8,000 tons per day. There is no immediate indication of any likelihood of the Berlin airlift coming to an end. Hon. members of this house were told the first time this was discussed that this was an important subject and that no statement should be made without careful consideration and without full recognition of the importance of such a statement. One explanation that has been given is that if Canada participated in the airlift it would be a breach of Potsdam. Potsdam was back in 1945. I hope all hon. members know that flights have been made into Berlin with planes bearing R.C.A.F. markings which could be seen by any Russian observers. Certainly those observers would not know what was inside the planes. If Potsdam presents any reason why Canadian planes should not be participating, then I hope that all hon. members will seek some explanation as to why it is thought the Russians would be able to distinguish between one R.C.A.F. plane and another from the outside, because the flights which have been made have been made in R.C.A.F. planes of the same type and design being used in large numbers by the R.A.F. at this time. They would have no reason to think that any such plane was not in the airlift-and remember that nothing changed in June of last year. If there was any reason why we should not have had planes flying into Berlin from June on, those reasons were equally apparent at any time from 1945 up to June of last year because we are informed by the present

Prime Minister that it is under Potsdam that there are some provisions that might be embarrassing in the case of Canada.
Hon. members are, of course, aware that in the present Berlin airlift there are not only members of the air forces of the United States, of Great Britain, and of France taking part, but there are also members of the air forces of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. If there is any limitation under Potsdam it is difficult to understand why it does not apply to the air forces of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The fact is, of course, that if there were any such provision it would apply to them with equal force.
Hon. members of this house have a right to know why Canada is not taking part in that airlift, because no member of the government has suggested at any time that it should not be done. It has only been explained that there were reasons why it was not being done. The important thing in relation to the remarks that I am making in connection with the present item before us is not whether or not we should be in there, but what the reason really is, what the explanation is of the fact that, while we are told that Potsdam would prevent Canadian machines going in there, there have been R.C.A.F. flights in there with R.C.A.F markings plainly visible to any Russian observer who saw the machines going into Gatow airport in Berlin.
Many people may wonder why Canada might not be taking some part in this in view of all that we have been told about the long-range aircraft which have been supplied to the Royal Canadian Air Force. The Minister of National Defence has given extremely glowing accounts of the North Star transport planes that are in the possession of the R.C.A.F. Since more than twenty of these have been supplied to the R.C.A.F, it is only natural that Canadians might wonder what is being done with all of these machines. The house should know why about half of those planes are in storage at this time. Do not misunderstand me. They are not being stored in reserve for emergency use; they are being stored in a partly dismantled state with no suggestion at all, from the condition in which they now are, that there is any intention of using them.
Those are the things that members of the house should know. Millions of dollars of public funds are tied up in these North Star transports which are immobilized, partly dismantled, and with every appearance that the intention is to inhibit them, to use the technical term employed by the air force, and that the intention is not to use them for actual service. After all, these machines are
Supply-National Defence part of the equipment which has been supplied, and about which this house has a right to know a good deal in detail, first as to why they are in storage now, secondly as to why they are partly dismantled, and thirdly as to what the future intentions are as to these stored machines, if any.
At the end of last week public attention was very properly drawn to the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It is a good thing for all Canadians, but for young Canadians particularly, that we should be reminded from time to time of what young Canadians have done in that particular branch of the services. While the twenty-fifth anniversary was only celebrated at the end of the past week, Canadians had written an imperishable record, not only in the history of Canada, but in the history of aviation, in the years of the first world war before the separate R.C.A.F., was formed. There is something in the very condition of this country and in the character of our people, in their spirit of adventure, and their acceptance of new and challenging tests, which has given them unusual qualifications in this new field of transportation.
No Canadian should forget that of all the allied pilots in the first world war the leading fighter pilot was a young Canadian, now Air Marshal Bishop. There must be some special significance in the fact that out of the first six fighter pilots in the other war four were Canadians. Even yet, long years afterwards, every one of us must feel a sense of pride that these young boys-and that is all they were-entered this new field of service, and that at the very top in actual record of achievement were Bishop, Collishaw, Barker and McLeod, all men whose names were known all over the country where interest was taken in the development of this means of transport that emerged from the terrible challenge of war. A very large percentage of all the pilots in the R.A.F. in the closing year of the war came from this country. Those young men demonstrated that they had special qualifications of a very high order; in fact in the closing years of the war some forty per cent of all the pilots in the Royal Air Force came from this country.
Time went on; we did not advance perhaps as well as we might have, with all the qualifications possessed by our young men in this field. We did, however, achieve great things throughout the northern reaches of Canada. Our bush pilots wrote a new page of history when they opened up great new areas of the north and brought new opportunities to scores of thousands of Canadians by their vision, their initiative, their skill and their courage. Then when this last war came,
2320	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence once more our young men-and this time our young women also-showed the special adaptability of our people to everything connected with air transportation. Once again Canadian pilots, Canadian air crew, Canadian ground crew and all the supporting organization made the name of Canada respected and admired throughout the world among those who read of the great events of those days.
Hon. members on both sides of this house have good reason to feel a particular pride in that service, because we have here a number of honourable and gallant gentlemen who belonged to that great service during the last war. Others who did not themselves participate had the opportunity to see what was being done. They saw the Canadian fighter squadrons; they saw the great Canadian bomber squadrons; they saw our coastal patrols, our anti-submarine patrols, our army co-operation forces. They saw Canadians again demonstrating that in this particular field of service no people in the world have greater natural skill.
It is fitting that we should remember that great record of achievement, which challenges every Canadian in the future to make use of this great development in the cause [DOT]of peace. As we remember what they have done, however, I am sure the veterans of the R.C.A.F. would be the last to wish that the noble achievements and glorious service of those in the land and sea forces of Canada should be at any time forgotten. In all these services Canadians have reason to remember what was done by young Canadians, both men and women, as our forces developed and increased during the years of war.
Now we come to the time when Canadians are asked to recognize their defence forces as forces for peace; and when we examine the condition in which we find those forces, it is appropriate that we should recall the statement of policy, by the Minister of National Defence on June 24 of last year, when at page 5784 of Hansard he stated that policy to be:
(1)	to provide the force estimated to be necessary to defend Canada against any sudden direct attack that could be or is likely to be directed against it in the near future;
(2)	to provide the operational and administrative staffs, equipment, training personnel and reserve organization which would be capable of expansion as rapidly as necessary to meet any need; and
(3)	to work out with other free nations plans for joint defence based on self-help and mutual aid as part of a combined effort to preserve peace and to restrain aggression.
Taking that as a statement of policy, then, it is essential that every hon. member should consider how it is to be carried out. Every hon. member not only has a right to information in that regard; he has a duty to know

Supply-National Defence the stated policy of this government. Those are things that hon. members should know, on the highest possible advice that can be obtained anywhere in Canada.
In past years requests have been made for a select committee to examine this subject and to report to the house upon the basis of information of that kind. Without the delay involved in submitting any formal resolution I urge upon the government, in all earnestness and seriousness, the immediate setting up of a special select committee to examine the present state of our national defence and to make recommendations in regard to future organization and requirements.
In the face of experience elsewhere, in the face of the inability of this house to obtain the information to which it was entitled, on the record of the lack of candour shown in discussing the Berlin airlift, I do not see how the government can do less than give the assurance of the setting up of a committee of this kind at this extremely important time in Canadian history.
It is not only a question of the efficiency of our defence forces. It is a question of economy in the use of enormous sums of money that are devoted to this purpose. These are things which should be in the mind of every hon. member in dealing with this subject. Surely this is something which we can approach without indignation being expressed that there should be requests for more information than has been given in the past. In the past, in the years before the war, parliament had a record, in relation to the explanation that it was not in the public interest, which should be a warning to it that it should not accept that explanation today. That explanation, used not only here but in Britain and in the United States as well, nearly brought the most tragic consequences that can come to a free people anywhere. We were all too close to the ultimate in tragedy in those days as a result of the fact that the public did not know how ineffective the defence forces of free nations really were.
I would urge that the government give an assurance that this special select committee will be set up along the lines suggested. The suggestion is not in the form of a motion before the committee, but hon. members of this committee can express their opinion in a simple way, namely, by not passing this item in the estimates unless that assurance is given. I would ask that hon. members take the item that is now before us not merely as so many dollars and cents but as a test of whether or not the government is prepared now to give us the assurance of a committee which will give us the information we should


have before another cent is voted to this government for this purpose.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I was glad indeed, Mr. Chairman, to hear the leader of the opposition pay the well-deserved tribute that he did to the Royal Canadian Air Force upon their twenty-fifth anniversary. I paid my tribute before, and I daresay other members of this house have joined with the people and the press of Canada in paying that well-deserved tribute to the air force.
In the course of my preparation for the speeches and the messages I had to deliver on the work of the Royal Canadian Air Force since it was instituted on April 1, 1924, I had to look at the record of what various governments had done with regard to our air force during that period; and I can say that there was no moment at any time during that twenty-five years when the air force was let down worse than it was by the Conservative government under R. B. Bennett. During the last week I found that fact was remembered by the members of the air force who were still in it, just as the remarks that have been made tonight will be remembered by the members of that force.
I am not going to take time to answer these vague and general ^pharges-


Mr. McGregor:: There is nothing vague about them.


Brooke Claxton: -of the hon. leader of the opposition. They are quite in pattern with what we have been accustomed to over these last forty-eight or forty-nine days in this house. I think the record throughout the country of how that kind of vague, challenging charge, without anything to back it up, is going to be received, is quite clear.


Howard Charles Green: You might be surprised.


Brooke Claxton: I will pay him-as I would pay any hon. gentleman opposite-the compliment of admitting the right he has to get an answer to specific questions, and I will answer them just as quickly as I can.
In the first place, why do we not have a special committee on the defence forces? That question has been answered a couple of times before, and I raise it again-I have no final answer to it myself-because it is a difficult one. But I do say this. When the hon. leader of the opposition says that the United States and other democracies have this kind of thing, I ask him to name the other democracies in addition to the United States. In the case of the latter, it is a fundamental difference between our system of government and theirs that they have functional committees dealing with this kind of

thing in the way they do. I do not say this is wrong and I do not say it is right; but I do say it is different. And it is thoroughly different from the practice they have in Great Britain, or in Australia or New Zealand or South Africa, and so far, with respect to most matters, in Canada.
I say that if you are going to make that change, then you have got to be prepared to go a good deal further with regard to your parliamentary system-the system under which ministers meet the House of Commons every day. We have responsibility, through parliament, to the people, and we face that responsibility every day.
Now, I say, let him name the defence committee of parliament in other British parliamentary democracies. I do not know of any.
I may be wrong. He has mentioned others.
I would like to hear him name them. I do not know of one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are not any.


Brooke Claxton: I say it is a fundamental concept of our constitution that we meet parliament every day, answer questions, deal with problems of administration. We are responsible through parliament to the people, and our constitution differs basically from that of the United States.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question?


Brooke Claxton: I did not interrupt anyone; I would like to go on. If you wish to change our system to that of some other system, that of the United States, or some other country, then let us know where we are going. But I say that when you say there are other democracies that have this kind of thing, then I say let us name them.
Then the next point was that we did not give the kind of information that we should have given with regard to a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) on March 17. Let me give the whole question:
As of February 15, 1949, how many Canadian army personnel have been qualified as parachutists (a) of the P.P.C.L.I.; (b) of other units?
And to that I answered-and I shall give the whole answer:
As is well known, it is not the practice here or in the United Kingdom to give the strength and other detailed information about individual units of the armed forces.
I say that that is not a pre-war practice; it is a post-war practice as well, and I would ask hon. members and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to give any precedent of any instance in which that kind of information has been given in the parliament
Supply-National Defence of the United Kingdom, or in this parliament. I go on:
If the information were to be given about one unit, there would be no reason for withholding it about others,-
They would ask about one unit, and then another, and then another, and the whole thing would add up to what?-your whole battle order, whatever it is.


George Alexander Drew: What battle order?


Brooke Claxton: Then, going on-
-and thus the entire battle order and fighting strength, which are matters any prospective enemy would take a great deal of trouble to find out, would be disclosed. Even though individual figures-
And that is perfectly true in this instance, of course-in one of these two instances, but not in the other.
-may not have any immediate significance, the fact that some were given and others withheld would give information or create ground for speculation.
Then I go on to say:
Changes in the strength or locations of individual units might have the utmost significance. It may be interesting to observe-
And I make this observation about the soviet union-
__that in the soviet union the giving of such information as is sought here is a crime punishable by ten to twenty years in prison. Few figures could be given which would be of greater interest to the only possible aggressor-
And the only possible aggressor is one of the things about which I do agree with the leader of the opposition.
-than the information sought in answer to these two questions.
I shall consider in a moment why that would be.
Accordingly it is not in the public interest to give this or similar information in reply to this and the next question. However, I shall be glad to give the hon. member the information for his own private use, if he wants it.
The information asked for in the second question particularly could be of the utmost importance to the only possible aggressor, to quote the leader of the opposition. The question is:
As of February 15, 1949, how many Canadian army personnel have been qualified as parachutists (a) of the P.P.C.L.I.; (b) of other units?
The leader of the opposition tried to use sarcasm and irony to suggest that the Kremlin must be trembling over our refusal to give this information. No, it is not the Kremlin. It is not the Kremlin at all. The fact is, as our statements on defence have indicated, that the only possibility that is envisaged by the government and its advisers at this time of an attack on Canada would be

Supply-National Defence in the nature of what is called a diversionary raid-not a knock-out blow, but something designed to attract attention and to create local tension, and to force us by pressure of public opinion to put much more into static defence than we should otherwise do.
If this is the only possibility-and I suggest that it is at the present time, though the situation may change-then what could the only possible aggressor want to know more than the kind of force he might have to divert from his major military activities in order to make this diversionary raid? If he knew the strength with which he might be faced, which might be available to clean up any landing operation he might make, then he would make a very nice calculation-one that he would be very glad to be able to make. And I can assure you that, so long as I am Minister of National Defence, I am not going to give him that information.
I have asked: Is there any precedent for the giving of this information? There is not.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: There is no precedent. There has been none here since the war, nor has there been any in the United Kingdom. Because I am sure some hon. members may wish to have the information, let me go over one or two extracts from British Hansard on this question.
On Tuesday, May 6, 1947, Mr. Swingler asked the Secretary of State for War:
-why he has now decided not to publish information about the numbers and proportion of men of the army intake posted to each arm of the service?


Mr.   Bellenger@: I have come to the conclusion that to continue to give these particulars periodically in reply to questions might enable deductions to be made as to the detailed composition of the army from time to time which it would be contrary to our present policy to divulge.
And on February 11, 1948:
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge asked the parliamentary secretary to the admiralty whether, as there has been an unofficial disclosure of the strength of the fleet in the publication "The Navy", he will now give the house accurate details of the ships at present commissioned in the Royal Navy.


Mr.   Dugdale@: No; the considerations previously
given to the house which prohibit disclosure of this information are unaffected by the publication of private estimates of naval strength at any particular time.
And on March 2, 1948:
Mr. Low asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement setting out the latest position as to recruiting to the regular army, showing progress in each arm and branch of the service, separately, and, in particular, how many volunteers are still needed to bring each arm or branch of the service up to its peacetime strength.


Mr. M. Stewart:: It would be contrary to present
policy to publish information about the detailed composition of the army. As regards recruiting to the regular army as a whole, I would refer the hon. member to paragraphs 9 to 12 of the memorandum relating to the army estimates 1948-49.

On March 12, 1948, Mr. Sharp asked the minister of defence the total number of troops estimated as serving overseas in March, 1948, and March, 1949, distinguishing each of the three services from the others. Mr. Alexander replied as follows:
On present advice, it is considered to be undesirable, for reasons of security, to add to the information on this subject which I gave on 3rd March, in reply to a question by my hon. friend the member for Aston.
Then Lord Hall, speaking in the House of Lords on naval policy on February 23, 1949, said:
Your Lordships will see that we have again provided this year the information regarding the composition of the fleet which I gave twelve months ago and which, I think, was then very much appreciated. At the same time, I am afraid it is difficult or, indeed, impossible for me to give a complete statement of the disposition of the fleet, even now. It is true that, by making inquiries, the facts of that disposition could probably be obtained. But that is entirely different from an official statement by the service departments as to the dispositions, not only of the fleet, but also of the air squadrons and, indeed, units of the army.
Then on March 15, 1949, Mr. Shin well, the minister of war, said:
I can assure the hon. member that I have no desire to mislead the house on this or any other matter. If he is anxious to obtain from me the figures of the territorial component of anti-aircraft command, I will do my best to furnish them; but, for reasons of security, I will not give him the figures of anti-aircraft command including the regular component.
For reasons I have given, such as were given by the British ministers, questions of the same character but in more general terms were not answered and no exception was taken. I submit to this committee and to the consideration of this country that if we are to give this kind of information about the strength and state of training of the components of the forces to which we look, under the definition of government policy, for our immediate defence, then we are aiding the enemy and not aiding ourselves.
The hon. member said something about the aircraft situation in Canada and suggested that North Stars were being inhibited, stored and dismantled. Perhaps I have not the order of his words correct, but I have the three words he used. I can assure him that not one of those three words is accurate in any sense whatever.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


George Alexander Drew: No, not wrong again; I have seen them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That does not prove anything.


An hon. Member:: On your trip to Boston?


Brooke Claxton: In conclusion I would say that I think it is true to say that since the

end of the war, under my predecessor who is sitting to my left and the Minister of Mines and Resources, who were the former ministers of defence for the navy and for air, and under myself, more information has been given about the state and work of the armed forces of Canada than ever before in our peacetime history. I suggest too that more information has been given in Canada than in any other country I know of and I have reports on the records of all of them.
It is only in respect of this one question that we have refused information so far. The leader of the opposition has remarked on the failure of this house to discuss any matter of national defence up to now, but the amazing thing is that for a long period no question of external policy was discussed. This is the forty-ninth day of the session and a great number of the supporters of the leader of the opposition and other hon. members have spoken in the debate on the address and have had unlimited opportunities to ask questions. As far as I know no other question has been unanswered, except for the two remaining on the order paper for which I hope to have answers this week. These answers will entail a lot of expense as well as trouble on the part of the staff getting the information. No other questions have been left unanswered except the single question put by the hon. member and which has been the subject of the address by the leader of the opposition.
I suggest to you, sir, to hon. members of this committee, and to the people of this country, that when I said that on the advice of my advisers it had been decided that it was not in the public interest to give those answers I was speaking advisedly in the interests of that peace and security and welfare of Canada which we are fighting and working to uphold.


George Alexander Drew: When the Minister of National Defence suggests that there is no precedent for a suggestion of this kind I hope he will admit that Mr. Winston Churchill has as much parliamentary knowledge as he has. If he will agree to that, then I suggest that he recall the words of Mr. Churchill uttered in a speech he delivered in the House of Commons on May 25, 1938, when he said:
I have long pressed for an inquiry into the state of our air program.


An hon. Member:: Before the war.


George Alexander Drew: He was pressing for information and he was seeking to get those things done which because of his efforts were done at least to the point that their freedom and ours was saved.


Mr. Langlois:: That was at the time when you claimed that Hitler was a friend of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Drew: That applause is most expressive evidence of the reason why this committee should get some information about what it is discussing. The Minister of National Defence has not attempted to deal with this subject. All he has done is simply to say that these answers cannot be given. This committee is being asked to deal with a subject as important as this with nothing but vague and utterly meaningless assurances by the Minister of National Defence. When this matter comes up again I am certainly going to ask for a standing vote as an expression of support or otherwise for the demand that a standing committee be set up to discuss our defence preparations.


Howard Charles Green: There is one fact which stands out quite clearly as a result of this discussion, that there is a real point to be considered in whether or not there should be set up a committee on national defence matters. The Minister of National Defence has intimated that such a committee could not be set up under our present methods of procedure.
I would point out to him that just two or three years ago we set up a committee on external affairs, a new committee since the war. I do not think anyone will question the assertion [DOT] that that committee has been most successful. Leading civil servants have appeared before it, such as General McNaugh-ton, who was before the committee about two years ago. The under secretary of state for external affairs has appeared there at different times, and the results have been very beneficial. We ask for a committee of the same type on matters of national defence. I am sure that the Minister of Finance will remember that, when he was Minister of National Defence, the same proposal was made to him. At that time he intimated that he could see no objection to the setting up of a standing committee, and I think perhaps if he had continued as Minister of National Defence we would have had one. Further, the former Prime Minister, the present member for Glengarry, made the same statement to the effect that he thought it might be a very good idea to have a committee of this house to deal with matters of national defence.
In this present year of 1949 defence questions are of steadily increasing importance. I know that the Minister of National Defence wants to maintain the interest, not only of members of the house but of the public, in the armed forces. Yet under the present method of dealing with defence estimates we can only have a very hit-or-miss discussion across the floor of the house. It cannot be carried on in an effective, businesslike way. The result is that few members pay much attention to the question. Very few members

Supply-National Defence study the problems of defence and the best way of strengthening our defence forces. I suggest to the minister that, in the interests of his own fighting forces, it would be all to the good to have a committee of this house before whom the chiefs of staff, or other leading officers, could appear. Members of the different parties serving on that committee would become greatly interested in defence matters. The result would be an increase right across the country in the support for our defence forces.
I make these suggestions in the utmost sincerity, and in the belief that the result would be a strengthening of our forces. I think another result would be to make the minister's work a great deal easier. In the few minutes that this discussion has been going on, I have not been able to find the discussions of other years. I do not believe, however, that there is very much opposition in the house to the setting up of a committee. Members must be at least half convinced that it would be a good thing to have a committee of the house on defence matters. I hope that the minister will not take an adamant stand this evening, and decline to give the proposal any further consideration. I am quite sure that it would be a great help to the whole country.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: In answering the leader of the opposition the minister suggested that the charge that our defence forces are inadequate, and that proper disclosure has not been made, is a vague one. The minister also suggested that to give this information would be to aid the enemy and not to aid ourselves. When it is charged that the minister and the government are cloaking behind the suggestion of military security or secrecy their failure to provide Canada with even a minimum of the standing forces needed to beat back the minister's own idea of a diversionary attack, what is vague about that charge? I think when such a charge is made it is most necessary that the minister disclose this information to parliament and to the Canadian people. When we are dealing in figures that are below minimums it is much more important that the people of Canada should be informed than that we should consider what kind of aid we may be giving to a possible enemy. A possible enemy will not get any information of any value from the fact that the government has fallen so far behind a target which is inadequate in any event.
The minister suggested that there were no precedents in this parliament for disclosure of this information. Let me give him a few very specific precedents. He claimed that the answer to the question referring to the number of parachutists in the P.P.C.L.I. would, if it were given, eventually disclose the entire 
battle order and fighting strength of the Canadian forces. On page 1713 of Hansard of the second session of 1945 the then Minister of National Defence disclosed in detail the battle order of this brigade group. He gave it as headquarters, three infantry battalions, one field regiment, one anti-tank battery, one field company, two armoured regiments, a medium battery and an anti-aircraft battery. I do not think there could be much more complete disclosure of the order of battle.
In 1947 at page 5327 of Hansard for that year the present Minister of National Defence gave for that time exactly the information asked for by the hon. member for Calgary East in his second question. The second question is, what is the strength of the active force, Canadian army brigade group, as of February 15, 1949, or the nearest date to that for which returns have been made? In 1947 the Minister of National Defence said that it then consisted of 192 officers and 1,952 other ranks, that he had set a quota on it of 3,541 officers and men, and that its full strength would be approximately 5,000 officers and men. There is a precedent in the Canadian parliament from the mouth of the present Minister of National Defence, who in 1947 answered this very question.
The Minister of National Defence said that if an enemy was contemplating a diversionary raid on this country, that enemy would like to know nothing better than the strength which was available to oppose him. I do not think that any aggressor, and particularly an aggressor that has as large an armed force as this one, and is as far away as it is, will ever figure as closely as the answer to the question asked. I should think that the information contained in a Canadian press dispatch of January 4, 1949, which presumably emanated from the minister's office, or from the public relations branch of the armed services, would be quite adequate for the purposes of any would-be aggressor. Dealing with the brigade group there is this paragraph:
The last of the new pieces of equipment to come into the limelight is the American Fairchild Packet transport plane that will be used by the airborne brigade, which the government has said will be a standing force to meet any diversionary attack on the country. Its eventual strength has been given as 7,000 men, including three battalions of infantry.
Defence Minister Claxton said recently it should begin training as a formation some time this year but that may be a bit optimistic if the entire formation is included.
I wonder what more an aggressor would need than the mere perusal of press reports which have come out of the minister's office with regard to this brigade group. Then as to the number of people trained as parachutists, I have not seen a statement by the minister giving any figures, but in a report

appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of December 28, 1948, I have a statement by the minister to this effect:
In the training of the army's out-size airborne brigade, extra attention would be paid to airborne and Arctic fighting. For the first time, Canadian infantrymen would study fighting under Arctic conditions at the Churchill, Manitoba, experimental base this winter.
That very statement suggests, of course, that up to this time Canadian infantrymen have not engaged in the study of fighting under Arctic conditions, which I should think might be a very important bit of information given by the minister to this would-be aggressor. Then the statement goes on:
There also would be an enlargement of the size of classes taking paratroop training at Rivers, Manitoba.
There you have the name of the base for parachute training, and the suggestion that this year there is going to be an enlargement of the intake for that training. I suggest to the minister that to say the information requested in this question should not be given, when he has volunteered other information about future intentions probably much more important than the actual strength of our forces as of today, is quite ridiculous. I think the precedents I have brought before the committee tonight show clearly that the reason the government does not want to give this information is that it is ashamed of the progress it has made in the recruitment of this brigade group and our regular air force.
I do not want to suggest for a moment that this is any fault of the defence forces themselves; in fact I am perfectly certain it is not. After all, the three defence forces must work under the direction of the minister and the government. If the minister provides them with target strengths adequate for expansion, then they can be expected to provide the training and recruitment facilities to reach those target strengths. If on the other hand the minister cuts down the target strength so they cannot recruit up to the numbers they would like to have, then quite obviously they will provide training establishments and equipment upon the scale permitted to them by the minister. The house knows that in 1947 the minister imposed a limitation upon the size of our armed forces; that is, seventy-five per cent of authorized strength. The result of that limitation certainly must have been that the defence forces cut back their provision for training facilities. Obviously it would be foolish to plan on training a very large number of men if the government was not going to permit the forces to recruit beyond a very low limit. Certainly one of the results of that cut-back in 1947 has been that in all three services, from the global
Supply-National Defence figures the minister is always willing to give, recruiting has been very poor, and that their strength is inching upward very slowly month by month.
When I said recruiting has been poor I noticed the minister make a note. I realize that in the last two months, according to an answer he gave the other day, recruiting for the army has stepped up considerably; but in actual fact during the past year there has been an intake of only 3,000 into the active army, only 1,200 into the active navy, and only 2,671 into the active air force. Those figures give members of this house and the people of the country cause for alarm. On the one hand we have statements by the minister and other members of the cabinet about the grave international situation, and on the other hand we see our defence forces progressing so slowly towards strength. According to another press clipping the authorities have stated that it takes twelve to eighteen months to train a force. I should have thought it would take longer than that to train a regular airborne force, but let us take the statement as it stands. If in fact, as I believe, the only active force in the army, the brigade group, is at present under strength, has not done any formation training, has not completed its airborne training and is not provided with transport aircraft to lift it, and if in fact there are not sufficient fighter planes to escort that force should it be required to go anywhere, then I submit that the giving to this house of the accurate information so we can do something about it is much more likely to save the country than aid the enemy.
I could say much more on this question of the strength of our three services, Mr. Chairman, but I rose only to give you and the members of the committee these precedents which the minister said we did not possess.


Mr. Adamson:: Before the minister speaks again, there are certain things I believe have not been discussed so far in this debate, and I propose to discuss one of them briefly at this moment. The minister said it had been decided, and I think it is tacitly admitted, that Russia is our only possible potential aggressor, so we have to consider what type of aggression we are likely to meet.
There is a new phrase, a happy little phrase, to which one can give whatever meaning one likes; it is called a "diversionary raid". A diversionary raid may mean anything from an all-out attack to something with which you can cope with forces that are totally inadequate, as most of us believe. There is one weapon which the Russians have spent a great deal of time studying and it is one weapon which we have not got.

Supply-National Defence The minister admitted we have no submarines. It is reported that the minister said if we needed a submarine we could borrow one. I will deal with that statement in a moment, but I should like to say now that since the end of the war Russia has concentrated on two types of weapon: one is the airplane, which has been dealt with by the leader of the opposition, and the other is the submarine.
Today, with the help of German experts the Russians have submarines which are capable of eighteen knots submerged and approximately twenty-eight knots on the surface. This means that corvettes and frigates are completely obsolete. It also means that the fastest liners afloat are no longer safe from submarine attack. With submarines capable of these speeds even liners such as the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mary no longer enjoy the immunity they enjoyed during the last war. That is the first thing we must consider, the advantage that speed has given to our potential enemy.
Let us look at the next fact. Modern submarines can stay at sea for weeks and, it is thought, probably months at a time. This enables them to get into position long before any attack is made with the new weapons, which could be an attack either in one place or in a great many places at the same time. The next device with which the modern submarine is equipped, which it did not have during this war is, of course, the schnorkel. Not only does the schnorkel enable the submarine to remain under water for long periods of time but, what was not realized at the time it was invented, it also makes the submerged submarine difficult to detect by the ordinary method of radar from the air. Here you have an under-sea weapon capable of great speed and tremendous destructive power. Ordinary surface vessels are now obsolete. By the use of the schnorkel you have a submarine which it is difficult, if not impossible, to detect from the air.
The only adequate detection of underwater craft at the present time is by means of asdic or what is now called sonar. This is simply-it is, in fact not simple-a method of detecting submarines by an air and echo process. What does this mean? This means that unless a country has submarines to defend itself against the submarines of the enemy, it is more or less defenceless. Really, there is no adequate anti-submarine device. There are listening devices in the harbours, but here again modern technique in the use of submarines has made it extremely easy for submarines to enter harbours, do the damage of which they are capable of doing, and escape.

There is another device with which we are confronted, and that is the long-term mine. Today pressure mines can lie at the bottom of a harbour for periods of up to three months completely undetected until activated. They cannot be dredged nor swept. The only way in which they can be removed is by attacking them under the water. As a matter of fact the only satisfactory method devised has been the use of human divers. This means that, if we have a diversionary attack, mines can be laid in every harbour in the country, mines can be laid in every river in our country, long before any overt act of hostility has taken place. These mines could stay there for periods of months before the diversionary attack took place.
Let us look at the other modern weapons of naval warfare. Those who have seen the results and studied the effect of both the under-water and air atomic bombing at Bikini, both Abel and Baker, realize that the ships sprayed with highly radioactive spray from the water became so hot they were untenable and could not be moved for months -some of them for years. With the use of atomic weapons we are going to find that the surface fleets of the future are extremely vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, unless we have some method of providing for both underwater offence and under-water transportation, we are going to find ourselves in a very serious position.
Recently suggestions have been made for the use of submarines as both cargo and troop carrying vessels. With the modern devices which have been at least hinted, there is no reason to assume that we cannot use submarines for these purposes. At the moment, Mr. Chairman, we have no submarines whatever. The recent manoeuvres in the Atlantic have shown that even some of the smallest submarines of the United States navy were able almost completely to destroy an attacking force. I think only two ships got through. With a weapon such as this, we cannot consider our defences adequate unless we are proficient in its use. Our having no submarines leaves us in the most vulnerable position of any nation. It is true that we could borrow a submarine from the United States; but borrowing a submarine from the United States is like trying to learn to play the piano by borrowing your neighbour's instrument. You do not get very far by that means. The neighbour frequently wants his own piano to play on. Certainly he wants his own submarines if a war is likely or if there is a threat of war.
We said that the building of submarines and the training of submarine crews are com

plicated and expensive matters and that they are a long-term proposition. That is all the more reason why we should have some submarines and should have properly-trained crews. It may surprise this committee to know that in the first great war the first submarines to cross the Atlantic were actually Canadian-built. I think most of them were built at Montreal. They were E-class boats which proved to be efficient, and they stood up extremely well right to the end of that war.
As was shown in the last war, there were in Canada shipyards that had the know-how to build these vessels. I submit that those skills must be restored. Not only must we have the vessels but we must have the crews already trained, because we cannot leave ourselves defenceless against this new type of warfare. We cannot afford to have a defence force without an adequate, well-trained, keen group of submariners. That is the position we find ourselves in today. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that it is an expensive proposition and that it would take time. I realize that the first proto-type submarine we try to build will probably have "bugs" in it and will probably be difficult to perfect. But believe me, Mr. Chairman, it is infinitely better to find out what we don't know when we are still at peace than it is to find out what we don't know when the enemy is at our sea coast.


Mr. Irvine:: All hon. members will agree, I believe, that the defence of Canada is an extremely important subject. Personally I regret that it should have come up on this occasion. I think a much better time should have been set aside for the discussion, and that we should have been apprised of that fact beforehand so that we could have come prepared to discuss the subject. We are now discussing only a small item. I notice that the leader of the opposition has argued forcibly that the minister has refused to answer questions. Then the hon. gentleman who supports him and who covered his rear argued and proved by the facts that the minister had answered all the questions. So here we have the situation. I just want to say that, since that has been said-that the minister has refused to answer the questions and that he has answered them all-that squares the whole proposition. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the item before us which provides, [DOT] as I understand it, for the government's contribution to the permanent forces pension fund-


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You have been asleep.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is the next item, under demobilization and reconversion.


An hon. Member:: Demoralization.


William Irvine: Both of them-demoralization of the forces which my friends have been talking about, and demobilization. I suggest that we can assist the defence of Canada much more by passing this item than we can by making the speeches we have listened to tonight.


Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Oniario):: I
should like to make a few brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, before the minister makes his statement. But as it is ten-thirty, may I adjourn the debate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You do not need to adjourn the debate.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business for tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue the study of these further supplementary estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Study?


Douglas Charles Abbott: "Study" is a good word.


Alphonse Fournier: I am learning things every day in the house. It is the first time in nineteen years that I have seen further supplementary estimates discussed at such great length.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They are getting bigger. That is because they are so big.


Alphonse Fournier: After the supplementary estimates we shall take up the motion in the name of the Minister of National Revenue to set up the committee requested by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). Then we shall take up the debate on the budget.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
584.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $5,000.
585.	Fisheries research board of Canada-construction and improvements-further amount required, $50,000.
Special-
586.	To provide for assistance in meeting transportation costs of frozen herring that may be pur-
[Stage Direction]
Supply
chased in British Columbia by persons, associations or companies for bait in the 1948-49 winter fishery off Nova Scotia, $66,000.

[Stage Direction]
587.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $17,500.
588. International labour	conference-further amount required, $5,000.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
589.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act-further amount required, $25,000.
590.	Government's contribution to unemployment insurance fund-further amount required, $3,103,000.

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
591.	General administration-estimates of the clerk -further amount required, $75,000.
592.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms-further amount required, $6,000.
General-
593.	Printing of parliament, including salaries of staff of the joint distribution office-further amount required, $25,000.

[Stage Direction]
594.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $9,200.
Mines, forests and scientific services branch-bureau of mines-
595.	Investigations of radioactive ores-further amount required, $25,000.
Dominion forest service-
596.	Forest products research-further amount required, $20,000.
Surveys and mapping bureau-
597.	Map compilation and reproduction-further amount required, $26,271.
Dominion water and power bureau-
598.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada-further amount required, $30,000.
Lands and development services branch- Northwest Territories and Yukon services-Mackenzie division-roads, buildings and water systems-construction and improvements-
599.	Roads-further amount required, $100,000.
600.	Buildings-further amount required, $38,150.
Indian Affairs branch-Welfare-
601.	Welfare of Indians-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
Education-
602.	Indian education-further amount required, $17,500.
603.	To reimburse the Blackfoot band of Indians for an expenditure in 1930 out of band funds for the reconstruction of the Old Sun residential school, with interest at 5 per cent per annum, $156,669.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 5, 1949