1949-02-16

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
1947-48-deduction of union dues
Mr. Arthur Williams (Ontario) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (deduction of union dues).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Arthur Henry Williams: The purpose of this bill is to amend the federal labour code, which was adopted last year, by adding a new subsection 3 to section 6 of the act. The effect of the new subsection is to provide for the revocable voluntary check-off of union dues.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 54, STATUTES OF 1947-48  ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (enforcement).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 54, STATUTES OF 1947-48  DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE

Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (definition of employee).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Knowles:: This bill deletes a portion of subparagraph (i) of subsection 1 of section 2 of the federal labour code in which employees are defined. Its purpose is to remove a discrimination against certain groups of employees. In other words the bill would afford to certain categories of employees, now excluded from the provisions of the act, the right of collective bargaining.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS TO OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 18 (from the Senate) to amend the Pension Fund Societies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Caoueite:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a post office at Val d'Or, in the county of Pontiac?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Up to what date could tenders be submitted?
4.	What are the names of those who tendered and the amount of the respective tenders?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded and on what conditions?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	December 13, 1948.
3.	January 12, 1949.
4.	(a) Alphonse Gratton Inc., 3440 Shuter St., Montreal, P.Q., $243,283; (b) J. A. Tremblay, Bourlamaque, P.Q., $246,000; (c) Paul L'Ecuyer, Val d'Or, P.Q., $246,000; (d) Hill-Clark-Francis Limited, Noranda, P.Q., $249,550; (e) Frs. Marquis & Fils Limitee, Quebec, P.Q., $258,000; (f) Sauriol Construction Company, Gatineau, P.Q., $309,000.
5.	Recommendation has been submitted to council on the 15th instant for authority to award the contract to the lowest tenderer.


CANADIAN SHIPMENTS OF AIRCRAFT TO CHINESE AIR FORCE
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Have any airplanes been shipped from Canada to Colonel W. M. Wang. A.T.S.C., Chinese Air Force, 10 Hainan road, Shanghai, China?
2.	Were such airplanes supplied by Canada free of charge? If so, how many?
3.	Were these airplanes sold by War Assets Corporation? If so, how many and at what price?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	There were no airplanes shipped by any government organizations to the addressee mentioned in this question. The Canadian Commercial Corporation, acting on behalf of

Questions
the Chinese air force, did purchase from War Assets Corporation all Mosquito aircraft, and all spare parts, spare major assemblies, spare engines, tires and ground maintenance equipment, which are peculiar to Mosquito aircraft, and all armament and related spare parts as commonly used for arming Mosquito aircraft, which were reported to War Assets Corporation, as surplus, by the Department of National Defence.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM, YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Black (Yukon):: 1.	What has the establishment and operation by the government of an experimental farm about 100 miles from Whitehorse in Yukon Territory cost, showing items of expenditure including salaries and wages?
2.	What financial returns have there been from said farm?
3.	What new agricultural information has been obtained from the operation of said farm, information not in possession of the Department of Agriculture prior to the establishment of said farm?
4.	What is the object of its operation?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.
Salaries	 $ 11,379.19
Wages	 45,583.62
Miscellaneous	 19,296.66
Total	 $76,259.47
2.	Revenue received, $796.03.
3.	Previous to the establishment of the Whitehorse experimental substation, soil surveys had revealed the existence of several areas of land in the southern Yukon which appeared suitable for agricultural production, but no information was available on actual crop production. The operation of this substation has definitely proved that fair quality wheat, as well as excellent quality barley and oats, can be produced in this district, despite the more rigorous climatic conditions as compared with the Dawson area, in which investigations had been previously conducted. It has also been proved possible to produce reasonably good yields of the hardy vegetables and also of forage crops for hay and grazing purposes.
4.
(a)	To obtain information on the production of crops and livestock, particularly in southwestern Yukon in the region served by the Alaska highway.
(b)	To obtain by conducting co-operative tests in other areas, such as Dawson and Mayo, agricultural information applicable to those districts.

(c)	To test under northern conditions varieties and practices which may be of value in other parts of northern Canada.
(d)	To serve as a headquarters for the dissemination of pertinent agricultural information to interested residents in the Yukon.


SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month or over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	How many veterans of world war I are included in the figures given in each bracket in question 1?
4.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?


Mr. Belzile:: 1. (a) 257; (b) 495; (c) 672; (d) 810; (e) 768;
(f) 788; (g) 740; (h) 818;	(i) 683; (j)	2624.
2. (a) 774; (b) 848; (c)	697; (d) 564; (e) 436;	
(f) 217; (g) 159; (h) 101; 3. No information.	(i) 73; (j)	146.
4.		Widows of
	Retired	Retired
	Federal	Federal
	Civil	Civil
	Servants	Servants
Nova Scotia	356	168New Brunswick	206	123Prince Edward Island..	53	29Quebec 	1628	830Ontario 	3831	1928Saskatchewan	163	77Manitoba 	326	162Alberta 	342	116British Columbia	1485	420Elsewhere 	265	162


HOUSING-NIAGARA PENINSULA-ADVANCES TO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
Mr. Lockhart:: 1.	Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advanced money on second mortgage security to private contractors engaged in the construction of homes in the Niagara peninsula?
2.	If so, what is the maximum mortgage authorized on- each home constructed?
3.	What rate of interest is charged?
4.	What are the names of private contractors in the Niagara peninsula who have been assisted financially by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
5.	Are homes so financed built according to National Housing Act specifications?

6.	When offered for sale, are these homes advertised as being built under National Housing Act specifications?
7.	Is a careful inspection made before the mortgage moneys are advanced by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
8.	Have there been any instances where mortgage moneys have been withheld because of faulty workmanship?
9.	If so, from what contractor or contractors has payment been withheld?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Stand.


Mr. Lockhart:: I understand that this
information is available. We are sorry that the minister has been called out of the city, but could I not have this question answered before next week?


Mr. Speaker:: Question stands.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: How much has been expended in each province to date under the federal government's health scheme?


Mr. Reid:: No figures available before end
of fiscal year, when provinces will submit statements of expenditures made for reimbursement.


METAL CURRENCY
Mr. Low:: 1.	What was the total face value of all coins minted at the Canadian mint, during 1948, for use in Canada?
2.	What was the total value of recoined metal currency produced by the Canadian mint during 1948?
3.	What government department, board, or agency placed the orders with the Royal Canadian Mint for the coins minted during 1948?
4.	To whom, and for whose credit, were the coins minted for use during 1948, delivered?
5.	By what detailed procedure does the Bank of Canada acquire the gold production of Canada?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	Silver, $2,829,956; bronze, $708,300; nickel, $615,500.
2.	Silver, $47,191.10; bronze, $42,428.21.
3 and 4. Subsidiary coins are produced in response to public demand. As the public desire more coins of various denominations, they obtain them at various branches of the chartered banks throughout Canada either by cashing cheques or by exchanging Bank of Canada notes for coins. The banks, as a result of this public demand, apply to the Bank of Canada for the coins which they require or which they estimate they will require. The Bank of Canada then orders appropriate amounts of the varying denominations of coins to fill the orders that have been given by the chartered banks and to maintain a small reserve to meet urgent demands. The coins are delivered to the
Questions
agents of the Bank of Canada at Calgary, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Regina, Saint John, Toronto. Vancouver and Winnipeg. From these agencies of the Bank of Canada they are delivered to the main offices of the chartered banks at agency points and then distributed by such main offices to other branch offices in the area as required.
5.	The bank does not acquire the gold production of Canada-it does not now buy any gold for its own account but acts as a depository for gold held on account of the government and performs certain services in connection with gold transactions.
Nearly all gold newly mined in Canada is sold by the mines to the crown at the Royal Canadian Mint. The mint refines the gold and pays for it out of the consolidated revenue fund. The refined gold (except for a small amount sold for ordinary industrial or commercial purposes in Canada) is then transferred to the exchange fund account, which is a special statutory account maintained by the Minister of Finance under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act. The gold is transported from the mint to the vaults of the Bank of Canada where it is held in safekeeping for the exchange fund account. The exchange fund account reimburses the consolidated revenue fund for the value of the gold. Gold in the exchange fund account is part of Canada's exchange reserves. It may be sold by the account on instructions of the Minister of Finance, in which case the foreign exchange received in payment replaces it as part of the exchange fund account.
A small part of Canada's gold production which cannot be economically treated in Canada is exported to the United States under licence issued by the Minister of Finance. It is refined in the United States and sold there. The United States dollar proceeds must, in accordance with the foreign exchange control board regulations, be sold to the board and thus become part of the exchange fund account.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many displaced persons were brought into Canada in 1948 under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour?
2.	How many displaced persons were brought into Canada during 1948 by individual employers?
3.	How many displaced persons were brought into Canada in 1948 by individuals who are not employers?


Mr. MacKinnon:: 1.	The Department of Labour co-operated with the immigration branch in arranging for the entry of 21,012 persons for whom employment was found in Canada.
2.	and 3. Information is not compiled in such a way as to permit of a precise answer
586

Questions
to these questions. In addition to the total of 21,012 displaced persons shown in answer to question No. 1, 24,962 displaced persons admitted to Canada during the calendar year 1948 were destined to relatives under existing immigration regulations, and 632 were admitted under guarantee of employment by their sponsors. In some cases the relatives in Canada also supplied employment.


FARM INCOME
Mr. Wright:: 1. What is	the dominion bureau	of statistics estimated gross years 1928 to	agricultural income 1948, inclusive?	for each of the
2. What is their estimated net each of the same years?		farm income for
3. What deductions are made in estimating net income?		
4. What is the estimated national income for each of the years 1928 to 1948 inclusive? Mr. Mcllraiih:		
1 and 2.	Gross and net farm income series	
for 1928 to of dollars:	1947 are as follows, in millions Net Income of Farm Operators Gross Farm from Farm Income1 Production2	
1928 	
1,326	6931929 	
1,042	4431930 	
943	3591931 	
640	1461932 	
570	1081933 	
535	981934 	
651	1901935 	
708	2381936 	
720	2731937 	
809	3261938 	
885	3711939 	
962	4611940 	
1.034	5081941 	
1,054	5481942 	
1,699	1,0891943 	9691944 	1,2131945 	9711946 	1,1301947 	1,2351948 Prelim	
2,835	1,743
kind
1	Includes cash income, income in and the value of changes in inventory.
2	Excludes investment income of farmers or wages received from work in other industries.
expenses (a) licenses, (b) operating. 8. Farm automobile expenses. 9. Blacksmith and machine shop charges. 10. Binder twine. 11. Fertilizer. 12. Fruit and vegetable supplies (sprays, boxes, etc.). 13. Fencing. 14. Repairs to buildings. 15. Machinery repair parts. 16. Water rent. 17. Nursery stock. 18. Miscellaneous (this item includes farmers' expenses for veterinary services, rope, salt, small tools, hardware and repairs to harness). 19. Depreciation of buildings. 20. Depreciation of machinery. 21. Imputed net rent of owner-occupied dwellings and net transfer payments under Prairie Farm Assistance Act and prairie farm income plan are excluded from net farm income above.
4.	Net National Income at Factor Cost (millions of dollars)
1928	4,750
1929	4,689
1930	4,190
1931	3,261
1932	2,582
1933	2,387
1934	2,820
1935	3,117
1936	3,446
1937	4,017
1938	3,986
1 Revised preliminary
~ Preliminary


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many displaced persons have completed their work contracts in Canada?
2.	Is there any special employment policy for these people?


Mr. Cote (Verdun):: 1.	6,629.
2.	On completion of undertaking, displaced persons may accept employment of their own choosing in the same manner as other residents. They are encouraged to remain in the employment to which they were assigned but are informed that the facilities of the national employment service are available to them if they wish to take other work. Local offices of the national employment service have been instructed to interview such applicants carefully to ensure that the most suitable possible placements are made having regard to the applicants' wishes and skills or trades possessed.
1939	4,289
1940	5,255
1941	6,594
1942	8,382
1943	9,093
1944	9,712
1945	9,772
1946	9,765
19471	10,981
19482	12,802
3.	Deductions made in estimating net incomes are as follows:
1.	Taxes on all farm land. 2. Net farm rent.
3.	Wages paid to labour. 4. Interest on mortgages, agreements of sale, etc. 5. Feed and seed purchased through market channels.
6.	Tractor fuel, oil and grease. 7. Truck 
LINDSAY, ONT., ARSENAL Mr. McGregor:
1.	How many employees were or are (a) in January, 1945; (b) today; (i) engaged at the arsenal at Lindsaj', Ontario; (ii) engaged in office work at the arsenal at Lindsay, Ontario?
2.	What was the value of all production in said arsenal in (a) the year 1944; (b) the year 1948?

Questions


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) (i), 959; (b) (i), 193; (a) (ii), 13; (b)
(ii), 21.
2.	(a) $4,004,021; (b) $436,941.35.
The increase in (b) ii over (a) ii is due to the
fact that Lindsay arsenal is now a sell accounting division of Canadian Arsenals Limited, and is also engaged in the tabulation of production data from other war plants. 1 2
1.	Income	Excess ProfitsWar Tax Act	Tax Act	TotalCalgary district	
$24,999,341 48	$ 4,224,580 54	$29,223,922.02Edmonton district	
15,698,181 44	2,459,620 77	18,157,802.21Province of Alberta	
$40,697,522.92	$ 6,684,201 31	$47,381,724 232.	Dominion Succession
Duty Act
Calgary district	 $	506,023 30
Edmonton district	 497,954 00
Province of Alberta	 $ 1,003,977.30	$ 1,003,977.30
Grand Total $48,385,701 53


INCOME TAX AND SUCCESSION DUTIES
Mr. Dechene:: 1.	What was the amount of income tax collected in 1948 in the province of Alberta (Calgary and Edmonton districts)?
2.	What was the amount of succession duties collected in 1948 in the province of Alberta (Calgary and Edmonton districts)?


Mr. McCann:: 


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dechene:: 1.	What was the total amount of personal income tax collected in the years 1946, 1947, 1948, in the province of Alberta?
2.	How much of the above amount was collected from farmers and ranchers in the province of Alberta during the same years?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Individual income tax collections for the province of Alberta for the fiscal years 1946, 1947 and 1948 are as follows:
1946		 $31,861,739
1947		 35,124,816
1948		 30,858,199
2.	No statistics are available for the amount af tax collected from farmers and ranchers in the province of Alberta. Statistics maintained are only those of taxes declared on filing. The latest available statistics are for the taxation year 1946 when farmers and ranchers in the province of Alberta reported declared taxes of $2,570,000.


ENEMY SHIPS CAPTURED IN WORLD WAR II
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many enemy ships were captured during world war II, in the capture of which Canadian personnel took part?
2.	What was the nationality of each of such ships captured?
3.	What was the amount of cargo seized in each case?
4.	What disposition has been made to date of all such ships and cargoes?


Mr. Baker:: 1 and 2. The total number of enemy ships captured in world war II, in the capture of which Canadian personnel took part, is not definitely known, as Canadian navy and air force personnel serving with United Kingdom units would participate in such actions.
Two enemy ships were captured by H.M.C. ships as follows: S.S. Weser, German merchant ship, 9,472 tons gross; S.S. Capo Noli, Italian merchant ship, 4,000 tons gross.
3.	S.S. Weser, $42,573.48 in value; S.S. Capo Noli, $15,581.79 in value.
4.	S.S. Weser renamed Vancouver Island under Canadian registry and operated by Canadian government merchant marine until torpedoed and sunk on October 15, 1941. Cargo sold for above amount.
S.S. Capo Noli renamed Bic Island under Canadian registry and operated by Canadian government merchant marine until torpedoed and sunk on October 29, 1942. Cargo sold for above amount.


GOLD SUBSIDIES
Mr. Irvine:: 1.	Have any moneys been paid to the Bralorne Mines Ltd. under the gold subsidy act?
2.	If so, what are the amounts and when were such amounts advanced?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Yes.
2.	October 9, 1948, $33,572.78; January 28, 1949, $48,325.39; total, $81,898.17.

Questions


NEW PUBLIC BUILDING IN CHARLOTTETOWN
Mr. McLure:: 1.	What is the procedure for the appraising of properties valuations in the area of the site for the new dominion building at Charlottetown?
2.	Are the appraisals or valuations made in Charlottetown, and by whom?
3.	Are any appraisals or valuations now made?
4.	How long will present owners and tenants be given before having to vacate?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Local appraisers are appointed who are asked to report their estimate of current market value on each individual property concerned.
2.	Appraisals made in Charlottetown by: Mr. P. S. Bradley, R.R. No. 3, Charlottetown;
Mr. Gilbert Gaudet, K.C., Bank of Commerce Building, Charlottetown.
3.	Yes; two, as stated above.
4.	Vacant possession of the property is scheduled for September 1, 1949.


TAXES COLLECTED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM PROVINCES
Mr. Low:: What was the total of the following taxes and items collected by the federal government from each of the provinces for the years 1947 and 1948: (a) income tax-personal; (b) income tax-corporation: (c) excess profits tax; (d) succession duties; (e) royalties; (f) dividends; (g) interest?


Mr, McCann:: Collections for the 1947-4S Fiscal Year, by Provinces
Province	Question (a)	Question (b)	Question (c)	Question (d)	Question (e)	Questions (f) and (g)Income Tax Personal	Income Tax Corporation	Excess Profits Tax	Succession Duties	Rents and Royalties	Dividends and Interest$	s	3	3	3	31,236,995.15 15.492.762.50 11,853,532.06 171,773,055.99 302,406,376.98 33,095,159.13 22,893,140.68 30,858,199.42 66.517.174.51 714.355.88 32,650.33	686,984.34 7,711,448.94 6,414,309.17 107,480,593.90 150,466,339.76 16,300,637.17 4,665,838.46 9,127,855.28 48,621,455.92 18,403.26 41,140.29	328,477.77 4,756,528.83 4,194,832.99 78,468,422.58 86,534,093.56 14,592,877.63 4,938,309.46 6,684,201.31 26,510.672.11 22,077.69	54,360.57 1,206,125.11 625,047.78 7,807,022.98 15,890,474.38 790,287.30 699,271.48 1,003,977.30 2,747,213.80	429.43 2,183.25 2,713.35 795,172.52 1,054,515.24 11,656.13 6,031.66	63,718.61
33,325.82 12,050,318.68 18,614,146.20 1,347,800.23 162,314.69 303,097.40 1,188,729.71 48,463.45
						
						
						
						
						
					49,693.40	
						
						
						
Canada			656,873,402.63	351,535,006.49	227,030,493.93	30,828,039.88	1,960,092.53	33,928,935.01
	Collections for the 1946-47 Fiscal Year, by Provinces					
s	3	3	$	3	$1,375,989.20 19,785,822.79 13,040,644.61 175,830,052.03 314,936,990.35 30.565.758.69 23.435.170.70 35,124,816.00 70,605,888.73 668,038.95 20,058.33	681,755.14 4.433.201.72 3,306,711.98 52,621,486.46 93,462,445.81 11,661,440.02 2.207.141.73 5,578,262.51 22,920,811.94 (31,478.12) (22,525.88)	719,199.18 10,026,981.40 7,733,973.03 156,788,724.20 187,263,398.92 25,920,939.89 5,436,754.31 15,329,459.29 39,444,227.37 33.7S5.82	29,030.00 347,797.77 946,049.51	692.60 4,944.89	52,199.14 124,591.87 40,454.25 10,882,158.63 14,223,606.87 1,064,746.25 134,305.85 464,636.06 1,441,130.80
670,530.75 928,528.24	
						
Manitoba					660,877.31 369,539.09		
					12,048.64 30,249.94 42,232.79	
Alberta							
British Columbia					2,631,655.24		
Y ukon							
Head Office (Ottawa)							
						
Canada			196,819,253.31	448,697,443.41	23,576,070.73	1,708,002.45	28,428,142.90
Figures in brackets represent an Excess of Refunds over Collections.


FISHERIES
Mr. McLure:: 1.	Did the fisheries department employ airplanes for patrolling in the lobster fishing areas?
2.	If so, how many planes were in operation?
3.	Was it more successful than motor boat patrolling?
4.	What quantity of gear was confiscated by this patrolling?

5.	How many fishermen were fined for illicit lobster fishing in each of the three counties, namely -Prince, Queens and Kings?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Yes.
2.	One plane in Prince Edward Island.
3.	This type of patrol does not replace regular patrol by boat. As a matter of fact

both services work in close co-operation. The limited experimental flying patrol during the past season proved a valuable auxiliary to boat patrol.
4.	Gear was not actually confiscated by the airplane patrol. On the five days, however, the plane operated, 1,079 lobster traps, 60 lobster crates, 3 anchors, and 5,250 pounds of lobsters were confiscated by patrol boats largely by direction from the air.
5.	Prince	 25
Queens	 15
Kings	 33
Total	 73


NAVAL SERVICES
Mr. McGregor:: 1.	How many destroyers have been built by the Canadian government since the 1st of January, 1940?
2.	What are the names of the said destroyers?
3.	When was the keel laid in each case and when were the destroyers commissioned?
4.	What was the total cost of each?
5.	What has been the cost of repairs on each since commissioned?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	Eight.
2.	Iroquois, Athabaskan, Huron, Haida- built in the United Kingdom; Micmac, Nootka, Cayuga, Athabaskan-built in Canada.
3.	Name	Laid	down	CommissionedIroquois	19-	9-40	10-12-42Athabaskan . 19- 9-40	10-12-42
(Note: Athabaskan, war loss.)
Huron	
15-	7-41	28-	7-43Haida	29-	9-41	18-	9-43Micmac	20-	5-42	14-	9-45Nootka	
20-	5-42	9-	8-46Cayuga	
7-10-43	20-10-47
Athabaskan
(new) .... 15- 5-44	20- 2-48
4. Iroquois, Athabaskan:	$5,790,333.00;
Huron, Haida:	$5,766,673.00; *Micmac,
$8,688,213.87 (includes sales tax); *Nootka, $8,688,213.87 (includes sales tax); *Cayuga, $7,647,550.00 (includes sales tax); * Athabaskan (new), $7,647,550.01 (includes sales tax).
5.	Athabaskan-war	loss-no	records;
Iroquois, $517,611.34 (includes tropicaliza-tion); Huron, $379,040.26; Haida, $496,956.18 (includes tropicalization); Micmac, $208,414.35, $431,084.02 collision damage; Nootka, $177,035.27; Cayuga, $47,078.50; Athabaskan (new), $61,740.43.
*The contract on Canadian built destroyers has now been completed. These figures include the final adjustments.
Questions


FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	At what points in Canada are branches of the farm loan board located?
2.	Who is responsible for the operation of the board on Vancouver island, British Columbia?
3.	How many applications for loans were made from British Columbia last year?
4.	How many of these were approved?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	New Westminster, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Toronto, Ontario; Quebec, Quebec; Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
2.	Mr. W. S. Palmer, Branch Manager, Canadian farm loan board, New Westminster, B.C.
3.	229.
4.	Ninety-one have been approved for loan and 28 were still pending as of February 11, 1949. Of the 28 pending applications, 17 of the securities offered have not as yet been appraised.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY NORTH OF ST. CATHARINES, ONT.
Mr. Lockhart:: 1.	Were tenders asked for rural delivery over the area now only partly served by R.R. No. 2 north of St. Catharines, Ontario?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered?
3.	What were the amounts of the tenders received?
4.	Have any new contracts been let?


Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. Tenders receivable 30th January, 1948: Walter Herbert Howe, Jr., $1,200; Steve Mako, $1,600; Levi Mackey, $1,600; Neil Alexander Wright, $1,650; John Pietracupar $1,700.
Tenders were considered high and each tenderer was given an opportunity to reduce, with the following result: Walter Herbert Howe, Jr., $1,200; Steve Mako, $1,600; Levi: Mackey, $1,500; Neil Alexander Wright, $1,590; John Pietracupa, $1,550.
Tenders were again invited in October, 1948, in a further effort to secure a reasonable rate with the following result: Thomas Edward Lehan, $1,200; L. Mackey, $1,500; John Joseph Dix, $1,550; John J. Pietracupa, $1,750.
These last tenders were also considered too high and each tenderer was given an opportunity to reduce, with the following result: Thomas Edward Lehan, $1,200; L.

Questions
Mackey, $1,500; John Joseph Dix, $1,200; John J. Pietracupa, $1,750.
4.	In the absence of a reasonable tender, no contract has been awarded.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. McGregor:: What has been the cost in each of the last two fiscal years of the administration of unemployment insurance (a) expressed as total number of dollars for each year; (b) expressed as a percentage of the unemployment benefits paid in the corresponding year?


Mr. Cote (Verdun):: (a)	The cost of administration of unemployment insurance, that is the collection of contributions and the distribution of benefits, is not ascertainable. This is due to the fact that the staff employed under the supervision of the unemployment insurance commission carry out many other duties, including operation of the national employment service, escort, placement and follow-up of displaced persons, surveys for other government departments on employment conditions, etc.
The total cost of administration of the unemployment insurance commission, including all these functions, was: Fiscal year 19461947, $18,726,118.86; Fiscal year 1947-1948, $17,640,405.24.
Collections of contributions made from employers and employees were (exclusive of government contributions): Fiscal year 19461947, $76,015,030.91; Fiscal year 1947-1948, .$83,870,834.47.
Payments for unemployment insurance benefits were: Fiscal year 1946-1947, $43,114329.18; Fiscal year 1947-1948, $34,947,020.32.
(b)	See answer to (a) above.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-INSPECTORS OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	Are the inspectors of dominion public buildings appointed by the civil service commission?
2.	If not, who appoints them?
3.	How many of these inspectors are there in the maritime provinces?
4.	What are their names?
5.	Where does each of them reside?
6.	What is their remuneration?
7.	How much was paid to each of them in 1948?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1 and 2. All inspectors of construction of dominion public buildings (clerks of works) are appointed by the civil service commission, with the exception of clerks of works, grades 1 and 2, outside the city of Ottawa, who are -exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act, where the position is required for the supervision of work done by contract and where it is expected that the position
IMr. Bertrand (Laurier).]
will not be required for more than one year. These exempted employees are appointed by the department.
3.	Three.
4 and 5. Arthur D. LeBlanc, Saint John, N.B.; Gerald P. Heffernan, Saint John, N.B.; Harry W. Carroll, Halifax, N.S.
6.	Arthur D. LeBlanc, Clerk of Works Grade 4, $3,180 per annum; Gerald P. Heffernan, Clerk of Works Grade 3, $2,880 per annum; Harry W. Carroll, Clerk of Works Grade 2, $2,580 per annum.
7.	Arthur D. LeBlanc, $2,467.74; Gerald P. Heffernan, $1,001.61; Harry W. Carroll, $1,340.00.
SHIP CONSTRUCTION IN CANADA,	1945-48


Mr. Isnor:: What was the gross tonnage of ships constructed in Canada during each of the following years: 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?


Mr. Chevrier:: Merchant vessels delivered:	
1945	Totals
No		.. 37
Gross Tons 		. . 126,430
1946	
No		. . 60
Gross Tons 		. . 53,311
1947	
No		. . 42
Gross Tons 		. . 82,196
1948	
No		91
Gross Tons 		.. 161,664
Naval Vessels Delivered:	
1945	Totals
No		.. 51
Displacement Tons		.. 279,848
1946	
No		. . 2
Displacement Tons		.. 12,276
1947	
No		1
Displacement Tons		. . 2,276
1948	
No		1
Displacement Tons		.. 2,276


PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES
Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the printing bureau?
2.	How many reside in Ottawa?
3.	How many of these reside in Hull?
4.	How many reside elsewhere?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1.	831.
2.	612.
3.	108.
4.	111.



FARMERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total amount of income tax payable by farmers In each of the provinces for the year 1947 (a) as assessed by the Department of National Revenue; (b) as declared in the returns filed?
2.	How many income tax investigators and assessors are there in each province?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	(a) Information not yet compiled, (b) Not available until late summer.
2.	There are no income tax investigators employed by the taxation division. As of January 31, 1949, the following are the total corporation and individual assessors by provinces;
Prince Edward Island	 12
Nova Scotia	 56
New Brunswick	 44
Quebec	 639
Ontario	 899
Manitoba	 135
Saskatchewan	 89
Alberta	 154
British Columbia	 158
Total	 2,186



OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. McCullough (Assiniboia):: 1.	What is the estimated cost to the dominion treasury for an old age pension plan of $50 per month at 65 years of age; (a) with a means test; (b) without a means test?
2.	How many pensioners would have been eligible under either plan in 1948?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	(a) Assuming (1) that the means test referred to is the same as that now provided in the Old Age Pensions Act and (2) that the percentage of persons 65 years of age and over on pension would be the same as for 70 and over, the estimated cost would be $232,500,000; Dominion's share on present basis (75 per cent), $174,400,000; (b) Estimated annual cost of paying a pension of $50 a month to every person in Canada 65 years of age and over without a means test, $576,400,000; Dominion's share on present basis (75 per cent), $432,300,000.
2.	(a) Estimated number of pensioners, 403,500; (b) estimated number of pensioners, 960,700.



HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY


Mr. Knight:: 1.	Does the Hudson's Bay company exercise any (a) governmental; (b) judicial function, in the Northwest Territories?
2.	If so, by what authority are those functions authorized?
Questions
3.	Are white men restricted from trapping in any part of these areas?
4.	If so, by whom is such restriction enforced?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	(a) No.
(b) No.
Note: The Hudson's Bay Company has trading posts at a great many places in the north where the government is not represented. These posts are equipped with wireless sets. All officials, including post managers, co-operate with government agencies in furnishing reliable information and relieving distress.
2.	Answered by 1 (a) (b).
3.	The following regulations apply to trapping by white men in the Northwest Territories:
"No person except a native born Indian (or half-breed leading the life of an Indian) or an Eskimo (or half-breed leading the life of an Eskimo) shall engage in hunting or trapping any game protected under the regulations without first securing a licence so to do".
"The following shall be eligible for hunting and trapping licences:
(1)	Residents of the Northwest Territories, as defined by these regulations, who on the 3rd May, 1938, held hunting and trapping licences and who continue to reside in the Northwest Territories.
(2)	The children of those who have had their domicile in the Northwest Territories for the past four years, provided such children continue to reside in the Northwest Territories.
(3)	Such other persons as the commissioner of the Northwest Territories may decide are equally entitled to licences under these regulations.
Note: Only British subjects with four years' residence in the Northwest Territories are eligible for licences under clause 2. A minor under the age of fourteen years shall not be eligible for a licence. A minor assisting his parents or guardians in connection with hunting or trapping operations will not require a licence".
4.	The regulations are enforced by Northwest Territories game officers and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION IN RUSSIA

Mr. Caouette:: 1.	Has Canada any representatives in Russia?
2.	If so, who are they and what annual salary is paid to each?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	Yes.
2.	J. B. C. Watkins, charge d'affaires a.i., $5,640; R. A. J. Phillips, second secretary, $3,720; M A. Crowe, third secretary, $3,180.

Questions



POTATOES


Mr. Hatfield:: What was the amount per bushel or hundredweight paid to the starch factory in New Brunswick; also to the starch factory in Prince Edward Island in the year 1946-47 for potatoes processed under the agriculture prices starch support program?


Mr. McCubbin:: In the year 1946-47 potatoes were purchased by the agricultural prices support board from producers in New Brunswick at $1.50 per barrel (165 pounds), provided the potatoes contained at least 70 per cent Canada No. 1 grade. Such potatoes were then sold to the starch factory at $1 per barrel. In Prince Edward Island potatoes of the same grade were purchased from the growers at 92 cents per 100 pounds and sold to the starch factory at 60 cents per 100
pounds. In all cases the potatoes sold to starch factories were for starch making and not for resale.



INCOME TAX


Mr. McKay:: 1.	What was the amount of income tax paid by farmers in the dominion of Canada for each of the years 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947?
2.	What portion of the total income tax paid by farmers in Canada for each of the above years was paid by farmers resident in Saskatchewan?


Mr. McCann:: 1. The taxation division does not maintain statistics of collections on an occupational basis. The amount of tax assessed on farmers for 1943 to 1945 inclusive and the amount of tax declared by farmers for 1946 is shown in the following table:
Prince Edward	1943	1944	1945	1946	TotalIsland	$ 49,000	$ 42,000	$ 39,000	$ 5,000	$ 135,000Nova Scotia 	88,000	90,000	65,000	33,000	276,000New Brunswick . .	39,000	35,000	47,000	15,000	136,000Quebec 	165,000	199,000	193,000	14,000	571,000Ontario 	. 1,766,000	2,039,000	1,608,000	1,449,000	6,362,000Manitoba	. 2,188,000	2,714,000	1,369,000	1,265,000	7,536,000Saskatchewan ....	3,778,000	9,246,000	4,769,000	3,299,000	21,092,000Alberta 	2,597,000	4,877,000	3,368,000	2,570,000	13,412,000British Columbia ..	950,000	1,239,000	1,269,000	1,193,000	4,651,000Total	$11,620,000	$20,481,000	$12,727,000	$ 9,843,000	$54,671,000
Similar information for 1947 has not yet been compiled.
2. The percentage of tax assessed or declared on the above basis on or by Saskatchewan farmers is as follows:
Canada	Saskatchewan	Per cent1943 ...	. $11,620,000	$ 3,778,000	32-51944 ...	. 20,431,000	9,246,000	45-11945 ...	. 12,727,000	4,769,000	37-51946 ...	. 9,843,000	3,299,000	33-5Total ..	. $54,671,000	$21,092,000	38-6



BIRMINGHAM TRADE FAIR

Mr. Church:: 1.	Does the Department of Trade and Commerce propose to have an exhibit at the Birmingham, England, trade fair?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken in this connection?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. Birmingham is the heavy industries section of the British industries fair. Canadian government exhibits are limited to the commonwealth section, London. The Department
[Mr. Lapointe.l
of Trade and Commerce will have an exhibit in the commonwealth section, B.I.F. London, 1949.
2. Answered by No. 1.



NITROGEN TRICHLORIDE AS BLEACHING

Mr. Young:: 1.	Has the government taken any action with respect to the use of nitrogen trichloride (NC;i), by millers, as an agent in the bleaching of flour?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The food and drugs divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare sent a representative to hearings in Washington, at which the use of nitrogen trichloride in flour was investigated.
(b) Although there is no evidence that nitrogen trichloride is harmful to humans in the amount present in white flour sold in this country, nevertheless, owing to the suspicion cast upon it by some animal experiments,

regulations under the Food and Drugs Act are being revised to prohibit the use of nitrogen trichloride in flour sold in Canada.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many assessors of income tax are there in each of the provinces operating in the primary producers division of the Department of National Revenue?


James Joseph McCann: The primary producers section dealing with income tax returns of farmers, fishermen, fur trappers, and allied occupations, has assessors located as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 7
Nova Scotia	 9
New Brunswick	 11
Quebec	 22
Ontario	 95
Manitoba	 36
Saskatchewan	 69
Alberta	 50
British Columbia	 12
Of the above primary producer assessors, only the following number are used to make investigations in the field:'
Prince Edward Island	 6
Nova Scotia	 6
New Brunswick	 6
Quebec	[DOT]	13
Ontario	 55
Manitoba	 28
Saskatchewan	 28
Alberta	 22
British Columbia	 5



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	During each of the crop years 1939-40 to date, how many bushels of wheat have been supplied to millers on which a subsidy has been paid?
2.	During the same period, what quantity of wheat has been supplied to others on which a subsidy has been paid?
3.	What is the amount of subsidy paid each crop year in each of the above classes?


Mr. Belzile:: Return tabled.



CANADIAN BALANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS

Mr. Cockeram:: What were the (a) current receipts; (b) current payments in the Canadian balance of international payments for the calendar year 1948 in each of the
Questions
following categories; (1) merchandise; (2) receipts by War Supplies Limited; (3) net exports of nonmonetary gold; (4) tourist expenditures; (5) interest and dividends; (6) freight and shipping; (7) inheritance and immigration funds; (8) national defence; (9) all other current receipts and expenditures for (a) all countries; (b) United Kingdom; (c) other sterling areas; (d) United States of America; (e) ail other countries?


Alan Cockeram: What were the amounts on capital account in the Canadian balance of international payments for the calendar year 1948 in each of the following categories: (1) loans and net export credits; (2) gold subscriptions; (3) net receipts of convertible exchange from overseas countries; (4) loan repayments; (5) sale and purchase of securities; (6) other capital movements, for (a) all countries; (b) United Kingdom; (c) other sterling areas; (d) United States of America; (e) all other countries?


George James McIlraith: Order for return.


Alan Cockeram: May I ask when I can expect the return to be tabled? I do so because a similar question was asked last year; the return was tabled on February 18, and I think these figures are available in the department today. I would like to get them before the resolution on the order paper today with regard to the Foreign Exchange Control Act is brought before the house.


George James McIlraith: My information is that the figures will not be available until March 1, The return will be brought forward as soon as the figures are available.


Alan Cockeram: The answers were given on February 18 of last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Jackman:: 1.	What has been the profit or loss on operations of the Bank of Canada in each of the years since its inception?
2.	What was the rate of profit in each year expressed as a percentage of paid up capital?
3.	How much has been retained by the bank as a reserve and how much has been paid over to the consolidated revenue fund?


Gleason Belzile: Return tabled.



ROUYN-NORANDA, VAL D'OR AND MONTREAL AIR SERVICE

Mr. Caoueiie:: 1.	Have any airline companies applied for the establishment of a plane service between Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or and Montreal?
2.	If so, what are the names of such companies?
3.	Has a franchise been granted for such service?
4.	If so, to what company?
5.	Has the government granted any sum of money for the construction of air bases?
6.	If so, to whom; in what amount and for what bases?

Motions for Papers



POSTAGE RATES ON GIFT PARCELS

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	What is the rate of postage on gift parcels to (a) England; (b) other European countries?
2.	Who sets the rates of postage for these parcels?
3.	How do these rates compare with those charged by the United States of America for parcels to the same countries?


Mr. Bertrand (Laurier):: Return tabled.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. McKay:: How many veterans were in receipt of unemployment insurance in Canada during (a) 1947;	(b)
1948?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Argue:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the provincial governments from January 1, 1948 to date, concerning the construction of a trans-Canada highway.


Mr. MacKinnon:: So far as we are concerned we are glad to have this order pass, but there appear to be confidential letters from some of the provinces, and I should like first to clear those letters with the provinces. In the meantime the order might pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried with the reservation made by the minister.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Burion:: For a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged during the past two years between the Saskatchewan government Department of Telephones and the Department of National Revenue regarding income tax returns by rural telephone companies.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of the architect's plan for the national capital project together with all letters and communications relative to the area thereof and the estimated cost of (a) acquiring the necessary lands; (b) removal of buildings thereon and all other anticipated costs and expenditures.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I believe there is no objection to the motion, but I should like to state what I understand from it, to see if that is what the hon. member has in mind. The architect's plan to which he refers is presumably the report of Mr. Greber, who is the consultant of the national capital planning committee. That report has not yet been approved by the national capital planning committee, nor has it been submitted to the government. It is expected shortly, and as soon as it is received it will be tabled. 
The motion refers to the area of the national capital project. As far as the area is concerned, there may be some confusion between the area it was felt desirable to designate as the national capital area for the purpose of establishing a framework within which planning could be carried on, and the parcels of land which it may be thought desirable to acquire for government buildings, driveways, and so forth. The national capital area is a large region, and has significance for purposes of planning, but there is no thought that it would ever be acquired in totality by the federal government.
We would understand that the letters and communications sought are in relation to the definition of the national capital planning area, while the estimates of costs are in relation to the lands of which the project recommends the acquisition. If that is what the hon. member wishes to have tabled, I will see to it that the report is prepared at the earliest possible moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what the
Prime Minister has stated represents generally the purpose of my request. I should like to ascertain, though, if I may, when the report of Mr. Greber may be expected. There is a great deal of interest in it. I understand that a committee has been sitting in Ottawa from time to time in connection with the matter, and it seems to me the time has come for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the house and to the country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will communicate with the chairman of the national capital planning committee and tell him it is the desire of the members of the house to have this document at the earliest possible moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters and communications containing representations or suggested terms made by the government of Canada since January 1, 1948, to the united nations or its committee on international rights relative to the international declaration or charter of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
FAR EASTERN COMMISSION Mr. Green:
For a copy of any reports issued by the far eastern commission subsequent to the report of the secretary general for the period from February 26, 1946 to July 10, 1947.
Mr. Lapointe:: The report referred to in
this order was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on Monday last.


Mr. Green:: I believe there was a report
tabled after my motion had been put on the order paper. If there are no other reports,
I am satisfied to have the motion dropped.


Hugues Lapointe: There are no reports other
than the one the minister tabled.
Motion dropped.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents, in the possession of any department of the government having to do with the renting of office space for the unemployment insurance commission at 39 King street, Sioux Lookout, Ontario; also having to do with the amount of rent paid for the same; dated since January 1, 1946.



ACCIDENT STATISTICS

Mr. Church:: For a return showing the number of Canadians killed by (a) motor cars on the highway; (b) drowning; (c) accidents at level crossings; (d) fires in homes, showing number injured; (e) other accidents. showing number injured.


Mr. Howe:: It will be observed that no period of time is mentioned in the question. The government will of course be glad to bring down the information, but there should be a limit to the period to which it shall apply. Perhaps my hon. friend will let me know.


Thomas Langton Church: The bureau of statistics can give the information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member want the information for 1948? If he will indicate his desire in that regard, I shall be glad to carry out the request.



SALE OF RAILWAY FLAT CARS

Mr. Young:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and agreements exchanged from June 1, 1946, to January 1, 1948, between War Assets Corporation, Manfred and Company of New York, and Quadra Trading Company Ltd., importers and exporters, of Vancouver, British Columbia, or their agents, Jones, Luscombe, and Leese, Ltd., of Vancouver, British Columbia, regarding the sale of railway broad-gauge flat cars.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Manross:: For a copy of all correspondence, agreements, leases, contracts, documents, and building specifications exchanged between the government of Canada and Westmount Realties Limited of Montreal, and any other contractors, investors, or other persons in London, Ontario, regarding building to be erected in London, Ontario, for use of Income Tax Department.
Inquiries of the Ministry ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS



QUESTION AS TO INQUIRY BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I ask a question of the Prime Minister which has some relation to the motion for papers made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church)? Has the government been asked to appoint a royal commission to investigate the liquor problem in all its aspects, but with particular reference to highway accidents? If so, will the Prime Minister say whether such a royal commission will be set up?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To the first part of the question the answer is in the affirmative. To the second part of the question the answer is that the representations made to the committee of cabinet have not yet been brought before council for consideration, but that will be done at the earliest opportunity.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 the Minister of Justice, in reply to a question as to the appointment of a commission to carry out the revision of the Criminal Code, gave the names of the representatives from the various sections of .Canada. Is it the minister's intention to appoint to this commission a representative from Nova Scotia? If so, is he in a position to give the name of that representative?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. W. C. Dunlop, K.C., of Windsor and Halifax, is to be appointed the maritime representative on this committee.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made in connection with the motion for papers standing in the name of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). As I understood him, the Prime Minister said the architect's report has not yet. been approved by the national capital planning committee. If that is so, may I ask the Prime Minister under what authority properties are now being expropriated for the purposes of the national capital project?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member would be under a false apprehension if he felt that nothing could be done for the requirements of the public service until the project was shown on the Greber plan and approved by the national capital planning committee. There are many projects being considered individually and being dealt with on that basis. The reference was to a general report for the planning of the national capital, looking forward for many years. Such a general report is now being considered by the national capital planning committee, and, as I stated a few moments ago, I will ask that committee to expedite its consideration of the report so that it may be brought before the house at the earliest possible moment.



WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Bentley (Swift Current):: Will the Minister of Justice inform the house whether it is his intention to give a ruling on the need for provincial legislation to make effective the amendments to the wheat board act passed during the last session, as requested by the then premier of Manitoba?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member omitted to give me any notice of the question. I shall try to bring an answer down tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas G. Ross (St. Paul's):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources. I have not given him notice of the question, and I do not apologize for that. It seems to me there is a certain amount of misunderstanding-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -in connection with immigrants coming to Canada. What regulations are there in this regard? I have a great many letters-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows very well that the purpose of a question is to obtain information from the ministry, not to give information.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I could have put my question the other way around, but it is this: Will the minister make a statement on immigration, and give the authority under which 
the regulations are made? Will he do this in the near future, so that the people of Canada may know more about it? I want an answer.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be glad to look at the question of the hon. member. There will be opportunities for giving the information for which the hon. member has asked. Upon further consideration it may be deemed advisable to make a formal statement, and if that is so I shall do so.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister say whether consideration has been given to allowing veterans, who have bought land under the Veterans Land Act, to sell a portion of the two or more acres before the ten-year period expires which is mentioned in the agreement? If this were allowed it would permit the veteran to pay part of his indebtedness to the government. There are many veterans who need permission to do this.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I chn tell the hon. member that consideration has been given to that proposal, but it has not been decided to put it into effect.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO CHOICE OF ROUTE THROUGH B.C. MOUNTAIN PASS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Matthews (Kootenay East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. I am sorry I was not able to send him notice of my question. Is it true that the central route through Kicking Horse pass has been definitely chosen for the Trans-Canada highway in British Columbia?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not heard of it.



PAYMENTS DURING PRESENT CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he inform the house whether or not the twenty-cent advance in the price of wheat will be paid during this crop year, as announced by him and by the

Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at the Alberta and Saskatchewan wheat pool convention last November?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can speak only for myself. I have not announced a twenty-cent payment on behalf of the wheat pool. I have announced that there will be a payment, and I can say that such payment will be made before seeding of the next crop.


Hazen Robert Argue: According to press reports, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced a twenty-cent increase.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue). Did the minister make an announcement that a twenty-cent payment would be made to the farmers?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member is asking me?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. Are you not the Minister of Agriculture?


Mr. Rowe:: One sows and the other reaps.


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer to the question in a word would be no, but I hardly think that would satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friend. The statement which I made, I think on the same day that the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke in Calgary, was to the effect that an additional payment would be made, and that it would be approximately twenty cents. I might say that I think that suggestion will be carried out when the announcement is finally made.


William Earl Rowe: The ministers should have had a rehearsal.



GANDER AIRPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Yesterday the leader of the opposition asked my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a question in connection with facilities at Gander. The question was as follows:
I should like to know under what authority the information was conveyed about two weeks ago to embassies, ministries or other official offices of those countries in which there are companies which have commercial air operations going through Gander, to the effect that they would not have commercial landing rights at Gander on and after April 1 next.
The reason I am answering the question is that the Secretary of State for External
Inquiries of the Ministry Affairs suggested that I do so, in his absence. The information I have is that no such information was conveyed to the embassies, ministries and the like. The air service operations to the island of Newfoundland are threefold. First, there are the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines; they are to be continued and perhaps expanded after the union. Then there are the commercial air services other than T.C.A. and Newfoundland has been told that they will be permitted to continue operation without interruption. Finally, there are the international air services which operate through the port of Gander. Those services are performed by international companies enjoying landing rights by virtue of the international air transit agreement, as well as traffic rights, and also by virtue of the bilateral agreements which the United Kingdom government has entered into with other countries and which the government of Newfoundland has also entered into. After union it is the intention of the Canadian government to see that any policy relating to international agreements and the granting of commercial rights in Newfoundland be consistent with policy followed in Canada. Our policy which was adopted in respect of international civil aviation and the granting of commercial traffic rights in Newfoundland must be consistent with the general policy normally followed by the government of Canada. We have already entered into discussions with these countries, with a view to bringing these agreements into line with our Canadian policy. Discussions to this end are now under way.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Perhaps the minister would permit me to clarify the question which is raised by the explanation he has given on the third point. What he has said on the third point is in conformity with the information I have received and which led to the question yesterday, namely, that communications had been conveyed through official channels which indicated the revision of existing commercial landing rights at Gander in Newfoundland as of and after April 1. The statement the minister has made, that these arrangements are to be brought into conformity with existing arrangements in Canada, indicates an important change in the situation which I think should be noted and followed up. I do not intend to pursue the matter now, but the minister will find that the result will be to limit the landing rights of those international carriers to what are described as technical landing rights as distinguished from commercial landing rights. The limitation will

Newfoundland,
have a profound effect upon transportation in and out of Newfoundland by this means of communication.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the.orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, following his statement with regard to the national capital project. On what authority has the national film board, as reported in the press, spent $13,000 or $14,000 on filming the capital planning when this planning is not even completed, according to the Prime Minister?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will look at the hon. member's
question and ascertain whether or not there is any foundation for the press reports to which he refers.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King respecting the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Glengarry):: N ewfoundland
nevertheless be imparted to other communities some of that strength which will help to preserve the freedom of mankind. May we not all wish and believe that a divine blessing will rest upon such a union.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the wholehearted and genuine applause which greeted the former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King), upon his happily chosen words this afternoon, will be an indication to him of that unanimity, to which he referred in his remarks, with which the admirable people of Newfoundland will be welcomed into a great, and perhaps now an even greater, Dominion of Canada.
I have followed the right hon. gentleman in this debate; and, if I may, perhaps I might at this stage follow the procedure he adopted in a debate in 1943 on a somewhat similar matter, which procedure is reported at page 4347 of Hansard of July 5 of that year. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I intend to move at once that this question be now put.
Then the right hon. gentleman proceeds to indicate his authority for moving in that fashion. Basing my motion now upon the same authority as that used by the right hon. member for Glengarry, I desire at this stage to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green):
That the question be now put.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the motion placed before the house, I wish to say that I feel sure every member in the house shares the feelings expressed by the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) toward the people of Newfoundland, and the desire for harmonious union with that ancient colony more recently given the status of a dominion, the future of which is under consideration at this time.
Every speech-or shall I say nearly every speech-made in the debate has indicated the extremely warm feeling of the people of Canada as expressed through their representatives in the House of Commons towards those splendid people, whose background is so closely intertwined with our own. And there has been, almost without exception, a very strong feeling of sentimental attachment toward a people whose association in peace and war has brought to our own people an increasing respect for all that they represent.
Obviously, however, there has been some misunderstanding of certain aspects of the discussion which has taken place in this chamber. The issue which has been under discussion, and in relation to which many members have expressed their opinions, is not the issue of

Newfoundland entering into the union of Canadian confederation, or otherwise. The discussion which has been taking place on the main motion is one relating to the procedure by which that association is to be consummated. Any attempt to create the impression that a discussion of the constitutional aspects of this problem is out of place in this debate is not in keeping with the position of this House of Commons, and is not in keeping with a recognition of the fundamental importance of the constitution, not only to the people of Canada, but to the people of Newfoundland who must look to that constitution as their assurance of the validity of the undertakings now given to them. And the very time we should be least willing to tamper with the provisions of our constitution in any way is the time when we extend the hand of friendship to the people of Newfoundland, and say to them, "Here are the terms we offer you; and, as an assurance of the sanctity of those terms, here is the constitution under which we live."
It is so easy to make statements to the effect that a different point of view has been expressed on different occasions. I would suggest to those hon. members who make these loose assertions, more designed for consumption outside than inside the house-


An hon. Member:: How well you know it.


George Alexander Drew: -that they bear in mind that there has been no more vigorous advocate of the sanctity of our constitution than the right hon. member for Glengarry, who has just spoken.
It was said last night by one hon. member immediately to my left that, after all, there were matters of urgent importance to consider, that we must examine those from the point of view of the welfare of the people of Newfoundland, and that we must not be too concerned with a mere argument as to technical details. This is not the first time discussions have taken place in the house on matters of great importance, and which were of great concern to many people at that time. It will be recalled that during the 1930's there were most urgent reasons for steps being taken to meet the very difficult conditions which arose at that time by reason of the economic storm which swept the whole world. It will be recalled by every member of the house that, in an effort to deal with the conditions which then existed, the Prime Minister of that time, who has been quoted in this debate, placed before the house legislation designed to meet some of these extremely difficult human problems which were causing concern to every thinking Canadian. It will be recalled that the various social security measures put forward by the Prime Minister of that day, the late Lord Bennett, did not

6Q1
come into effect until some time afterwards, because it was pointed out that there were constitutional reasons why that should not be done, and that, no matter how desirable action of that kind might be, it would be most unwise to create, for the future, a precedent which was established upon a violation of the constitution.
It will be recalled by every member of the house that it was the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, exercising his very proper prerogative as leader of the opposition, pointed out what he regarded as constitutional defects in these extremely important measures which every Canadian knew were to the advantage of Canadians at that time in so far as the purpose was concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He did not bring them down.


William Earl Rowe: You were not even here then.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not around.


William Earl Rowe: That is why you do not understand it.


George Alexander Drew: It can always be read in Hansard. Those bills dealt with matters of great human concern. No one can plead today, any more than he could plead then, that there were not urgent reasons why this parliament should deal with those matters if it lay within its power to do so. It will be recalled that at that time the argument was put forth that it could be done under the broad reference of peace, order and good government, having relation also to certain undertakings which had been given in the international sphere. During the course of the debate which has taken place about the entry of Newfoundland into confederation with Canada, we have heard that the thing which must be considered here is whether or not this parliament has that measure of supremacy which makes it possible for it to deal with the things which could be done by the representatives of Canada. The argument is not new. In fact it was put forward in support of the measures to which I have referred, and which undoubtedly were measures that were being sought by the people of Canada at that time.
When it is suggested that an unusual practice is indicated when the proposal is made that the provinces should be consulted about amendment of the British North America Act, which unquestionably affects their interests as well as the interests of Newfoundland, may I remind hon. members that in the very discussions to which I have referred the need for consulting the provinces was mentioned, and was emphasized in most vigorous arguments. Perhaps it would be appropriate that I quote certain words spoken
Newfoundland
by the then leader of the opposition, who is now the right hon. member for Glengarry, because they indicate recognition of this very principle. Granted the subject matter was different, granted that some of the constitutional questions hinged on different points, yet it must be remembered that a proposal had been made that the dominion government deal with the matter by virtue of its overriding powers under the constitution. The argument had been made that this was something which it was essential for the government to deal with, but the proposals were opposed, and this was one of the statements made in the debate. I read, from page 750 of Hansard of February 12, 1935, the words of the right hon. member for Glengarry. They are as follows:
We have all seen, understanding the jurisdiction to be as we all along have believed it to be, that, if a national scheme of unemployment insurance was to be drawn up, it could be done only in one of two ways. One way was by agreement with the provinces whereby they would act within their jurisdiction and the government of Canada would contribute grants in aid, as has been done in the case of old age pensions; the other way was by amending the British North America Act in a manner that would enable this federal parliament alone to deal with the question. We always said that a conference with the provinces, if properly carried on, would enable us to reach agreement on an amendment of the British North America Act, but five years have been lost in the holding of any conference of the kind. I say here that we will yet discover that such a conference must take place.
May I remind the members that I am quoting from the words of the right hon. member for Glengarry.
I say here that we will yet discover that such a conference must take place; we will yet discover, before any legislation of this character comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government, that it will have to be by the path of some conference between the dominion and the provinces, and through agreement reached as a result thereof.


Mr. Martin:: Was that the unemployment insurance debate?


George Alexander Drew: On February 12, 1935.


Mr. Marlin:: The unemployment insurance measure?


George Alexander Drew: I have given the page reference, page 750 of Hansard of that date. As the members will recall, the provinces were subsequently consulted, and as a result of that consultation, agreement and understanding, the amendment to the British North America Act, providing that the dominion parliament could deal with unemployment insurance, was duly advanced in the ordinary way. Surely no one will question the fact that the subject matter of the discussion on that occasion was a matter of vital concern to Canada, and to the people of Canada.

Newfoundland


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may interrupt my hon. friend on the essential point of what he is discussing, is it not that the matter he refers to was one which belonged to the provinces and could not be dealt with by the federal government without agreement by the provinces?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, but I think perhaps the right hon. member for Glengarry may not have been here when I pointed out that there is nothing in the British North America Act which draws a distinction between those cases where the interests of the provinces are involved and where they are not, where it is within the exclusive jurisdiction and where it may not be. Never yet has there been any settlement as to where the borderline is; and one of the things under consideration for some time, which was actually discussed at the meetings of the dominion-provincial conference which began here in Ottawa on August 6, 1945, was the desirability of establishing a clear division of responsibility, a clear division of legislative and administrative authority, and also finding a way in which we could actually deal with our own constitution without any uncertainty as to how it was to be done.
In this case we have before us a matter that does involve an amendment to the British North America Act. Any suggestion that it does not involve such an amendment has been disposed of by certain statements made by hon. members on the opposite side.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry to have to intervene, Mr. Speaker, but on a point of order I think I owe it to the house, having the responsibility of leadership in the house, to point out that it is the rule that a matter which has been decided by the house cannot be debated again during the same session. The question whether or not the provinces should be consulted in respect of this matter was debated during two days and was determined yesterday by a rather decisive vote. Though it is always most interesting to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on these matters, I do not think it is in order to hear him again on the matter which was decided last evening.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr, Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I am not going
to debate the point that has been raised. I am speaking on the motion, and I will be happy to furnish the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) with the best authority I have seen on the right of an hon. member to debate a motion of this kind, since the matter was in fact discussed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and is provided for in the rules of this house. But

I am not going to argue the point because I want to proceed with the main motion, following the remarks I have made.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not challenging the
right of the hon. gentleman to debate the motion that the question be now put. I am challenging the right of the hon. member, in debating that motion, to raise issues that were decided by the vote of last evening.


George Alexander Drew: I have no intention of debating the point raised by the Prime Minister because, very conveniently, he raised the point exactly at the time I had finished my remarks in that respect.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like a ruling on
my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Prime Minister
has brought to my attention the fact that last evening the question whether this matter should be referred to the provinces was decided. In view of that, under the rules of the house that point is not again debatable.


George Alexander Drew: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker,
I intend to proceed with a discussion of the remarks that have been made and of the main motion.


Alphonse Fournier: You have spoken
already on the main motion.


George Alexander Drew: Or rather with the motion with which we are dealing.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Under the
rules of the house an hon. member who has already spoken on the main motion may speak on the motion now before the house.


George Alexander Drew: As was indicated earlier, and
as I have already indicated this afternoon, there is almost complete if not complete unanimity in the desire to bring Newfoundland into Canada under terms that will be acceptable to that country and that will maintain harmony and good will in that new part of Canada in the years that lie ahead. As has been pointed out on many occasions however, we in this house have a responsibility to make sure that the course we follow is in keeping with our own practice and our own constitution, and that it produces no precedents which may endanger the sanctity of that constitution; and also that we do nothing to weaken respect for our constitution on the part of those whom we intend to welcome as members of the Canadian federation. I have already quoted the words of the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -indicating the necessity of i-ecognizing the importance of that constitution; and I am pointing out now that the debate which has been going on in this house has related to constitutional procedure, that we have already dealt with the principle involved, and that this is not what is now before us. We have stated our position clearly. We have made it plain that there is a way to deal with this matter which does not violate the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: We want to welcome Newfoundland into Canada on terms that will preserve harmony, good will and unity in the coming years. We do not want them coming in by the back door; we want them coming through the front door as friends welcomed into the Canadian family.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that, recognizing the importance of the principle involved, and insisting that the constitution be respected, it is our intention to vote against this improper procedure which is now before us.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the remarks of the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) would conclude the debate on a high tone and with unanimity; but I regret that we have now had a discussion, entirely out of order, dealing with matters which were voted upon and disposed of last evening. You know, there are some people who think of constitutions when it suits their convenience. There are constitutions that govern the relationships of the various parts of a country; there are constitutions that govern bodies of men and women elected to public office. We have in this house a constitution which lays down certain rules of procedure; and if we are going to respect constitutions generally I think all of us should set an example by observing the constitution of this house; for example is much better than precept.
In the debate last night we disposed of certain aspects of the constitution. When the hon. leader of the opposition was speaking, I was tempted to have something further to say about the attitude of the early fathers of confederation, and particularly Sir John A. Macdonald. Since that is not permitted by the rules of the house, I am not going to do so. I am not going to repeat what I said before about the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. It is a great event in our Canadian history. As the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) said a few moments ago in a few well chosen words, it rounds out this great confederation.
One hundred and twenty-five years ago we were a few scattered colonies in British North
Newfoundland
America; today we are united, and I hope permanently united, people. We are not stretched in scattered communities across this continent, but welded together as a great, powerful, influential and prosperous nation. If we are going to preserve that nation, there are in relation to our constitution some matters that we should be considering at the present time. During the course of this debate, we have heard so much about the constitution. We like to think our constitution preserves freedom of speech. I am afraid that, in some parts of Canada today, freedom of speech has been threatened from time to time.
Equally important with some of the aspects of the constitution that have been discussed within the last few days is freedom of worship according to the dictates of one's conscience; freedom to associate in our religious organizations; freedom to express ourselves through press and radio. At this time I mention those three particularly because I have been reading the newspapers. I have read that the allies of my hon. friends of the Conservative party are undermining all three of those freedoms. Only this morning I read in my hon. friends' newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, that the leader of L'Union Nationale, Mr. Duplessis, in the province of Quebec had advised retail merchants to exert pressure upon the newspapers to prevent a certain kind of publicity in that province. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of thing reinforces what the leader of the opposition said in 1936, that there was a growing fascism in the province of Quebec. This undermining is done by the ally of my hon. friends.
If we are going to guard the great heritage given to us by the fathers of confederation, we have to have the right to promote the development of our individual cultures. I do not think there is anyone in this house who would gainsay the fact that at the very root-


An hon. Member:: You do not know.


Major James William Coldwell: Someone says I do not know; that might be said of some of the people about whom I am talking this afternoon. There is no one in this house who should fail to recognize that the very foundation of this country lies upon the recognition of the right to divers cultures. We want to see that that right is adequately protected in our country's constitution. We want protection of the right to maintain those things given to the provinces under section 92 of the British North America Act; the right to maintain those social welfare services and responsibilities attached particularly to family life.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to build the kind of nation we wish Canada to be, then those problems that are of national importance can be dealt with

Newfoundland
only on a national scale. In order that all our people shall have an equal opportunity, such matters must be placed more under the control of this parliament; that is not centralization.


Mr. Fleming:: It certainly is.


Major James William Coldwell: It is common sense. Today we have no national health program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes, we have.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You should not kick your bedfellow.


Major James William Coldwell: We have no national health program comparable to those which exist in other civilized and progressive countries. True, some foundation may have been laid by the health grants, but those health grants are a long way from the kind of national health program this country needs at the present time.
We need a national marketing system. The predecessors of my hon. friends to the right, the Progressive Conservatives, enacted such a a bill in 1935. It was declared ultra vires of this parliament. We need national social security. Those are policies we need and they should be the constitutional right of Canadian citizens; the right to security, life, liberty and happiness from the cradle to the grave.
So I say that, when we are thinking of the entry of Newfoundland into this confederation, I hope it will highlight some of these problems which are as much constitutional problems as those other factors which have been debated in this house during the past two or three days. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I should like to say we welcome the people of Newfoundland. They have a remarkable history. I am not going over their history again because I mentioned some of its interesting features when this matter was introduced in the house. They are the descendants of hardy fisherfolk, in the main; descendants of the people who braved the storms of the Atlantic and settled on the island to the east of us against great odds, discouragements and preventions. Today I wanted to mention some considerations which we must keep in mind if we are to make Canada great, not geographically, but in humanity, in progress and in welfare. We must keep these basic conditions in mind if we want to build a great country which will be an example to the rest of the world. Let us hope that, when Newfoundland is gathered into the family of Canadian provinces, we may go forward with renewed courage and renewed hope to a healthier, happier and more secure Canadian nation.

(Translation):


Mr. Frederic Dorion (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: In view of certain remarks that have just been made, I feel bound to add a few words.
I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I believe it behooves me to do so, on account of some remarks which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has just made. Even if this debate has only served to reveal the stand of our public men with regard to certain ideologies which are now spreading across Canada, I must say that it has had a good result.
Even though the leader of the C.C.F. should make a show of fighting communism, as he has claimed he was doing these last few days, even though he should tell us to protect ourselves against communism, it is well that we should know where he stands. It is edifying to see him take the defence of communism as he has just done by his remarks on the province of Quebec.
I am proud of the fact that the present government of the province of Quebec has set an example to the whole world in the fight it is now waging against communism, against the subversive ideologies of this day; and if governments had followed the same course in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland and in Roumania, we would not have to lament what is now taking place, we would not have to lament the scandalous persecutions which we are now witnessing.
It is well, Mr. Speaker, that we should know what direction our political men are taking, and who are their supporters and friends; and I am glad that this debate has been initiated this afternoon, because it has given us the opportunity of ascertaining where the friends of communists are to be found.
(Text):


Mr. Jean-Francois Pouliot (Temiscouaia):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is my contention that it is impossible to adopt the main motion now since it contains a statement which is not true. I mention one in particular. Before that, there were joint motions from the House of Commons and the Senate. At the present time the motion is submitted to both houses. In the motion I read the following paragraph:
And whereas the agreement containing terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act has been duly approved by the parliament of Canada and by the government of Newfoundland;
I do not know whether the government of Newfoundland has approved it. It may have done so. But the parliament of Canada has not yet approved it. The Senate is still at it.
Although this is the last stage of discussion

in the House of Commons, I do not see how we can adopt the motion without an amendment to the effect that it has not yet been adopted by the Senate. The wording of the motion is wrong. If we vote in favour of that motion, we approve a procedure which has not been rightly drafted. My point of order is that the motion should be amended accordingly or the debate should be adjourned until the Senate has passed the bill in all stages.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Speaking to the point of order, I would invite the hon. member to read the resolution. It is a resolution that a petition be presented jointly by the two houses of parliament. The hon. member can have the assurance that the petition will not be presented until parliament has finally disposed of the bill; and when it is presented it will be true that parliament will have approved the measure in question.
I take it that I am concluding the debate. I would not want to go on at this point if there are other members who wish to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, certainly I do not wish to speak, but if the Prime Minister speaks now he is speaking to the previous question which was moved by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). He can speak again later on.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The previous question prevents any amendment of the main motion. The previous question having been moved, nothing else can be decided but the main motion. There does not have to be a previous decision on the previous question. The moving of the previous question prevents any other matter but the main motion being put to the house. All those who are entitled to speak on the main motion may of course do so now. If there are others who wish to speak, I will not do so at this moment, because I would be closing the debate.


Gordon Graydon: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has fully appreciated the point that is involved here. The debate to which I referred when I was moving the motion in the original instance, that is, on July 5, 1943, bears out, I think, my understanding that the motion then was on all fours with this, both as to the substance of the resolution and as to the procedure. I think the Prime Minister will readily see that there are two matters to be disposed of. One is the motion I made, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), that the question be now put. If the Prime Minister will turn to page 4367 of Hansard of July 5, 1943, he will find that the first motion put there was the motion of the
Newfoundland
right hon. member for Glengarry, then Prime Minister, who moved at that time that the question be now put. That motion was then decided by a vote of the house. When that motion had been disposed of, the Speaker then said, "The question is on the main motion", which was the motion moved by the then Minister of Justice, now Prime Minister; and upon that motion the house decided. But there were two different motions which had to be disposed of by the house, by means of a vote or otherwise.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The whole of the debate must take place before either of the motions is put. When the motion "that the question be now put" has been affirmed, it is immediately put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it might be defeated.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If it is defeated, of course the debate goes on.


Gordon Graydon: That is right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But if it is agreed to, the question is immediately put. If I have anything to say on the main motion, I must say it now; otherwise, in the event of the previous question being adopted by the house, I would be deprived of my right of saying it.


Gordon Graydon: That is quite right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On the main motion, I merely wish to make two short points. The first is that should the attitude announced by the leader of the opposition be the attitude of the house-that is to say, that this motion be rejected-that would mean that there would be no union of Newfoundland with Canada on the terms that have been approved by this house.


William Earl Rowe: Not necessarily.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Yes, it would; because, unless there is a petition, there cannot be a bill in the parliament of the United Kingdom. And unless there is a bill in the parliament of the United Kingdom, receiving the royal assent before March 31, 1949, all the work that has been done up to this time falls by the wayside and must be started over again. The second point I wish to make is this. I would ask Mr. Speaker, when putting the main motion, to call for the yeas and nays so that all members of this house, on this historic occasion, may have the privilege of standing up and letting their fellow members in this house and their fellow Canadians know what their position is.


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the house is the motion moved by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and seconded by the hon.

Newfoundland
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the motion of the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Stanfield:: I was paired with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
(Translation):


Mr. Raymond (Beauhamois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

(Text):



STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the statute law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May this section stand until the Minister of Finance returns?
Section 6 stands.
Sections 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13-Maritime Freight Rates Act.


Mr. Nowlan:: I think it is desirable that the Minister of Transport should make a statement with respect to the incidence of the Maritime Freight Rates Act as far as Newfoundland is concerned. I do not know whether he wishes to do that now or whether the section should stand until some other time. I am particularly concerned with the Maritime Freight Rates Act in so far as water carriage is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: The section is clearly indicative of the intention of the agreement, namely, that the advantages that are contained in the Maritime Freight Rates Act should be made applicable to the province of Newfoundland. In the previous debate I dealt with the freight rates structure at some length, and I do not think it is necessary that I should repeat everything I said on that occasion, except to say that the freight rates structure of the maritime provinces will be made applicable to the province of Newfoundland. I take it that in due course the Canadian National Railways will file tariffs and tolls with the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada on the basis of the structure in the maritime region. It will then be open for anyone who feels that he has been discriminated against to make an application to the board.
I doubt very much if there will be any applications of that kind, because I am informed that the tariffs of tolls in Newfoundland are substantially higher than those in the maritime region. The other evening I was unable to say what the percentage was, nor would I like to venture a guess at this stage, but there is a substantial difference. Section 13 will give the same benefits and the same advantages to the Newfoundland railway that the Canadian National and other railways now enjoy under the Maritime
Statute Law Amendment Freight Rates Act in the select region, and that will come into effect upon entrustment to the Canadian National Railways of the lines they will operate in the new province of Newfoundland.


George Clyde Nowlan: The section as drafted refers specifically to trade moving from Port aux Basques to Sydney and from Sydney to Port aux Basques. As the minister knows, there are other ports in the maritimes through which such traffic moves. I am looking for information, but I believe that under the Maritime- Freight Rates Act as it applies today freight going through the port of Halifax for export, for instance, moving all the way over the Canadian Pacific railway to Halifax, we will say, does enjoy a preference under the present act. I think I am correct in saying that once Newfoundland becomes a province of Canada, goods moving from Halifax to Newfoundland would not be going for export; it would be an internal movement within our own country. It just occurs to me on casually reading this section, and I would like the minister to clear it up, that the Maritime Freight Rates Act will not apply to freight moving over the Canadian Pacific railway to Halifax and then being transshiped by water to St. John's. The minister has the figures and I have not had a chance to check them, but I would suspect that if there is not more freight moving from Halifax to St. John's by water than is moving from Sydney to Port aux Basques, at least there is a very substantial amount of freight going that way. I should like to know particularly whether the furtherance rate will apply to goods moving over the C.P.R. to Halifax, for instance, going up the valley over the D.A.R. and then shipped from Halifax to St. John's, or will it have to move over the Canadian National system only? If that is the case I suggest that this section should be allowed to stand until it can be carefully studied.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want me to enter upon a discussion of particular rates. That is a technical matter I would not attempt to deal with, because I think it is a matter for experts. If he wishes I can obtain the information he desires, though I do not think the question he puts can be answered except by application to the board. I would say, however, that the position as far as the maritime provinces are concerned is not in any way changed or affected by this act, and the island of Newfoundland is being brought within the purview of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Beyond that I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to go at this time.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I want to support the thought
expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. As he has said, a large

Statute Law Amendment amount of freight from the west is shipped from the port of Halifax for export. What he has in mind and what I have in mind is whether that export freight rate will apply to shipments for continuous routing through to Newfoundland. Section 31 of the act, as I recall it, only mentions North Sydney. We feel, of course, that Halifax, Pictou and other ports similarly situated should enjoy that preference also.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot add
anything to what I said a moment ago.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I participated in the discussion of this matter. This is something which will have to be considered and dealt with by the board of transport commissioners when they deal with the tariffs. Technically goods now shipped from a point in Canada to Newfoundland are exported. When Newfoundland becomes part of Canada those goods will not be exported. The board of transport commissioners will have to consider the appropriate tariff to apply to goods moving from points in what is now Canada to points in what is now Newfoundland, so as not to disturb present trade relations. This matter was fully gone into with the representatives of Newfoundland, who were also quite concerned about it, and the best we could tell them was that the board of transport commissioners would have to take that into account. The rates might be the same or might be lower than export rates, but technically they would not be export rates.


George Clyde Nowlan: As the Prime Minister says,
this is a matter for the board of transport commissioners, who will have to fix a rate in view of the changed circumstances. If my suggestion or my thought-I am not saying it is more than that-is correct, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act will apply only to goods going from Sydney to Port aux Basques, whatever rate may be fixed by the board of transport commissioners on goods going through Halifax, the freight moving the other way will get the advantage of the twenty per cent reduction, as compared to goods moving over the C.P.R. through Halifax. So I would suggest that this matter be allowed to stand.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is something also
which was carefully discussed with the representatives of Newfoundland, and they were told that all these matters would have to be taken into consideration by the transport commissioners. What is provided is that this connection to Port aux Basques is a part of the railway rate, but the maritime rate will apply within Newfoundland. It does not apply now to the traffic carried by water from
[Mr. Isnor.l
Halifax to any point in Newfoundland; but in determining what will be proper rates to charge for rail movement the board will have to take all appropriate factors into consideration. The delegates from Newfoundland finally were satisfied with this position: that we do not want to have things happen which will interfere with the economy of Newfoundland, and we do not want things to happen which will interfere with the usual trading practices of the maritime provinces. We hope that instead of there being interference there will be promotion of trade relations, and that is something with which the board of transport commissioners will have to deal. Of course they have no jurisdiction with respect to water rates, and they will have to take into account what the water rates are in fixing tariffs for goods that will be apt to move by water out of the port of Halifax after having been carried by rail from some other point in Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: This section states specifically that as far as traffic between North Sydney and Port aux Basques is concerned it shall be treated as rail traffic. I quite agree with what the right hon. Prime Minister has said. I am sure it is fair to Newfoundland and may be fair to everyone else, but frankly my particular concern is for the people who were not consulted in this connection, the people who operate and serve the Canadian Pacific railway and the Dominion Atlantic railway, who now obtain employment because of the movement of goods through Halifax on their way to Newfoundland. I am afraid this amendment as drafted, and I think perhaps narrowly drafted, will give the advantage in such traffic to the Canadian National Railways.
I am suggesting, sir, this matter should be further considered and the section should be widened so as to make sure it gives to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to goods emanating from the port of Halifax, the same advantage as that enjoyed by goods moving over the Canadian National Railways through the port of Sydney.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As I understand the hon. member's suggestion, it is that something should be. done with respect to water-borne traffic carried out of the port of Saint John. This cannot be dealt with under this arrangement. According to this section, the Canadian government undertakes to provide water transportation between Sydney and Port aux Basques. The undertaking is that such transportation will be treated as if it were part of a rail haul. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian National Railways can make the operators of those ships plying

between Halifax and other maritime ports part of the railway system. They are private enterprisers and they make their freight rates on a competitive basis. Whatever those rates might be, they will be taken into account by the board of transport commissioners in fixing the rates over which they have jurisdiction, that is, the rail freight rate.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Prime Minister has misunderstood me. I realize that neither this house nor the board of transport commissioners has jurisdiction over water rates. My argument is that at the present time goods moving by rail to Halifax for export to St. John's enjoy the benefit of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. As this section is drafted, Newfoundland ceases to become an export point and becomes a local point. That rate is therefore lost on goods moving through Halifax over the gulf. Shippers will have to pay an additional rate on goods moving through Halifax and will therefore not use that port.


An hon. Member:: Let the section stand.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no point in having it stand. It is a matter that has to be decided. It has been considered and an arrangement made in accordance with the section as it is drawn. It is part of the agreement that water transportation between Sydney and Port aux Basques will be on the same basis as if it were a rail operation; that is the agreement. There is a suggestion here that something else be done. We cannot prevent what may happen, in fact. After the union is accomplished, goods moving out of Halifax to Newfoundland will not be exported goods. By law, we cannot make it otherwise. It will be proper for the board of transport commissioners to take that into account in dealing with the rates. I do not think we can go beyond that.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is not a matter of freight rates, but rather the principle by which we were given certain privileges under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. We are now asking, and we are much concerned about it, whether this arrangement will be interfered with in so far as Halifax and Nova Scotia are concerned? In other words, will we lose anything by this arrangement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope you will not. You are not intended to lose anything. I do not know how the people of Newfoundland are going to have their traffic directed. It may be that this advantage of having the water transportation between Sydney and Port aux Basques treated as rail transportation will cause some of them to ship their goods that way. I do not think we can prevent that. I
Statute Law Amendment would not imagine it would be done to an extent that would interfere with the usual trading operations that go through the port of Halifax.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Will it interfere with the benefits we now enjoy? That is what we want to know.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope it will not, but that will depend, I suppose, on what the shippers and consumers do in routing their freight.


Mr. Hacketi:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is anything in the act or in the agreement which anticipates the purchase of the railway in Newfoundland by the Canadian National?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. The agreement is that the railway becomes vested in the Canadian government without any other payment than the assumption of that portion of the existing debt of Newfoundland which is provided for in the agreement. The railway itself becomes vested in the Canadian government without any other agreement or contract being required than the terms of the agreement.


John Thomas Hackett: Are there no liabilities which affect the railroad specifically, or are those liabilities just part of the debt of Newfoundland?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are, I understand, some liabilities in the form of equipment bonds. Of course, they come to the Canadian government with the liens attached thereto.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think some more information ought to be forthcoming on this section. If we cannot get it, I will ask that the section stand.


Mr. Bracken:: I think it would be of help to the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, as well as to other members of the house, if the Prime Minister could answer this question or give us assurance on this point: Is there anything in this agreement which prejudices the position of Halifax as compared with Sydney in the matter of business going through those ports respectively? Is there anything that is disadvantageous to Halifax as a result of this agreement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no suggestion that there was anything that would prejudice Halifax. I cannot say whether the provision in the agreement, that the water transportation between Sydney and Port aux Basques shall be considered as part of the throifgh railway rate, would create a preference for that route over any other route. That is something about which I am not in a position to give any information. Through traffic moving by rail and having to take this jump across the water will be treated on the same basis as
610	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment if that mileage were part of the railway haul. I do not know whether or not that creates a situation which would make the route more attractive than the route through Halifax.


John Bracken: I have only this to say: If, as a result of this agreement, the position of Halifax were worsened, I can see the reason for opposing what now appears in this clause of the bill.


Clarence Gillis: I had not intended to say anything, Mr. Chairman, but I think the question asked by the hon. member for Neepawa requires an answer. I do not think the Prime Minister's answer was a full one. The request made by the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the member for Halifax could cut both ways.
As I understand, we are now amending the statutes of Canada to give effect to the decision we have already made to bring Newfoundland into confederation under the circumstances and conditions now prevailing. The Maritime Freight Rates Act applies on the Canadian National railway down to Sydney, where the national railway ends. As I understand the agreement, it would place that 96-mile water haul across the gulf under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Many Canadians think of Halifax as the most easterly part of this country. In considering this proposal that all freight moving through Halifax to Newfoundland by water be considered as a rail haul, the board of transport commissioners will be considering something new. It is a matter which will have to be decided. If it is to be brought under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, it will prejudice the port of Halifax as compared with the rail haul to Sydney. That is not so at the present time.
The exporters ship out under their own arrangements. The Maritime Freight Rates Act was established to take care of the disabilities suffered in Nova Scotia as a result of inadequate rail service. I want the Prime Minister to consider this matter carefully when he is presenting it to the board of transport commissioners, to include water shipment from Halifax under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and put it on all fours. It is not being done now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


Clarence Gillis: The Prime Minister says it will be considered?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: If it is considered and it is established in this way, what will happen is this. Anyone shipping from Ontario or Quebec to Newfoundland will certainly not ship from the port of Halifax because of the long.


decrepit and outmoded railroad from Halifax to Sydney. It certainly is not reasonable to put freight on a train that takes fourteen hours to go approximately three hundred miles, then take it off the train, put it on the boat and ship it across that gulf. It means that practically everything shipped from this end of the country will be shipped by water to Newfoundland through the port of Halifax. I am not blaming the two hon. members for arguing for that kind of arrangement. They live in that part of the country. At the same time, it is my responsibility here to see that nothing is done that will prejudice the end of the country in which I live. The people living there suffer under sufficient disabilities at the present time.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made the point that a subsidiary company of the Canadian Pacific Railway runs through the Annapolis valley. That does not go beyond the port of Halifax. The Dominion Atlantic railway runs from Yarmouth through to Halifax. It is about the shipments from the valley that the hon. member is particularly concerned; and naturally, when they reach the port of Halifax, I am concerned about them because of the pleasant relationships which have existed between the shippers in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia. I want to see the continuation of those pleasant business relations. That is the point I am particularly concerned about. I want to know whether we in the western section of the Annapolis valley and the port of Halifax will lose anything by the arrangement under this particular section.


Mr. Dickey:: The effect of this section, as I read it, is simply to extend the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act to the new province of Newfoundland, including the water haul from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. As I see it, there is nothing in this section which affects the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act within the maritime provinces.
As I said in the house the other day, the great bulk of the freight traffic from Canada to what is presently Newfoundland passes through the port of Halifax. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings points out, on the rail haul from the point of origin in Canada to the port of Halifax, that freight is now under export rate fixed by the board of transport commissioners. The board still has the authority to deal with that rate after the union of Newfoundland is completed. It will not and cannot be an export rate, but it will still have to be decided by the board of transport commissioners on some basis or other. The basis upon which it will be neces-. sary for them to decide it is, I submit, the

application to that rate of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which is, and will remain, in effect in respect of the maritime provinces.
In the second place, it will be a competitive rate. It will have to compete with the rate, whatever it will be, between the same point in Canada and St. John's or any other terminal point in Newfoundland which will be fixed for the route Port aux Basques-Sydney.
That is nothing new. We have competitive rates all over this country. Competitive rates are now in effect between points of origin in central Canada and Halifax, competing with water rates from Montreal to Halifax. It is true that those are only seasonal rates, but they are competitive rates and they are fixed on a basis of comparison. As I see it, the situation will be that the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Dominion Atlantic Railway and the Canadian National Railways will have to make application to the board of transport commissioners to have a competitive rate set. In view of the long rail haul between Port aux Basques and St. John's, the competitive position, having regard to the port of Halifax, should be extremely good. I am sure the rate which the railways will be able to propose to the board of transport commissioners will be such that the port of Halifax not only will not be discriminated against but will get its full share of advantage from the increase in traffic which will come about after the union of Canada and Newfoundland; and if the position of Halifax is in any way discriminated against, we will certainly be able to deal with it at that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to refer the committee to the agreement itself. Paragraph 3 of section 32 reads:
All legislation of the parliament of Canada providing for special rates on traffic moving within, into, or out of. the maritime region will, as far as appropriate, be made applicable to the island of Newfoundland.
At the present time we have a Maritime Freight Rates Act which applies to traffic going through Halifax or traffic going through Sydney. I am suggesting that, by the statute which is before us, that act will not apply to traffic through Halifax. I am not concerned about the competitive rates referred to a moment ago by the hon. member. I am just concerned about the Maritime Freight Rates Act itself. Will the Prime Minister assure this committee that the Maritime Freight Rates Act will apply under this legislation, and that, if it does not, he will see that the necessary changes are made whereby we can still maintain the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act for goods passing through Halifax over the C.P.R.? If he gives that
Statute Law Amendment assurance, I am certainly prepared to accept it, as I am sure everyone else will be. But I suggest to him that wittingly or unwittingly -and I think unwittingly-there has been a violation of this agreement itself. I do not know what the word "appropriate" means. But in the agreement all the benefits were to be maintained. I suggest that under the statute that is before this committee the benefits are maintained only in part, and the rates apply only to the Canadian National Railways on goods passing, as my hon. friend said a few moments ago, on the long and tortuous haul down there. That might be the case. I quite realize that the competitive rates will offset that. I could make a dissertation on maritime freight rates, but I do not intend to do so now. I think that is something which must be considered in the near future, for whatever it may be worth.
It is worth something in principle. I do not want to see the principle of the act whittled down, and I am not speaking for the valley or for North Sydney or for any other place. I say that we have a principle there which is of benefit to the maritimes, and I want to see that principle maintained.
I suggest that in the bill before us that principle is being impinged upon and whittled down and, if we once accept that, sooner or later it will be removed entirely.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are dealing of course with the implementing of the agreement. If the implementation of the agreement imposes any hardship on other parts of Canada it could be and should be dealt with; but I do not think it would be appropriate to deal with it now. If I understand the hon. member correctly, he says that the preferred movement resulted from the fact that it was export movement going through the port of Halifax. But my impression is, and it is confirmed by the language of section 4 of the Maritime-Freight Rates Act, that the preferred movement is both export movement and local traffic out of the area. Local traffic all rail within the maritime area is a preferred movement just as is an export movement. I do-not think it will have any other effect there-than making possibly a rate from any point in the hon. member's county to a point in St. John's, Newfoundland, an export trade. It will no longer be an export trade; but if there has to be substituted for it something that cannot be called an export trade, all the pertinent factors should be taken into account.


George Clyde Nowlan: It can only be a rate from Halifax itself. Then you would have to have another one from there on, whereas now you do not separate them.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that now the rate has to be the rate which stops at the
612	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment port of Halifax. If it is for goods that have a destination in Newfoundland it is an export rate to the port of Halifax.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the Prime Minister look at paragraph (c) of section 4.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Paragraph (c) of section 4 is in the same terms as paragraph (a), local traffic all rail. Both are traffic movements to which the Maritime Freight Rates Act applies; but it may make this difference, because any trade moving from the hon. member's constituency to Halifax for St. John's, Newfoundland, will not, after union, be an export traffic. Presumably the board will have to make a rate which it will not call an export rate, but which should be the equivalent of an export rate. However, the 20 per cent that the exchequer reimburses on the rates that are set by the tariff will still apply.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If we are assured of that it will be all right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The definition of the statute is that these movements, whether you call them local or export, are preferred movements to which the freight rates act applies. Therefore the only point is one which I do not think can be settled by legislation. It is the rate that the board of transport commissioners put into the tariff. We are to pay the 20 per cent whatever it is. There will be the further point of getting the board of transport commissioners to make a local rate .that will not be higher than the present export rate.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is what we want.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: That will have to be done by the board of transport commissioners.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 13 carry?


Mr. McLure:: No, Mr. Chairman. I think the section should stand until we get some other information about it. It contains a great deal. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say-and I hope the Minister of Transport took notice of it-that the board of transport commissioners had no jurisdiction over water rates. I took up this matter with the Minister of Transport several times, but he never would agree with me. I took exception to his sending the board of transport commissioners to Charlottetown to settle rates on water. However, they went down there and settled that matter although they had no jurisdiction to do so. They set water rates for us between Borden and Tormentine, over which they had no jurisdiction whatever.
I hope that the committee will permit this section to stand until we can get a few of these matters cleared up.
IMr. St. Laurent.]


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. members says that the rate from Borden to Tormentine is a water rate. That is deemed to be a rail rate, and it is part of a rail movement which is provided for by the local tariffs. What I said was that the board had no jurisdiction over water rates which are treated as such and fixed as water rates. By special disposition of parliament we have ferry services which are treated as a part of the land rail movement.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The act clearly specifies that the board of transport commissioners have no jurisdiction over water rates between provinces or between a province and territory of the British empire. They cannot treat one body of water between two provinces as a railway rate and another as a water rate. Authority over these things is given to the Canadian National Railways, which are subcontractors of the government for fixing a rate on water over which they have no jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: No; it is not carried. I suggest that the committee would make more progress if we allowed this section to stand, because I want to get more information on it. I made some inquiries from people here in the city who are authorities in these matters, and they concurred in the points I have raised. This is a real problem and the section should not be hurried through.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no desire to hurry it through. If the hon. member says that he wishes to make further investigation and therefore to have the section stand for that purpose, I am agreeable. I did not wish to have it stand for the purpose of getting more information, because I think we have all that can be made available. If the hon. member wishes to make some investigation on his own, and to have the section stand for that purpose, I am agreeable to his suggestion.


Mr. Jackman:: May I ask a question about a matter which is simple but of considerable interest to people who call themselves philatelists or stamp collectors. I am glad to see the Postmaster General in his seat. This matter might have been taken up under section 7, although I see no relevant section at all. Will Newfoundland unused stamps be of any value after union takes place? Will they be of value for putting on letters in Newfoundland and also in all of Canada?


Ernest Bertrand: I know that officers of my department and of Newfoundland have had conferences and have decided points of interest to both countries. Unfortunately I have not had a chance to get in touch with

them and I do not know exactly what has taken place. If the hon. member will allow the matter to stand I shall answer either tomorrow or the day after.
Section 13 stands.
On section 14-Fugitive Offenders Act.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I wish to ask the
Minister of Justice a question on this section.
I do it under this section because I believe it is the section which has closest reference to the criminal code, although there is some reference to judges at page 21 of the bill, and there is also reference to the mounted police. The Fugitive Offenders Act is regarded as part of our criminal law, and is indeed part of it. When the minister introduced the resolution I asked him whether we were going to have references made, and whether a study had been made of all the statutes. His answer was that that had been done.
I wonder if the minister is sure about that. 1 accepted his word completely, of course. For example, I am thinking of the jurisdiction given to the different courts. I am thinking of summary trials, speedy trials, and those matters which come within the jurisdiction of what we call a magistrate, whose duties are defined in the criminal code.
I know that the exceptions in the code applying to Alberta and Saskatchewan, because at one time they were governed by the Northwest Territories Act, will have no application here. For instance, I turn for a moment, if I may be permitted, to that section at page 21 of the bill which refers to judges. I would be happier if I knew that we were setting up the same system we have in all the other provinces, namely a distinction between superior and district or county courts, as they are variously called.
Turning to the section at page 21, we find this:
Section six of The Judges Act, 1946, chapter fifty-six of the statutes of 1946, is amended by adding thereto the following:
"Three district judges of the admiralty District of Newfoundland, each, 333.33"
I presume that figure represents a monthly wage, or something of that nature. Then, the rest of the section is easily understandable. Have these district judges in admiralty jurisdiction in criminal matters similar to that of a district or county court judge in the other provinces? Sometimes admiralty judges are at sea in matters of admiralty, and they might be just as much at sea in matters connected with the criminal code.
I am wondering just how careful a study has been made of the criminal code with respect to statute amendments. I cannot place my finger at the present time on anything more than I have mentioned; but it does
Statute Law Amendment strike me that in many places in the code there are sections which have particular application to certain areas.
For example, I notice there is nothing in here about the Official Secrets Act. If anyone buys an edited edition of the criminal code he will always find in the back of it the Penitentiary Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act, all of which have to do with the administration of the criminal law of this country. I am just a bit concerned as to whether the situation has been studied with sufficient care so as not to leave ourselves in the air, so to speak, in Newfoundland, in connection with the administration of our criminal law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member will turn to page 9 of the terms of union he will see this:
Subject to these terms, all laws in force in Newfoundland at or immediately prior to the date of union shall continue therein as if the union had not been made, subject nevertheless to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the parliament of Canada or by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland according to the authority of the parliament or of the legislature under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and all orders, rules and regulations made under any such laws shall likewise continue, subject to be revoked or amended by the body or person that made such orders, rules or regulations or the body or person that has power to make such orders, rules or regulations after the date of union, according to their respective authority under the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
And then subsection (2):
Statutes of the parliament of Canada in force at the date of unionwhich would include the criminal code . . .
-or any part thereof, shall come into force in the province of Newfoundland on a day or days to be fixed by act of the parliament of Canada or by proclamation of the governor general in council issued from time to time, and any such proclamation may provide for the repeal of any of the laws of Newfoundland that
(a)	are of general application;
(b)	relate to the same subject matter as the statute or part thereof so proclaimed-
That is, if Newfoundland law covers the same subject matter as is covered by federal law, then such Newfoundland law may be repealed. And-
(c)	could be repealed by the parliament of Canada under paragraph one of this term.
That is the agreement between the two governments relating to what should be done with regard to the respective laws of the two countries.
That will involve something with which we are not concerned in the bill now before the committee. It will involve bringing into effect, by statute or proclamation, all of those laws of Canada, such as the criminal code- and that is the outstanding example-in the province of Newfoundland. But for that

Statute Law Amendment statute or proclamation those laws would not have any application to Newfoundland, and we must have these federal laws made applicable to Newfoundland.
The statute we have before us today is one covering all the consequential amendments in the various statute laws of Canada, necessitated as a consequence of bringing Newfoundland into the union. In other words, we have for example the Fugitive Offenders Act with a gap in it, because there is no definition of what in Newfoundland shall be a superior court within the meaning of that act. Therefore we must fill that gap.
Addressing myself particularly to my hon. friend's question, these laws such as the criminal code will be brought into force subsequently. What we are doing now is merely tidying up the sections so that when they are brought into force they will mesh in properly with the federal laws applicable to the other provinces on one hand and with the Newfoundland law on the other hand.
The hon. member has referred to summary jurisdiction and summary convictions, and he has referred to district court judges. My answer to the hon. member is that the Department of Justice circularized all the other departments of government asking them to submit, advise or request any consequential amendments in statute law which they desired, and which were within their administration. Then, having received those returns from the various departments, the draftsmen in the Department of Justice collaborated with their legal officers in the preparation of the material which forms the bill now before the committee.
If this bill be passed, then our federal statutes will be in such form that we can proceed to invoke section 18 of the terms of union by proclaiming all the appropriate federal laws as being applicable to the province of Newfoundland. There are three notable exceptions to that, and that is the law relating to income tax. We thought-and, in view of the question he asked me the other day when the bill was at an earlier stage, I think the hon. member will agree with me-that where we are imposing a tax upon a people under an income or any other tax act it is preferable to have any and all revisions of that tax act come in in the form of amendments to the tax act itself, rather than as a section in an omnibus bill such as the one now before us.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business for tomorrow?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The business tomorrow will be the continuation in committee of the consideration of Bill No. 12. If it is completed we would prefer to return to the continuation of the debate on the resolution of the Minister of Justice to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain emergency orders. It has been brought to my attention, however, that hon. members had understood that as soon as we finished the proceedings dealing with Newfoundland, even though the fortnight that was provided for in the resolution had not been taken up, we would immediately resume the debate on the address. I should not like to have anyone think that we were breaking faith with them in any way. If it is the desire of the members that that should be done, of course we will comply. If this bill is completed tomorrow, and there is no objection, we will resume the adjourned debate on the resolution of the Minister of Justice; but if there is objection from any part of the house, and an expression of the view that we should resume at once the debate on the address, we will comply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I thank the Prime Minister for the attitude he has taken on this question. As members are aware, there was a misunderstanding in the house the other night. May I suggest that perhaps he might consult with the various parties tomorrow morning. I am sure it was our understanding that we would resume the debate on the address, but in view of the fact that there are only two days remaining of the period allotted for the discussion of the Newfoundland matter, some agreement might be reached. I suggest that he consult with the parties tomorrow morning.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us proceed with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. That is what you want?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was our understanding that was what would happen. I think the

Prime Minister is taking the right stand now when he says that if that is what is wanted the house should go on with it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That was my understanding.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We can leave it in that form, and I will endeavour to obtain information from the whips as to what seems to be the desire of hon. members. If there is a
Business of the House
desire to resume the debate on the address as soon as we finish this bill there will be no objection from this side of the house. If, on the other hand, it is agreeable to everyone to resume the debate on the resolution dealing with emergency measures we would prefer to do that.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 17, 1949